Human Experimentation Research Paper Link

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189_human_medical_experimentation_ethics.html

This article explores the history of human experimentation in the United States between 1833- 1965. This article is useful to my research paper on human experimentation because it acknowledges the dark side of western medicine that pertains to the story of Henrietta Lacks' cells being taken and manipulated without her consent because the article discusses the injustices done to impoverished people without their knowledge throughout the years in the medical field. This article also appears to be an extremely useful resource pertaining to my research paper because it includes a detailed timeline of true documentations of shocking cases of human experimentation in the United States throughout the years.

Writing Prompt

I honestly don’t think that I would care that much if one of my family member’s cells were taken and used for scientific research like Henrietta’s were. I understand why the Lackses’ were so distraught when scientists did this to them, seeing as their family member’s cells were so revolutionary and they were not even ever informed about their use. Also, while Henrietta’s cells were being exploited to benefit the health of others around the world, Henrietta Lacks’s own family could not even afford health care for themselves. However, if one of my family member’s cells were used, I would not be that concerned because it does not inflict any pain on them or cause suffering and it would benefit others.

Multimodal Webpage Rhetorical Analysis

Shelby Brown

Jack Hennes

English 191- 17

15 October 2012

More Info on Animal Experimentation Rhetorical Analysis

Imagine a room: a cramped, dungeon like room, filled wall- to- wall with 17 tiny wire cages, each containing a mutilated and severely crippled monkey. The rotting stench of years of accumulated feces and urine that encrust every surface of the room completely encompass you as these defenseless creatures are neglected, deprived of food, and intentionally debilitated right before your eyes. This grotesque scene sounds like an unimaginable nightmare, doesn’t it? This nightmare happened to be a reality, witnessed and documented by Peta founder, Alex Pachea. In the summer of 1981, Pachea worked undercover at the federally funded Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) in Silver Spring Maryland, and this is what he found. Being confined to compact cages was not even the worst that these animals endured under the supervision of psychologist and animal experimenter, Edward Taub. During the duration of their time at IBR, the monkeys were subjected to surgeries in which their spinal taps were severed, their limbs were rendered useless, they were administered electric shock, deprived of food, immobilized, and more. Pachea kept a detailed log of what he witnessed at IBR while also secretly photographing the monkeys in order to capture the true essence of their unbearable living conditions. This evidence was taken to the police which evoked a decade long battle over custody of the chimps. Peta’s case against IBR went on to become the nation’s first arrest and criminal conviction of an animal experimenter for cruelty to animals. This case also became the first confiscation of abused animals from a lab, the first Supreme Court victory for animals used in experimentation, and caused for significant additions to the Animal Welfare Act.

Since the rewarding Silver Spring monkey incident, Peta has scored many triumphs for animals suffering from abuse due to experimentation. However, experiments similar to this do continue to go on in the United States, which is what led Peta members to compose the multimodal article titled “More Info on Animal Experimentation”. The author of this article includes a strong pathos appeal to the audience throughout the piece, and several elements of logos and ethos as well in order to advocate for viewer’s contribution in putting an end to cruel animal experimentation in the U.S.

            After clicking on the article “More Info on Animal Experimentation” on Peta’s main website, the viewer’s attention is instantly captured by the picture of a tiny mouse, looking up in curiosity at a white keyboard that dominates more than half of the image. The author’s use of the pathos rhetorical strategy is demonstrated here because a mouse is a tiny animal, considered to be a house pet to most, which is meant to provide the audience with the perception of a critter that is overall harmless, and innocent. The audience is then filled with feelings of fear and sympathy for this little mouse when you look directly above the image and see the bolded title of the page, which leaves the audience with no other choice but to associate the unknowing animal in the picture with the words “animal experimentation”, causing us to imagine and fear for the dreaded future that lies ahead for this small creature and millions of others just like it. The mouse in the image also happens to be covered completely in blue, which is meant to provoke feelings of despair among the audience. The keyboard sitting next to the mouse, however, remains its’ original white color, a color generally associated with feelings of coldness and isolation, representing the perceivably heartless scientists performing these experimentations.

The author of this article also demonstrates the pathos rhetorical appeal in this article by using an abundance of words that are both grisly and gloomy. This article includes many grisly words associated with pain and terror such as “ache”, “blood”, “spikes”, “fear”, and more. The article also includes just as many words associated with feelings of gloom and despair such as “languish”, “loneliness”, “cower”, and “cold”. The writer’s use of combining grisly vs. gloomy diction is effective in first repulsing the audience with torturous associations, and then gaining sympathy for the “cold” and “lonely” animals enduring these agonizing procedures.

