Listening script: Now, most of you in the class know how I feel
about medical research done on animals. I oppose it, no
matter why . . . no matter what the justification. But . . . for
the sake of fairness, I wanted you to see this article that my
colleague in the biology department, Professor White,
wrote for our departmental journal.
At the heart of his argument is the professor's claim that
animal experimentation has led to the discovery of some
important drugs, useful drugs, like penicillin. Well, that
may be true, but who knows if these drugs wouldn't have
been discovered without animal testing? And, you know,
here's the thing-there are plenty of important drugs that
were discovered without the benefit of animal testing.
Quinine, used to treat malaria, ether, used as an anesthesia,
and of course aspirin, they were all discovered without
harming any animals. In fact, if some drugs had been
tested on certain animals, well, they probably wouldn't be
used today. Morphine, for example, kills pain in people but
it stimulates cats. And large doses of aspirin poison cats
and dogs and have no effect on horses.
And Professor White says that there are no substitutes
for animal testing. There are plenty! For example, now we
can cultivate human tissues and test the effects of drugs on
these tissues. There are clinical studies, and . . . most
important of all, these days, computer simulations. There
are lots of other ways too.
People in favor of animal research always say that animals
in labs are treated as humanely as possible. Don't
believe that! It may be true some of the time, but I've spent a
lot of time in biology labs and I've seen many animals
undergoing tests with terrible diseases and toxic chemicals.
Many times these animals were not adequately anesthetized
or they were routinely abused by handlers or experimenters.
No, I believe that no one should be forced to undergo
experimentation without giving their . . . their consent,
their agreement. Since animals can never do that, I believe
it is immoral to experiment on them, no matter what the benefits might be.
TASK: SUMMARIZE THE POINTS IN THE LECTURE AND SHOW HOW THEY CONTRADICTS THE POINTS OF THE READING (I cannot put the reading on here because it is a photo file)
My essay:
The author of the passage and the professor express their opinions on experiments conducted on animals. The author has no objections against experimenting on animals and thinks it is necessary. However, the professor opposes that saying it is cruel to animals and not essential.
In the passage, the author states that there is no good substitute for animal experiment because it is the most effective mothod of testing drugs. Some animals share the same basic life function as human, such as chimpanzees which have 99% of their genes same as human. Nevertheless, the professors claims that there are better ways to test medical drugs. For example, researchers can cultivate human tissue and use it to test chemicals. Another way is to use computer stimulation. Moreover, in the lecture, expriments on animals are said to be ineffective because some drugs after testing cannot be used and some even poisoned dogs and cats. In addition, we do not know whether successful drugs today might be discovered without experimenting on animals. Those contradicts the pint from the passage that many drugs that are used today were tested on other creatures.
Moreover, the author of the passage claims that animals researchers always try to reduce the pain on animals. They use anesthesia and keep animals well-cared. However, the professor denies all of that. She says that the conditions in labratories are not as good as the author states. Instead, those creatures have to fight against dangerous diseases and taste toxic chemical
Finally, the lecturer expresses her opinion about the experiments conducted without the agreement. She says that it is immoral and inconsiderate to do that.
about medical research done on animals. I oppose it, no
matter why . . . no matter what the justification. But . . . for
the sake of fairness, I wanted you to see this article that my
colleague in the biology department, Professor White,
wrote for our departmental journal.
At the heart of his argument is the professor's claim that
animal experimentation has led to the discovery of some
important drugs, useful drugs, like penicillin. Well, that
may be true, but who knows if these drugs wouldn't have
been discovered without animal testing? And, you know,
here's the thing-there are plenty of important drugs that
were discovered without the benefit of animal testing.
Quinine, used to treat malaria, ether, used as an anesthesia,
and of course aspirin, they were all discovered without
harming any animals. In fact, if some drugs had been
tested on certain animals, well, they probably wouldn't be
used today. Morphine, for example, kills pain in people but
it stimulates cats. And large doses of aspirin poison cats
and dogs and have no effect on horses.
And Professor White says that there are no substitutes
for animal testing. There are plenty! For example, now we
can cultivate human tissues and test the effects of drugs on
these tissues. There are clinical studies, and . . . most
important of all, these days, computer simulations. There
are lots of other ways too.
People in favor of animal research always say that animals
in labs are treated as humanely as possible. Don't
believe that! It may be true some of the time, but I've spent a
lot of time in biology labs and I've seen many animals
undergoing tests with terrible diseases and toxic chemicals.
Many times these animals were not adequately anesthetized
or they were routinely abused by handlers or experimenters.
No, I believe that no one should be forced to undergo
experimentation without giving their . . . their consent,
their agreement. Since animals can never do that, I believe
it is immoral to experiment on them, no matter what the benefits might be.
TASK: SUMMARIZE THE POINTS IN THE LECTURE AND SHOW HOW THEY CONTRADICTS THE POINTS OF THE READING (I cannot put the reading on here because it is a photo file)
My essay:
The author of the passage and the professor express their opinions on experiments conducted on animals. The author has no objections against experimenting on animals and thinks it is necessary. However, the professor opposes that saying it is cruel to animals and not essential.
In the passage, the author states that there is no good substitute for animal experiment because it is the most effective mothod of testing drugs. Some animals share the same basic life function as human, such as chimpanzees which have 99% of their genes same as human. Nevertheless, the professors claims that there are better ways to test medical drugs. For example, researchers can cultivate human tissue and use it to test chemicals. Another way is to use computer stimulation. Moreover, in the lecture, expriments on animals are said to be ineffective because some drugs after testing cannot be used and some even poisoned dogs and cats. In addition, we do not know whether successful drugs today might be discovered without experimenting on animals. Those contradicts the pint from the passage that many drugs that are used today were tested on other creatures.
Moreover, the author of the passage claims that animals researchers always try to reduce the pain on animals. They use anesthesia and keep animals well-cared. However, the professor denies all of that. She says that the conditions in labratories are not as good as the author states. Instead, those creatures have to fight against dangerous diseases and taste toxic chemical
Finally, the lecturer expresses her opinion about the experiments conducted without the agreement. She says that it is immoral and inconsiderate to do that.
