Nature takes the stance that current testing is ethical, but future, more advance testing which changes the genetics of animal’s DNA by inserting human DNA may be unethical. The article questions how far DNA insertion could go before people reacted negatively. There has already been DNA insertion into rats, but it doesn't change the physical appearance of the rat. There is promising research that could be used to solve currently deadly and incurable diseases by using stem cells in animals, but scientists currently argue about how far this can go ethically. The article brings up the conundrum of how should medical progress and ethical concerns be balanced. Nature’s article brings up Britain as an example where hybrid embryos are allowed as long as they do not grow past two cells. This brings research and possible medical breakthroughs to England and furthermore, economic growth.
People for the ethical treatment of animals takes a different view on this topic. Their website makes an emotional appeal to the reader about animals being “ locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds”. PETA also uses the quantitative statistic that over 100 million animals a year die from scientific research and pre-human testing. PETA sites a wide range of places animal testing occurs, including government agencies, school projects, and universities. PETA clearly makes the claim that animal cruelty in its current form needs to be stopped because scientific progress that is gained from it is not worth it if animals are hurt. They encourage in vitro and epidemiological studies which they claim are more relevant to humans. PETA appeals to the reader to talk to their alma mater and try to stop animal testing. PETA includes a lot of links to scientific articles to support their claim that current animal testing practices aren't the best for science or for the animals.
The opinions from these two articles differ drastically. Nature does not even consider that current practices are cruel and jumps to the possible ethical dilemma of combining different species. PETA does not even address future ethical concerns because they find so much going wrong at the moment. By reading PETA’s article one could extrapolate that PETA would be even more against gene mixing because of health concerns of animals. Nature seems much more conservative about animal rights and more worried about scientific advancement, although they wouldn't advocate beating up defenseless animals or dog fighting.
I believe that Nature makes a better appeal to the reader because the readership will probably connect more with the need to cure their grandparents of diseases and save human life than animal lives. Some sacrifice is sometimes necessary to advancement, especially if it keeps humans safe and healthy in the long run. An organization at UNC, Helping Paws, would disagree with my view. They are an animal rights group on campus. Sponsored by PETA, Helping Paws stages animal rights demonstrations and puts up fliers at UNC. They also sponsor animal awareness week every spring. This is just one example of how UNC students are active outside the classroom.
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423a.html
PETA: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default2.aspx
DTH Article:
http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/03/helping_paws_to_continue_projects_until_this_thursday
No comments:
Post a Comment