為了大家能夠更好地備考雅思考試，今天特意為大家整理了雅思寫作高分范文賞析：Animal Cruelty，希望對大家有幫助！
Animal Cruelty
Jeff Albrecht Joseph Aimone Writing and Rhetoric 13 December 2000 Animal
Cruelty One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the
use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and
household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even
though no law requires them not to. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists,
are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments
on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite
all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us
such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has
dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to
scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is
worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that
the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative
methods Albrecht 2 are available. The anti-vivisectionists say we should not
allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists,
claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of
humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals
that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical
techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it
right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human
illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment,
eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active
life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly
healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and
over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information
is going to be gained? Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are
pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never
have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70
Albrecht 3 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and
mice-suffer and die in the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of
cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals
have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or
applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin irritancy levels. Other
are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as bleach or soap, in a
hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity. Since 1938, The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be
adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the
consumer. However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission (
a regulatory agency that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.)
requires firms to conduct animal testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic
companies use animal tests to insure themselves against possible consumer
lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by arguing that the
cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the cosmetic
industry. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if
it is safe Albrecht 4 for the consumer, boggles my mind. If someone placed a
piece of lipstick in my eye, I do believe it would irritate my eye also. How in
the name of God does this test prove it is safe for the consumer? I don't
believe lipstick is gong to be used in the eye area, unless you are an
illiterate that can抰 read directions. The Draize Eye-Irritancy Test was designed
to assess a substance's potential harmfulness to human eyes based on its effects
on rabbits' eyes. This test was developed in the early 1940s by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. This test is typically performed on six rabbits per
substance tested. Technicians restrain each rabbit and place a measured amount
of the test substance in the lower lid of one eye. Usually no anesthetics are
given. the rabbits eyes are than examined at different intervals. If severe
injury has resulted, the rabbits may be observed for signs of recovery for as
long as twenty-one days. Technicians record signs of damage, such as redness and
swelling of the conjunctiva (the sac covering the eyeball), inflammation of the
iris, and clouding of the cornea. Using a standardized scoring scheme, the
degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and cornea are compared to graded
Albrecht 5 levels of irritations. Scores for each of these parameters are than
totaled. Based on the total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test
chemical is classified by the degree of irritation it causes: none, mild,
moderate, or severe. At best, the Draize test yields a crude measure of a
substance's irritancy; it is not designed to yield information about possible
treatments or antidotes. the Draize is inhumane. Substances such as oven
cleaners and paint removers cause obvious pain and suffering. Also, because
animal and humans differ in medically important ways, results from the Draize
test do not necessarily apply to humans. Rabbit eyes differ significantly from
human eyes: rabbits possess a nictitating membrane (a third eyelid) and have a
slower blink reflex, a less effective tearing mechanism and a thinner cornea
than humans. These differences make rabbit eyes more sensitive than human eyes
to some chemicals and less sensitive to others. The test is unreliable. Several
laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different
results. Manufactures argue that they conduct the Draize test to protect the
public from unsafe products. Since 1986 Albrecht 6 legislation has been
introduced in several states to limit or ban the Draize test for particular
products (especially cosmetics), but no bill has yet passed. Another test I like
to address is the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (L50) test. This test is a procedure
that exposed animals to a particular chemical in order to yield an estimate of
how poisonous that chemical would be to human beings. Substances tested can
include drugs, cosmetics, household products, industrial chemicals, pesticides
and the individual ingredients of any of these products. The test procedure
requires between 60 to 100 animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose
of a particular substance. The test spans a time period from two weeks to sever
years, depending on the amount of toxic chemicals in the product being tested.