Finally, the author of this article appeals to reader’s emotions through their inclusion of an immensely gruesome and disturbing video at the very bottom of the page. This three-minute clip is persuasive in that it allows us to see the unthinkable sights depicted throughout the entire article for ourselves. This informational video is not for the weak of stomach. It begins with an unsettling whirl of the sounds of lab tools, animals screeching, and the intimidating, indifferent voice of a man commanding: “Bring ‘em out, hold ‘em down, let’s just get it over with”. This combination of noise induces feelings of disarray and panic within the viewer, causing them to become more alert and urgent to intervene in this injustice. After several appalling images of dismembered and mutilated dogs, cats, and monkeys are flashed before viewers, a human dressed in a rabbit costume is shown on a stage. One narrator of the video asks in a mocking voice: “do rabbits wear mascara in the wild?’ The clip takes a silly turn when the costumed white bunny dances across the stage to a goofy little song, however, viewers are snapped back to solemn reality when the entertaining animal character holds up a sign that reads: “Not human”. The image of a real rabbit then appears as it drags its’ debilitated body across a cage, hitting its’ head against the grey, metal walls because it has been obviously blinded. Viewers are then more seriously questioned, “Do we really need another hairspray?” The tone of this scene is sarcastically farcical at first and then takes an abrupt, cynical turn in order to convey the message that animal experimentation is not a joke and not a matter to be taken lightly. As stated in the video; mice, dogs, monkeys, rabbits, and cats are not human. These animals do not wear make up, don’t require hair spray, and react differently to drugs than we do. They do however, “bleed just like we do, suffer just like we do, feel lonely and sad just like we do, and want to live just like we do.”

            Now that the author of the article “More Info on Animal Experimentation” has captured the audience’s attention by repulsing viewers and then gaining their sympathy, it’s time to become familiar with the facts. The author first uses the logos rhetorical strategy by sharing the shockingly large numbers of animals that are being used in experimentation across the United States. In fact, millions of rats, primates, birds, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals are contained in labs across the country, awaiting the next procedure right now. If you think that this number is excessive, there are more than 100 million animals that suffer and die from experimentation in the U.S. every year. Even more shockingly, mice, rats, birds, and cold- blooded animals, which make up 95% of animals being used in experimentation, are not even counted in these numbers due to the fact that they are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act. These numbers are included by the author in order to accurately depict the immensity of this issue and raise the audience’s alarm by sharing real numbers and data.

The author of this article also uses the rhetorical strategy of logos by including a list of surprising true facts about animal experimentation that most readers were probably not previously aware of. For example, the author shares that many of the experiments that company’s run in order to test their products are not required by law. Also, these tests often produce misleading or inaccurate results and, in fact, if these products are found to harm animals, they can still be marketed to costumers. The writer also includes the fact that deadly toxicity tests that are conducted on animals are administered as a part of massive regulatory testing which are often funded by U.S. taxpayer’s money. These astonishing facts are listed in the article in order to show readers that animal experimentation is not only wrong due to ethical reasons, emphasized by the author’s use of pathos, but also due to evidence that these procedures are just plain unnecessary.

The author next appeals to the audience’s logic by listing government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, The Department of Agriculture, many various health charities, and more, names which most of us are familiar with, that subject animals to experimentation. And finally, at the end of the article, a link is provided in order to allow the audience to browse for companies that do not test their products on animals (Aloe Vera, Pink beauty products, Hard Candy, Kiss my face, and more) and the companies that do conduct animal experimentation (Johnson& Johnson, Revlon, Clorox, Procter& Gamble, and more). These lists appeal to audience member’s logic because they are useful resources that include extremely well known government agencies as well as frequently used brand names, which a majority of people possess in their own homes in which people should avoid due to their cruel nature of testing their products on animals. 

At this point in the article, the author has not only asserted the inhumanity associated with animal testing but has also backed up those emotions with facts, so what makes this a credible source in which we should invest our trust? First of all, this article gains credibility by being included on the Peta site in itself. Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is known as the largest animal rights organization in the world. Peta is supported by over 3 million members, including famous celebrities such as Alec Baldwin, Alicia Silverstone, Carrie Underwood, Kristin Wiig, Natalie Portman, and more. The creator of this webpage also uses the ethos rhetorical strategy and gains credibility among the audience through the variety of narrators speaking in the video at the end of the article. This video includes the input of three people, an African American man in a scientific lab coat, a young white girl in a ballerina costume, and an average looking white woman in her 20’s or so. The audience is likely to agree with things that a man in a lab coat says seeing as that indicates that he is some kind of doctor or scientist so therefore, he must be knowledgeable. The audience is also likely to take sides with a naïve, innocent looking young girl because agreeing with such an adorable child represents basic, good, morality. Finally, the audience is likely to agree with the average looking woman in her 20’s because to average people, who are not scientists or animal rights activists that they are advocating to, this narrator is one that can be easily related to. Most of all, through the inclusion of these three very different speakers, this article gains credibility due to the fact that it shows that people of all races, sexes, genders, ages, and professions can agree that animal experimentation is immoral and needs to be stopped. 

It was wrong when scientists took Henrietta Lacks’ cells without her permission and used them for experimentation. It was wrong when Jewish people were held captive and experimented on against their will in the Nuremberg Trails during WWII. And it is just as inhumane to conduct these experiments on animals today. After reading the article, “More Info on Animal Experimentation”, the author has made it undeniably clear that animal experimentation is unethical, unnecessary, and immoral, but what can we do to put an end to it? Each of us have the opportunity to put an end to cruel animal experimentation in the U.S. In order to advocate for the end of animal testing we can demand that our Alma masters stop experimenting on animals. We can also stick to only purchasing cruelty free products (mentioned earlier), stop donating to charities that condone animal experimentation, begin requesting alternatives to animal dissection in classroom experiments, and demand the immediate implemation of humane, effective non- animal tests run by government agencies and corporations.  Animals are not human. Animals can’t tell us to stop, or it hurts. Most of all, we can’t explain to animals what is going to be done to them in these experiments. If you could, what would you say?