The reading passage presents the advantages of the testing of the new medicine and cosmetic products on animals and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor does not agree with this opinion and refutes each of the author’s reason.
First, the article states that medical advancement is a positive consequence of testing the new products on animals. The professor refutes this point by stating that the testing on animals is not relevant for the human safety’s point of view. He mentioned an article published by “Royal Journal for Medicine” in which is explained that medical evolution is not attributable to animal testing.
Second, the reading claims that if the drugs wouldn’t be tested on animals, they will have to be tested on humans and there are not too many people opened to these trials. The lecturer contends that this is not a valid point because the drugs and new products are tested on people anyway. Moreover, it is irrelevant for the human health if the product has been already tested on animals and it was proved to be safe for them. The same product might be harmful for the human body. According to the professor, the Food and Drug Administration Agency (FDA) revealed that 92 % of drugs which were demonstrated to be safe for the animals failed when they were tested on humans.
Third, the article asserts that testing of new medical products is not painful to the animals. The professor opposes this point by saying that according to the New Act of Animal Welfare, the animals involved in testing process can be burned, shocked, restrained and starved. In the professor’s opinion is hardly to believe that these kind of treatments do not cause pain to the animals. In addition to that, the gain in medical advancement is not significantly enough to compensate the animals’ exposure to cruel treatments.
The reading passage presents the advantages of the
testing
of the
new
medicine and cosmetic
products
on
animals
and provides three reasons for support.
However
, the
professor
does not
agree
with this opinion and refutes each of the author’s reason.
First
, the article states that
medical
advancement is a
positive
consequence of
testing
the
new
products
on
animals
. The
professor
refutes this
point
by stating that the
testing
on
animals
is not relevant for the
human
safety’s
point
of view. He mentioned an article published by “Royal Journal for Medicine” in which is
explained
that
medical
evolution is not attributable to
animal
testing.
Second, the reading claims that if the
drugs
wouldn’t be
tested
on
animals
, they will
have to
be
tested
on
humans
and there are not too
many
people
opened to these trials. The lecturer contends that this is not a valid
point
because
the
drugs
and
new
products
are
tested
on
people
anyway.
Moreover
, it is irrelevant for the
human
health if the
product
has been already
tested
on
animals
and it
was proved
to be safe for them. The same
product
might be harmful for the
human
body. According to the
professor
, the Food and
Drug
Administration Agency (FDA) revealed that 92 % of
drugs
which
were demonstrated
to be safe for the
animals
failed when they were
tested
on humans.
Third, the article asserts that
testing
of
new
medical
products
is not painful to the
animals
. The
professor
opposes this
point
by saying that according to the
New
Act of
Animal
Welfare, the
animals
involved in
testing
process can
be burned
, shocked, restrained and starved. In the
professor’s
opinion is hardly to believe that
these kind
of treatments do not cause pain to the
animals
.
In addition
to that, the gain in
medical
advancement is not
significantly
enough
to compensate the
animals’
exposure to cruel treatments.