Researched Argument in Progress

My research assignment is progressing slowly but steadily.  For me this paper has been a bit challenging to write because unlike our previous assignments where we read and analyzed arguments, this paper involved forming our own argument through research and the utilization of persuasive appeals.  I found that looking for sources to support my paper relatively  easy being that animal testing has been a pretty popular topic.  However the hardest part for me was putting all this information into a paper, while voicing an argument.  After drafting and conversing with my professor, I found that the topic that I chose to write about in my draft, animal experimentation was very broad so my paper was disorganized.  My paper also lacked effectiveness in some parts.  Another thing that I struggled with was arguing against counterclaims with credibility.  Currently, I think I’m heading toward a better direction as I fix these issues in my paper and form a clearer argument.

Annotation

Feder, Barnaby. “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products.” The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2007. Web. 9 April 2014.

This online newspaper article discusses modern alternative methods to animal testing.  These methods include testing samples of genetic and tissue engineering, virtual testing conducted utilizing computers and simulation software, harmlessly micro-dosing volunteers.  Barnaby discusses how these technological alternatives are becoming more and more developed, effective and successful, saving animals from torture and death. The article states that these technological innovations, although they are out there, they still need to prove they better and more accurate than animal testing because of the costs of reliability and concerns are high.

I am going to use this article to prove that animal testing isn’t necessary because there are many technological alternatives today.  This article was written 7 years ago so technology has become even more advanced since then.  It’s essential for people to know what other options we have, as we are in a day of age where we are able to develop,”push for” and adopt alternatives.

1. Introduction

Although animal testing has been in decline since the 1950’s, every year, animals like rodents, chimpanzees, farm animals, and even dogs are mistreated—drugged with harsh chemicals and euthanized for medical research, cosmetics testing, and defense research. Due to the horrific care that animals are enduring, many people debate about this issue. Many suppose it is beneficial to humans. While others believe it is morally wrong. Is animal experimentation really necessary and ethical? My purpose in writing about this subject is to bring attention towards this controversial issue and prove (through research on how we are harming animals, the negative effects of animal experimentation, and the alternatives to it) that animal experimentation is not necessary and morally wrong.

2. Rationale

I’m interested in researching and writing about Animal experimentation because it is something I have a strong opinion about and I think is hidden from public view. Animal rights are important to me as a person who loves animals and owns a dog. It’s important to treat animals with dignity and respect because they are living things that are capable of suffering. It is important to note that animals are sentient, emotional, and innocent. They don’t deserve to be so cruelty tortured. One of my favorite films, the live action film “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” reminded me of how we treat animals. In the film, experimented apes used to test a drug aimed at curing Alzheimer’s escape the laboratory and rise up, rebelling against human oppression. All animals want is freedom.

3. Research Plan

I know a good amount about this issue already. According to the National Science Foundation, “about 56% of Americans said they saw “medical training on animals” as “morally accepted in 2013…compared to 2001, when 65% said they saw such testing as acceptable”. However, I know that millions of animals are still mistreated every year. According to PETA, before their deaths “some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed”. They are taken away from their natural environment and are socially deprived, traumatized, and forced to live in empty cages (Read more: here). There can be flaws to animal testing according to an article on Huffington Post, animal testing can be ineffective since physiologically, animals aren’t small humans (Read more: here). In order to produce my research paper on this issue, I am going to need to find more evidence, statistics and facts about animal experimentation its negative effects. Furthermore, I will need to find: examples of huge medical developments made without animal experimentation, examples of credible technological alternatives to animal experimentation, in proving how the progression of science without experimentation is more than possible.

4. Implications

This topic and research matters because it’s morally right for us to treat animals with love and respect.  Moreover, we are living in a technological world today, we are getting more and more technologically advanced hence animal experimentation is no longer necessary.  It’s a worthy topic because in an activist culture (legalization of gay rights, occupy wallstreet), issues like this ought to be paid more attention to for the betterment of our world and future, with less cruelty and more peace.

Researched Argument- Pro/Con Exercise

Topic: Animal Rights and Experimentation

Tentative Question: Is it justifiable and necessary?

Tentative Thesis/Main Argument: Animal Experimentation is not necessary and ethically wrong.

Animals do not deserve to be treated the way they are within our society.  Animal experimentation is not necessary. Although animal testing has declined since the 1950’s, it still occurs.

