THỰC HÀNH KỸ NĂNG WRITING TOPIC 1: ANIMAL TESTING
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion?
- Một số từ vựng hữu ích có thể sử dụng trong chủ đề này:
- animal testing is morally wrong: việc hành hạ động vật là sai trái về mặt đạo đức.
- may be given an illness: có thể cho nhiễm bệnh
- the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured: đo lường mức độ hiệu quả của một loại thuốc mới.
- the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused: lợi ích của con người không thể biện minh cho việc hành hạ động vật
- should use alternative methods of research: nên sử dụng các phương pháp nghiên cứu khác
- reliable alternatives to animal experimentation: những phương thức nghiên cứu đáng tin cậy khác thay thế cho việc thí nghiệmt trên động vật
- the banning of animal testing for non-medical products: việc cấm thử nghiệm trên động vật cho những sản phẩm không liên quan đến y dược
- Bài tham khảo:
It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.