Source #2
Part 1: MLA Citation
The Washington Post. “Opinion: Time to Rethink How We Use Animals to Test Pharmaceuticals.” Kathleen Parker, Oct. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/08/its-barbaric-to-test-human-drugs-on-animals/
Part 2: Summary
Kathleen Parker, a columnist in the U.S writes a Washington Post op-ed about rethinking the use of animals for pharmaceuticals testing. Parker explains her happiness and different opinions about the groundbreaking move to end animal experimentation and the role of technology in replacing animals. The writer points out how the development of the vaccines for coronavirus was the perfect example of how quickly medicals treatments can be made by allowing to run animals testing and early trials on humas at the same time, rather than completing separate animal’s trials first. Parker emphasizes that animals should not be use for drug testing since they don’t response to drugs the same way humas do. Parker writes about advantages in technology such as procedures outside of a living organism performed on computers or via computer simulation. Even though the opposition for animal testing has increased, Parker also points out the scientific community and education had an impact in this decision by giving evidence that Americans with postgraduate degree support animal experimentation and less educated people more often oppose. Parker concludes explaining how traditional animal testing is outdated and morally wrong and proposing that technology should replace animal experimentation.
Part 3: Rhetorical Analysis
Parker’s primary audience is activist against animal abuse and the pharmaceutical industry. The secondary audience is general public. Her purpose is to make the audience reconsider the methods used for pharmaceuticals on animals, implying that with the advanced of technology it can be the replacement for animal testing. Parker’s writing style is persuasive and argumentative. Parkers words inspired the audience that we have the power and responsibility to change the future medical experimentation and traditional animal testing. Parker’s genre of the op-editorial is persuasive way to convince the reader to make a change and present evidence that supports her opinion. When the writer expresses her opinion saying “It does not sound to me like using animals-normally mice and monkeys- is worth the price in cruelty we pay for our health” she employs pathos. Parker has strong credibility because she is a successful columnist and has received awards for her commentary on politics and culture. She also joined the Washington Post, a newspaper that has won the Pulitzer Prize 65 times for its work, which shows her credibility. This article contains current information because it was published in 2021.
Part 4: Notable Quotables
“In part, the measures result from lessons learned during development of the coronavirus vaccine: We don’t need to wait so long to develop human therapies if we bypass some of the archaic demands of outdated laws, in particular, a 1930’s-era law that required animal testing before human trials” (Parker paragraph #4)
“There’s significant evidence that “human subject have been harmed in the clinical testing of drugs that were deemed safe by animal studies,” as Gail A. Van Norman wrote in the journal JACC: Basic to translational Science” (Parker paragraph #5)
“A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that a slight majority of Americans (52 percent) oppose animal testing” (Parker paragraph #9)
“Only 21 Percent think that engineering aquarium fish to glow is an appropriate use of technology, for example, while 57 percent approve of using animals to grow organs and tissues for humans in need of transplant.” (Parker paragraph #9)
“Several millennia later is time enough to liberate our animal hostages along with our better angels- and put technology to its highest and best uses.” (Parker paragraph#13)