Claim

1. Statistics and examples of how we are harming animals.  Examples, statistics, and description of experimentation in cosmetics, medical research and food

2. How technology has improved so much that we don’t need animal experimentation as much anymore.

3. The negative effects of animal experimentation.

4. Examples of developments/inventions made without the use of animal experimentation (Penicillin, smallpox

Counterclaims

1. It is better for humans, and cheaper too.

2. The Animal Welfare Act is sufficient as it sets requirement for the humane treatment of animals in labs, etc.

3. We can’t move forward in science without the experimentation of animals.

4. Machines aren’t animals.

Monster and Marvels

The Marvels and Monsters exhibit was very interesting for me to observe as it revealed American archetypes and stereotypes about Asians that still exist today. The characters that were portrayed in the exhibit were the “Manipulator”, the”Temptress”, the “Brute”, the “Brain”, the “Kamikaze”, the “Alien”, and the “Lotus Blossom.”  These characters gave me an insight on how Asians were perceived–and how these perceptions were captivated in U.S. comics.  Asians were seen as fearful individuals- evil controllers, exotic and deceptive seductresses, or thugs and martial arts masters.  Or Asians were thought of as devoted sacrificial people as is the “Kamikaze” who would die for their country and the “Lotus Blossom” (the passive submissive woman who is “abused, abased, exploited and ultimately destroyed by or sacrificed for the man she loves and serves”). And finally there’s image that Asians are not human-like– that they are aliens, outsiders with peculiar customs and beliefs or they brains, hyper-intelligent “sexless, friendless, heart less” brainiacs.

I believe that all of these archetypes remain prevalent in our society– although some more than others.  The one that stands out to me the most and seems most relatable would probably be “the Brain”.  The idea that Asians are super smart “math nerds” is something still associated with in contemporary culture.  The Brain is described as hyper intelligent, prodigal, extremely smart with the potential of ruling the world– but he lacks social characteristics, friendliness, a heart, “a sex”, human friends and a girl.  The exhibit represents the character by providing this brief description of the character in bold, a detailed historical  explanation for how/why this stereotype came about, other examples of how the stereotype is portrayed in comics (such as iron man’s mentor professor Ho Yinsen), and a image from the comic (Asian reading book).  Historically, the Stereotype of the Brain goes back go the colonial British who used a slang to describe the slyness behind the exterior unreadable exterior of the Chinese as Chinese workers thought “too much and hence were up to no good”.  Then there was the generation of Asians being huge figures in innovation and technology and hence pushing their second generation children to strive academically.  The visual representation of The Brain shows how the stereotype was perceived and how it was portrayed in Comics.

The stereotype of the Brain still exists within my community.  Although as an Asian American, I was never pushed that hard academically by my parents, I found myself encountering this stereotype.  Recently, I talked to my Russian friend recently and told him about my academic struggles in Chemistry to which he responded “how are you failing you are supposed to be Asian!”.  One-dimensional characterizations of people is limiting because it could be looked upon as ignorant.  Another example of a stereotype that exists for another group is how middle eastern people are more easily mistaken for terrorists ever since 9/11.  Undoubtedly, stereotypes are oversimplified and can be judgments that don’t apply to everyone you think.

Possible Research Paper Topics

I’m interested in researching and write about Animal experimentation because animal rights are something I have strong opinions about and I think is hidden from public view.  Animals do not deserve to be treated the way they are within our society. Animal experimentation is not necessary. Although animal testing has been in decline since the 1950’s, it still occurs.  Every year animals like rodent, chimpanzees, farm animals, and even dogs are harmed—drugged and/or euthanized for experimentation like cosmetics, medical research and food.  People disagree about animal experimentation because many suppose animal experimentation is beneficial to humans.  In order to produce my research paper on this issue, I am going to need find other examples of modern unnecessary animal experimentation, read about the severity of how animals are treated, look up the negative effects of animal experimentation, and discover credible technological alternatives to it. I am going to target the main public, especially people involved in science through my research paper.

The second topic I was thinking about concerns the relationship between technology and intelligence.  This topic interests me because the question of whether technology is making us smarter/dumber is extremely controversial.  Many believe that technology is making us smarter as it provides an alternative and quick way of learning and researching.  While others like myself lean towards the belief that it is making us “dumber”, as many sources online are not credible, technology produces inept learning (for example autocorrect assists the inability to spell) and it has become increasingly easy to “cheat” and not be original.  In order to compile my research paper, I need to find out more examples and information pertaining to how technology is making us dumber.  I want to reach the general public, especially those of my generation through my essay because I want to influence the way they think about technology.

