1. I could use the history that I have already researched to further back up my arguments. It would be substantial evidence that would help to prove my side. I will work off of the history and make points that are a little less arguable so that when people go to dispute it I have hard evidence to back up my argument.
2. Animal studies have a long and distinguished history of validity. They played key roles in demonstrating the hazards of DDT, benzene, vinyl chloride, and the tar found in cigarettes. Rachel Carson's seminal book, Silent Spring, drew its title from observations of the death of songbirds exposed to DDT. About one-third of known human carcinogens were first discovered through animal studies. According to the National Research Council, current animal testing protocols often substantially underestimate human risk.
Critics of animal testing assert that risks in humans from low-dose exposures cannot be extrapolated from animal studies of high-dose exposures. The claim in mode that: "At high enough doses, everything causes cancer." This is simply not true. Most industrial chemicals don't cause cancer, even at very high doses. Studies by the National Cancer Institute, the National Toxicology Program, and other researchers indicate that only 5 to 10 percent of the 85,000 man-made chemicals currently in use cause cancer,
3. They use this to transition between purposes because they say yes they have played a key role giving credit to those animals that were used already to help out our society. However, at the same time in the next paragraph they say how now with the better research they are finding that some of the information found from animals just isnít true. To me it lets me know that yes they did help in the past but now some of the results are just not correct and could be obtained in different ways w/out animals.
4. The problem I do see is that they should transition a little different. What they have works but it could be better. They should have given an example of a test that hadnít worked. They could then proceed to say how now we have alternatives for this procedure and animals are no longer needed and more accurate results are obtained w/out them.
Posted by burg0199 at October 15, 2004 11:19 AM