The animals are observed daily. Since chemicals are bitter-tasting and have an
unpleasant smell, animals refuse to swallow them. The animals are then forced to
swallow the substances in the form of capsules or pellets. they are also
force-fed liquid chemicals by stomach tube, or through a hole cut in the
animal's throat. Some animals die from the sheer bulk of the dosage administered
or from the severe burns they Albrecht 7 receive in the throat and stomach from
the chemicals used in products such as laundry bleach and detergents and
cologne. There are variations to this test which include forcing the animal to
breathe the substance or applying the substance to the shaved skin of the animal
or injecting the substance into the body, usually the abdomen. The animals are
not provided with painkillers because they may affect the test outcome. Millions
of rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which
purportedly assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Many animals
are still suffering in these useless tests right now. These tests are crude,
cruel, and unreliable. Animals injured in acute toxicity and eye irritancy tests
are never treated. If the animals do not die from the effects of the experiments
itself, they are either killed or used for an autopsy, or, if they are not badly
injured, recycled and used for additional tests. Since the animals are not
treated, these tests provide little useful knowledge for the treatment of humans
who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a scientific
neuro-chemist, states that: Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from
laboratory to Albrecht 8 laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of
animals, and extrapolation to humans in questionable.1 Animal tests have failed
to provide the clear definition between harmful and harmless products that they
were originally intended to provide. Therefore, regardless of animal testing,
the consumer always becomes the so-called guinea pig for any new product.
Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Many companies are
working in fierce competition and dozens of alternative are being developed.
Newer and more sophisticated tests are gradually replacing the Draize test.
These alternatives most often use test-tube, or in-vitro, methods based on the
idea that what happens in the body's individual cells reflects what happens in
intact organs such as the eye. Human cells can be used in such studies. In
addition to in-vitro methods, other potential alternatives to the Draize test
include tests that use computer programs, microorganisms and other organisms
that can't experience pain, and chemical methods to analyze untested substances.
Some of the new tools for assessing eye irritancy are: Neutral Red Assay-
Irritants impair healthy cells' ability to take up neutral red dye. Albrecht 9
This test measures the degree of impairment, yielding an index of irritancy.
Agarose Diffusion-Tiny paper discs are coated with a test chemical and placed on
a layer of gelatin. The chemical diffuses through the gelatin and reaches an
under layer of healthy cells. A ring of dead cells around the discs indicates
irritation. Eytex- In this test kit, a specially formulated chemical mixture
turns cloudy when exposed to irritants, mimicking the response of the cornea.
Microtox- This test kit contains a bacterium that can emit light. Substances
that inhibit this process are irritants. Topkat-A computer program estimates eye
irritancy by comparing untested chemicals to similar chemicals of know
irritancy. Most of these alternatives are being developed or improved at
high-technology companies. Eytex at In Vitro International, Neutral Red Uptake
Assay at Clonetics, Microtox at Microbies, and Topkat at Health Designs.
Technical advances to eliminate LD50 testing are also available. More
Sophisticated methods, such as in vitro techniques, are the beginning of the
move in the right direction. In contrast to in vitro methods which use the whole
animal, in vitro methods use only the cells or Albrecht 10 tissue of animals or
humans. Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus
sparing animals lives. When human cells are used ( they are commonly obtained
from tissue routinely discarded after surgery), in vitro techniques are
completely humane. Tests using human cells are more scientifically relevant than
those procedures using whole animals or animal cells or tissue. Other approaches
are also being developed, there are computer programs that estimate the LD50
score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical and structural
properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Companies can also
employ the simple method of selective formulation to avoid D50 testing while
more sophisticated alternatives are being developed. Companies employing
selective formulation use ingredients with safety profiles that have already
been established and thereby avoid the need for any new testing. Clearly, animal
testing is almost a thing of the past. But, until every animal is free from
commercial testing, we have no time to rest on our laurels. Many companies still
say that animal tests are the most likely to hold up in court if a human is
injured by a cosmetic or Albrecht 11 household product and, for that reason,
they will struggle to hold on to animal-based research. We need to continue to
to find new and improved alternatives so that we may preserve the lives and
dignity of animals, but can also ensure the consumer of product safety. Many
manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal tests.
the fact that companies are supporting alternatives and reduce animal usage is a
good sign but the fight is clearly not over. This project has educated me to be
a more caring consumer and I will use buying power to pressure companies into
banning animal testing within the commercial market. I have learned to write to
companies that still test products on animals and let them know that I would not
be buying their products and urge them to choose alternative instead. We must
remember unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in
loneliness they die. You can make a difference, you can be their voice.