Comparative Analysis

“Saving Ethiopia’s “Church Forests” (by T. DeLene Beeland)” and “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African truck stop (by Rob Dunn)” are two articles published on science information sites (PLOS blogs, Scientific American), which aim to inform and persuade readers about science and nature.  Beeland’s article addresses readers about the conservation of “Church Forests” in Ethiopia through the usage of description and narrative.  She educates to her audience about “church forests” which is an Ethiopian tradition of having forests surround churches in order to make a home for all of “God’s creatures around their places of worship”.  Most church forests are located in areas that have been cleared for agriculture, pastures, and settlements.  The ones that remain are historical while the ones that have been deforested lay bare; the lands between these forests are crop fields.  Beeland provides explanation and description, in order to prove the fragility of the current state of Ethopia’s church forests to her audience.  These “swaths” have become refugees, the author tells us. Beeland also integrates multimedia– videos into the article to convey her message more interactively.

She also provides the audience with a narrative of the Etiopian forest researcher Alemayehu Wassie Eschete and the ecologist and researcher (Ethos) Margaret Lowman, who together worked to study and conserve the church forests.  They found that some of the biggest threats for these forests (use of forests for wood, plants for food and dye) and together, they analyzed the insects of the forests as the forests provide important ecosystem services.  They found that the lack of toilets have caused the overproduction of dung beetles.  The article ends with Beeland indirectly attempting to persuade her audience to act as she ends with the note that it is whether “these people allow their forests to remain intact or cut into small plots as they are now, that will determine the fate of their culture”.  Beeland, like Dunn both bring up the idea that the future of the world is in the hands of us, human beings.

While the purpose of Beeland’s article was to inform and educate, the purpose of Dunn’s article was to inform and educate as well.  But. I also felt as though he wanted to entertain/enlighten his audience more than Beeland wanted to.  Dunn uses narration and biography in his article.  He writes about the story of biologist Oliver Zompro and how Zompro discovered new species after examining many specimens.  Dunn writes about how Zompro looked through museums, and traveled to Africa to confirm his discovery.  Dunn brings up how Mike Picker, a professor had previously saw photos of this species in a magazine however did not realize it was not a named species.  Dunn also shares the story of Piotr Naskrecki, a scientist that discovered a new species of Mantophasmatode at a filthy truck stop on a major highway.  Dunn ends his article with the note that there is so much that remains to be known about in the world that we live in.  He states that :the life around us is as foreign as the dark side of the moon, we just forget”.  He ends calling us to explore even though it can be hard to be an explorer.

Nijhuis’ Different Endings

Michelle’s Nijhui’s two articles “Which Species Will Live?” “Conservation Triage”, both discuss how conversationalists have turned to triage in dealing with which endangered species to save or not to save.  Both articles end on a different note, although in both endings,  she reaches out to her audience and calls them into critical thought.  In “Which Species Will Live”, she states “As climate change, population expansion and other global pressures on biodiversity continue, more and more species are likely to require heroic measures for survival (79)”.  While Conservation Triage can help mediate the problem,”societies will almost certainly have to consciously forgo some of the most expensive and least promising rescue efforts”.  She mentions that even with conservation triage, “the exhortation to save all species remains a worthy and perhaps even necessary goal.” She suggests stuffing “the ark to the brim”. I think she is subtly saying that Conservation Triage is not the solution of species endangerment.  In a hopeful tone, she tells us that although we know we can’t save them all, we should still aspire o save all animals.  On the other hand, “Conservation Triage” ends in a much more blunt and negative tone.  She presents to the reader the inevitable fate of all animals that in the end, “the patients lose”.  She ends by posing a question to her audience: “So perhaps it’s time to make your pick. Who gets to board your ark?”.

Survival of the Fittest best for society?

“Which Species Will Live?” and “Conservation Triage” are two separate articles written by Michelle Nijhui, concerning the same topic.  While the latter was published in August 2012’s issue of Scientific American and the former was published on slate.com on Feb 21, 2013, they both discuss how conservationists have turned to Conservation Triage in addressing species endangerment.  Conservation Triage is the concept of decision-making based on scarcity.  It involves the sorting of “patients” for treatment in difficult situations, “where time expertise or supplies or all three are scarce”.  Conservation triage involves the application of determine which species to save and no to save.  She tells us that this has become necessary, writing in “Which Species Will Live”: the decisions are agonizing but are considered essential for the greater good.”  In both articles, she writes that it might reflect failure in following the Endangered Species act and protecting all species without prejudice.  However, the “status quo” is even worse being that the U.S. tends to pay more attention towards the “politically controversial” or “heavily studied” In both articles, she writes how conversationalists are applying this triage method. She introduces us with the “Function-First” approach where species are chosen according to how unique or essential their role is in nature.  A second method, she dubs “Evolution First” in “Which Species Will Live”, is the prioritization of species based on how genetically diverse they are.

