How would you feel if you were an animal caged for scientific testing A direct question and thought that gets your attention and mind. Going deep into Animal Testing an journalist named Richard Girling entered Britains secret labs to put the scientists rationale to the test. Going from each animals named tattooed across its chest, a unit of 900 people, and the painful truth you see the eyes of this article and what really goes on in the world.
If your at the store, walking down the street, or even as a human we all know that we can be so happy on the outside but deep down under there is something wrong. When talking about animals, you can see the cutest most innocent creature but deep down you dont know that they will be taking into institutions where there living brains and bodies will be used in research. Richard Girling went under cover to a lab where he couldnt name the building or where it was at. This was one of the few places where they let him see what was behind the doors. When it comes to animal testing they are saying that “the aim is a better understanding of the brain” (girling). There looking at both argument sides. Due to the fact that so many people are against this, but so many for they look at both arguments. The article shows an example of a story of a human name Mark Davies 45 years old who had Parkinsons disease for almost 15 years. Until thanks to a technique known as deep brain stimulation, which was pioneered in monkeys. So now we look at the side and facts is a human more important than an animal Monkeys versus Mark If you Compare and detail the guilts about life, facts, and opinions mark wins by far. Argument number one, animal testing is a good thing and there is outcomes of it.
The audience that this journalist is aiming towards is everyone. He wants everyones opinion that comes to there mind on what they believe and think. This isnt an article that tells you what is right or wrong, this is an article that shows you what goes on in the world that you should know about everything behind closed doors. Coming to consideration it gives the pros and cons on cosmetic testing, going from monkeys to comparing dogs to pigs, and seeing the living creatures live a wonderful life before the testing. All of this shows the readers what they goes on and if you agree you do and if you dont then you dont. During these animals lifes they will be watched for any side affects that participated in there treatment testing. Argument number two; animal testing is bad and should be banned. The article gets into graphic effects. Journalist Richard Girling has seen it all. From rats being monitored on there heart rates and blood pressure, and simply nicking an animals ear to take a tissue sample, to ear tagging in farm animals. He went live into this lavatory and saw animals with there names tattooed across there chest to track what testing they belonged too. Some of the animals didnt even get tested on so they could bread more babies. They live in a wonderful home, and have every possible toy, food, and friend for them. The truth is though days or even hours later that monkey will be on drugs getting tested for the rest of its life, and then sooner or later die.
We never consider what goes on in our world truly or inside ones eye, but Richard Girling sure did when he entered a world he thought he would never see. Many of us have animals but this story does touch readers. Showing you what we could have or couldnt is a life thing that we need to look at more. This is one of them. Its a challenge between what you should know or what you should consider and get to know and study upon. This is why the argument needs to be more of a debate and less of an exchange of mortar fire. (girling) The painful truth “Despite efforts to improve conditions, animals still endure psychological and physical suffering in laboratories.”
Girling, Richard. “How would you feel .” Sunday Times. N.p., 10 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.