Animal Cruelty
Jeff Albrecht Joseph Aimone Writing and Rhetoric 13 December 2000 Animal
Cruelty One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the
use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and
household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even
though no law requires them not to. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists,
are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments
on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite
all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us
such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has
dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to
scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is
worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that
the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative
methods Albrecht 2 are available. The anti-vivisectionists say we should not
allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists,
claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of
humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals
that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical
techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it
right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human
illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment,
eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active
life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly
healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and
over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information
is going to be gained? Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are
pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never
have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70
Albrecht 3 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and
mice-suffer and die in the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of
cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals
have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or
applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin irritancy levels. Other
are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as bleach or soap, in a
hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity. Since 1938, The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be
adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the
consumer. However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission (
a regulatory agency that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.)
requires firms to conduct animal testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic
companies use animal tests to insure themselves against possible consumer
lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by arguing that the
cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the cosmetic
industry. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if
it is safe Albrecht 4 for the consumer, boggles my mind. If someone placed a
piece of lipstick in my eye, I do believe it would irritate my eye also. How in
the name of God does this test prove it is safe for the consumer? I don't
believe lipstick is gong to be used in the eye area, unless you are an
illiterate that can抰 read directions. The Draize Eye-Irritancy Test was designed
to assess a substance's potential harmfulness to human eyes based on its effects
on rabbits' eyes. This test was developed in the early 1940s by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. This test is typically performed on six rabbits per
substance tested. Technicians restrain each rabbit and place a measured amount
of the test substance in the lower lid of one eye. Usually no anesthetics are
given. the rabbits eyes are than examined at different intervals. If severe
injury has resulted, the rabbits may be observed for signs of recovery for as
long as twenty-one days. Technicians record signs of damage, such as redness and
swelling of the conjunctiva (the sac covering the eyeball), inflammation of the
iris, and clouding of the cornea. Using a standardized scoring scheme, the
degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and cornea are compared to graded
Albrecht 5 levels of irritations. Scores for each of these parameters are than
totaled. Based on the total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test
chemical is classified by the degree of irritation it causes: none, mild,
moderate, or severe. At best, the Draize test yields a crude measure of a
substance's irritancy; it is not designed to yield information about possible
treatments or antidotes. the Draize is inhumane. Substances such as oven
cleaners and paint removers cause obvious pain and suffering. Also, because
animal and humans differ in medically important ways, results from the Draize
test do not necessarily apply to humans. Rabbit eyes differ significantly from
human eyes: rabbits possess a nictitating membrane (a third eyelid) and have a
slower blink reflex, a less effective tearing mechanism and a thinner cornea
than humans. These differences make rabbit eyes more sensitive than human eyes
to some chemicals and less sensitive to others. The test is unreliable. Several
laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different
results. Manufactures argue that they conduct the Draize test to protect the
public from unsafe products. Since 1986 Albrecht 6 legislation has been
introduced in several states to limit or ban the Draize test for particular
products (especially cosmetics), but no bill has yet passed. Another test I like
to address is the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (L50) test. This test is a procedure
that exposed animals to a particular chemical in order to yield an estimate of
how poisonous that chemical would be to human beings. Substances tested can
include drugs, cosmetics, household products, industrial chemicals, pesticides
and the individual ingredients of any of these products. The test procedure
requires between 60 to 100 animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose
of a particular substance. The test spans a time period from two weeks to sever
years, depending on the amount of toxic chemicals in the product being tested.