Both articles have the same thesis that conversationalists have turned to triage to determine which species to save and which to let go.  However, they both do this in different ways.  The first article “Which Species Will Live?” contains much more information as well as details about conservational triage.  It goes into greater depth, discussing the controversies and the problems of conservational triage.  For instance, she writes about the many conversationalists that remain uncomfortable using triage and the many people that disapprove of it because it admits to failure and threatens our moral responsibility for nature.  Furthermore, she analyzes the problems that arise for each of the approaches of triage. She expresses that “Function First is useful only I well-understood systems, and the number of those is small (77).”  She describes how by using the Evolution-first method, we are missing broader threats that affect entire taxa.  This article also brings up “Hotspots” which is an approach that apply both function first and evolution first, by preferring ecosystems rich in species, while the other doesn’t address “Hotspots” at all.  I would say that her other article “Conservation Triage” is a very brief, concise version of “Which Species Will Live?”  It addresses all of the same main ideas however doesn’t is less informative and detail oriented compared to “Which Species Will Live?” “Conservation Triage” is more casual in tone while the other is more serious in tone.  She begins “Conservation Triage” by making her audience envision an anecdote, where we have an ark that can only load and save a certain number of the animals.  Which species will you save? She writes.  On the other hand, she begins her other article detailing an ashy storm petrel that nests on 11 isolated islands weighing little and forced to contend with difficult living conditions.  I think that both articles address the general public.  However, I feel as though the article “Which Species Will Live”, addresses a more science-interested or scholarly audience.  She does end this article, calling people to aspire to the Noah Principle: all species are equal and everything can and should be saved.  “Conservation Triage” does not end on this note rather it merely ends after she provides an example of the Evolution-First method.

Assignment #1: Rough Draft

Carl Sagan’s “Why We Need to Understand Science”, first published in 1989 in Parade Magazine, discusses the importance of understanding science for the security and prosperity of the U.S.  He argues that our perception of science is distorted and insufficient due to the fact that our society causes us to believe that Pseudoscience is real science.  He discusses how our society filters out science, while it permits pretense (“make-believe”) and confusion (Sagan 12).  Sagan claims that most Americans are “scientifically illiterate”.  He supports this assertion with statistical evidence and supporting examples, and concludes his argument by discussing potential solutions to this problem.  Through the essay, Sagan aims to bestow a sense of awareness within us, Americans and call us into action.  He conveys his argument though the usage of the persuasive appeals–Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

Sagan uses Logos or logic, as he persuades his audience by using reason and integrating facts, statistics, and evidence to support his claim that it is essential for America to understand science and that our current understanding of science is perilous.  Sagan says that in our society driven by capitalism and industrialization, it is crucial for us to pay attention to science and technology.  He says that ignorance of science “threatens our economic well-being, our national security, and the democratic process (15)”.  He tells us that the absence of understanding science and technology jeopardizes national political decisions.  Sagan connects science with politics to emphasize the gravity of understanding science.  Furthermore, he warns us that science and technology is necessary for the prosperity and safety of the United States, informing us that it’s dangerous to be ignorant of global warming, and that “If the United States can’t manufacture, at high quality and low price, products people want to buy, then industries will drift out of the United States and transfer a little prosperity to another part of the world (12)”.  Sagan explains that our society and the advancement of our world are “exquisitely dependent on science”.  He mentions the wide range of things that depend on science, from household appliances like “supercomputers and high-resolution TVs”, to “airline and airport safety” and medical discoveries like “the cure of cancer and AIDS”.  Sagan also reasons with his us when he observes the benefits of science.  “Advances in medicine and agriculture have saved more lives than have been lost in all wars in history (13)”.  He stresses the amount of lives science has rescued by contrasting it with the number of lives lost in ALL of the wars in the human history.  Also, “Advances in transportation, communication, and entertainment have transformed the world”.  He uses the word “transformed” to signify the power of change and alteration science possesses.