Skim the text to check your ideas.

Reading B

THE DEBATE ON VIVISECTION

Anna Wright.Now I must state categorically that for advances in medicine we count on being able to carry out experiments on animals. Without them, there would be no progress. We are unable to observe human beings in scientifically controlled conditions, so, unfortunately, we have to rely on animals. Medicine's made enormous advances based on the results of vivisection. For example, our knowledge of the nervous system is largely due to vivisection. It has allowed us to find cures for many illnesses. Diphtheria, smallpox and TB used to be killers in the old days but not any more. If you were bitten by a dog with rabies, you had very little chance of surviving. Now there is an antidote. Cancer recovery rates have greatly improved thanks to the work done on animals. And I'm afraid drugs have to be tested on animals prior to their release on the market to check for side effects.

Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers and heart and lung machines were used on animals prior to being tried on humans. Surgery techniques, like those to mend and eliminate bone diseases were devised out of experimentation on the animals. Animal testing not only benefits humans but also can help other animals, for example the heartworm medication that was devised from research on animals has assisted many dogs. The cat nutrition has been better comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live longer and healthier lives. Animal models for AIDS are very important factors that are required to understand the biology of immuno-deficiency viruses in the vivo. This allows us to raise necessary awareness about the processes of pathogenesis and its prevention by vaccination and chemotherapy. Those who support animal testing argue that the society has an obligation to take actions in ways that will minimize injury and maximize benefits. Banning or restraining the experimentation on animals would not allow society to achieve such results. It is assumed that a scientist’s goal is to devise methods to minimize pain to every extent possible but for now we have to sacrifice on animals to achieve this result. Activists against this practice portray scientists to be a society of crazy, cruel, curiosity seekers. However, when one feeds painkillers to animals, one should ask where they came from and what their purpose is. Is it to improve the quality of human life?

Peter Savage. I'd like to start by saying that I'm speaking on behalf of animals. On the issue of testing drugs on animals for side effects in human beings, as we know from the thalidomide case, it's very difficult to predict what the effect of a drug will be on human beings from tests done on animals. They just don't tell us the whole story. As for understanding the nervous system, I think most experts would agree that this could have been done equally well by careful observation and nothing more. Professor Wright points to the reduction in the number of deaths from diseases like diphtheria, TB and smallpox. This is utter nonsense because these diseases were in decline already and they've been on the decline primarily because of improvements in hygiene, not animal experiments. No, the whole thing is rubbish. If we look at penicillin and aspirin, two of the most famous modern drugs, these drugs were found by accident. So much for medical research! And Professor Wright's argument completely ignores the moral dimension. The point is experiments on animals should be stopped because they are cruel and inhumane. Dogs are made to smoke cigarettes and mice have shampoo and cosmetics squirted in their eyes to sec what will happen. Dogs don't smoke and rats and mice don't wash their hair. Very often these animals have suffered so much they have to be put down. Basically, we should take care of animals not take advantage of them.

The fact that the results attained from experiments on animal testing do not accurately portray their influence on humans is considered to be a one of the serious argument against the animal testing. Humans are quite different from other animals, so the consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue that they way one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way does not necessarily entail other species will react in the same way. Parsley is considered to be a deadly poison for parrots yet we use it to flavor our food. Arsenic, a poison for humans but it is not harmful to sheep. Sheep, goats, horses and mice can also eat hemlock in large numbers while this is toxic to the humans. Lemon juice is toxic to the cats. A hedgehog can take a sufficient amount of opium can be taken by a hedgehog at one sitting but humans can’t without the obvious effect. Morphine is regarded as an anesthetic for humans but if it is administered to cats, it generates a state of frenzied excitement. Vitamin C is not something dogs, rats, hamsters and mice have to worry about taking, for their bodies generate Vitamin C. If humans inhale a small amount of prussic acid fumes it can kill them. However, toads, sheep and hedgehogs can drink it without any harm. Scopolamine can kill humans with a dose of just 5 milligrams. To dogs and cats about 100 milligrams was considered harmless. Penicillin, the first antibiotic, was experimented first on mice. Its application on guinea pigs would have entailed dangerous consequences, because penicillin controls the floral bacteria in the stomachs of guinea pigs and destroys them within a few days.

Animals have the right to live their own life peacefully; and we are not allowed to meddle with them just because we can.

From Think First Certificate by Jon Naunton

Reading Comprehension

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
Review Past Tenses. Open the brackets using the correct past tense active or passive.	\|	Read the article carefully and say if these statements true or false according to the information in the text.

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.004 сек.