The animals are observed daily. Since chemicals are bitter-tasting and have an
unpleasant smell, animals refuse to swallow them. The animals are then forced to
swallow the substances in the form of capsules or pellets. they are also
force-fed liquid chemicals by stomach tube, or through a hole cut in the
animal's throat. Some animals die from the sheer bulk of the dosage administered
or from the severe burns they Albrecht 7 receive in the throat and stomach from
the chemicals used in products such as laundry bleach and detergents and
cologne. There are variations to this test which include forcing the animal to
breathe the substance or applying the substance to the shaved skin of the animal
or injecting the substance into the body, usually the abdomen. The animals are
not provided with painkillers because they may affect the test outcome. Millions
of rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which
purportedly assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Many animals
are still suffering in these useless tests right now. These tests are crude,
cruel, and unreliable. Animals injured in acute toxicity and eye irritancy tests
are never treated. If the animals do not die from the effects of the experiments
itself, they are either killed or used for an autopsy, or, if they are not badly
injured, recycled and used for additional tests. Since the animals are not
treated, these tests provide little useful knowledge for the treatment of humans
who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a scientific
neuro-chemist, states that: Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from
laboratory to Albrecht 8 laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of
animals, and extrapolation to humans in questionable.1 Animal tests have failed
to provide the clear definition between harmful and harmless products that they
were originally intended to provide. Therefore, regardless of animal testing,
the consumer always becomes the so-called guinea pig for any new product.
Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Many companies are
working in fierce competition and dozens of alternative are being developed.
Newer and more sophisticated tests are gradually replacing the Draize test.
These alternatives most often use test-tube, or in-vitro, methods based on the
idea that what happens in the body's individual cells reflects what happens in
intact organs such as the eye. Human cells can be used in such studies. In
addition to in-vitro methods, other potential alternatives to the Draize test
include tests that use computer programs, microorganisms and other organisms
that can't experience pain, and chemical methods to analyze untested substances.
Some of the new tools for assessing eye irritancy are: Neutral Red Assay-
Irritants impair healthy cells' ability to take up neutral red dye. Albrecht 9
This test measures the degree of impairment, yielding an index of irritancy.
Agarose Diffusion-Tiny paper discs are coated with a test chemical and placed on
a layer of gelatin. The chemical diffuses through the gelatin and reaches an
under layer of healthy cells. A ring of dead cells around the discs indicates
irritation. Eytex- In this test kit, a specially formulated chemical mixture
turns cloudy when exposed to irritants, mimicking the response of the cornea.
Microtox- This test kit contains a bacterium that can emit light. Substances
that inhibit this process are irritants. Topkat-A computer program estimates eye
irritancy by comparing untested chemicals to similar chemicals of know
irritancy. Most of these alternatives are being developed or improved at
high-technology companies. Eytex at In Vitro International, Neutral Red Uptake
Assay at Clonetics, Microtox at Microbies, and Topkat at Health Designs.
Technical advances to eliminate LD50 testing are also available. More
Sophisticated methods, such as in vitro techniques, are the beginning of the
move in the right direction. In contrast to in vitro methods which use the whole
animal, in vitro methods use only the cells or Albrecht 10 tissue of animals or
humans. Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus
sparing animals lives. When human cells are used ( they are commonly obtained
from tissue routinely discarded after surgery), in vitro techniques are
completely humane. Tests using human cells are more scientifically relevant than
those procedures using whole animals or animal cells or tissue. Other approaches
are also being developed, there are computer programs that estimate the LD50
score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical and structural
properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Companies can also
employ the simple method of selective formulation to avoid D50 testing while
more sophisticated alternatives are being developed. Companies employing
selective formulation use ingredients with safety profiles that have already
been established and thereby avoid the need for any new testing. Clearly, animal
testing is almost a thing of the past. But, until every animal is free from
commercial testing, we have no time to rest on our laurels. Many companies still
say that animal tests are the most likely to hold up in court if a human is
injured by a cosmetic or Albrecht 11 household product and, for that reason,
they will struggle to hold on to animal-based research. We need to continue to
to find new and improved alternatives so that we may preserve the lives and
dignity of animals, but can also ensure the consumer of product safety. Many
manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal tests.
the fact that companies are supporting alternatives and reduce animal usage is a
good sign but the fight is clearly not over. This project has educated me to be
a more caring consumer and I will use buying power to pressure companies into
banning animal testing within the commercial market. I have learned to write to
companies that still test products on animals and let them know that I would not
be buying their products and urge them to choose alternative instead. We must
remember unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in
loneliness they die. You can make a difference, you can be their voice.