As public safety is of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer from for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? v.1
As public safety is of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer from for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. with this statement? v. 1
The testing of new products on animals is controversial. Some people claim that in view of public safety, it is essential to test these new products on animals. These people also feel that instead of putting human life at risk, it is better for a few animals suffer by untested products. I completely agree with this statement.
Firstly, few animals has the same genetic configuration as that of humans. Hence their manifestations are similar to the humans. For instance, injection insulin is a life saving drug for diabetics. It was released to the public, only after testing on animals for immediate and delayed manifestations. Perhaps, millions of people would have succumbed to diabetes, if this life saving drug was not tested on animals. Therefore, to attain utmost safety for millions of people any new drug or product must ensure adequate testing on animals, which are genetically similar to human genome.
Secondly, humans are allergic to certain chemicals and they are prone to anaphylactic shock, which can cause death instantly. For example, certain untested perfumes or deodorants can result in severe life threatening allergic reactions. Moreover, if some animals are sacrificed while testing, it has indirectly saved lives of thousands of people. Because, such products will not be released into the market. Overall, humans can be at risk, if they are using products, which are not tested adequately.
In conclusion, many human lives can be protected, if the new products undergo prior adequate animal testing. Finally, harming few animals is better than risking the human life.
The
testing
of
new
products
on
animals
is controversial.
Some
people
claim that in view of public safety, it is essential to
test
these
new
products
on
animals
. These
people
also
feel that
instead
of putting
human
life
at
risk
, it is better for a few
animals
suffer by untested
products
. I completely
agree
with this statement.
Firstly
, few
animals
has the same genetic configuration as that of
humans
.
Hence
their manifestations are similar to the
humans
.
For instance
, injection insulin is a
life
saving drug for diabetics. It
was released
to the public,
only
after
testing
on
animals
for immediate and delayed manifestations. Perhaps, millions of
people
would have succumbed to diabetes, if this
life
saving drug was not
tested
on
animals
.
Therefore
, to attain utmost safety for millions of
people
any
new
drug or
product
must
ensure adequate
testing
on
animals
, which are
genetically
similar to
human
genome.
Secondly
,
humans
are allergic to certain
chemicals and
they are prone to anaphylactic shock, which can cause death
instantly
.
For example
, certain untested perfumes or deodorants can result in severe
life
threatening allergic reactions.
Moreover
, if
some
animals
are sacrificed
while
testing
, it has
indirectly
saved
lives
of thousands of
people
.
Because
, such
products
will not
be released
into the market.
Overall
,
humans
can be at
risk
, if they are using
products
, which are not
tested
adequately
.
In conclusion
,
many
human
lives
can
be protected
, if the
new
products
undergo prior adequate
animal
testing
.
Finally
, harming few
animals
is better than risking the
human
life
.
9Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
9Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
9Mistakes