TPHIL251
1. Source:
PeTA (2020). Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/
Summary:
The article is cited from People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). The article depicts a negative opinion toward animal test. It provides a very strong rebuttal on the idea that some medical tests may be conducted on people if we do not use animals. But according to the PeTA, 95% of all drugs developed from animals fail pre-clinical trials. PeTa maintains that only a small fraction of drugs approved from animal test is actually used in human beings but countless animals’ lives are sacrificed.
Evaluation:
The cited media article does not have source bias because the statistics, “95% of all drugs that are shown safe on animals” is a secondary data cited from an updated report released by National Institute of Health (NIH). NIH collects data from a huge sample size, nearly 115 million animals worldwide and verifies that the drugs developed from these animals either don’t work or are too dangerous. The reliability of the source is very high because the sample size is sufficiently large. The validity of the source is also guaranteed because NIH is a highly reputable and authoritative medical science research organization. However, PeTA only manages to prove that animals are not an absolutely necessary part in the drugs development but it fails to propose alternative options for animal tests.
The article generally points out that there is a lack of transparency in the number of animals used for medical tests. Human Society International shows that 90% of the animals used in the U.S’ medical labs are not included in the official statistics published by the U.S Department of Agriculture. British statistics in the article also shows that almost 3 million animals used the in the U.K are not counted in the official statistics.
2. Source:
Human Society International (2012). About Animal Testing. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/
Summary:
The article generally points out that there is a lack of transparency in the number of animals used for medical tests. Human Society International shows that 90% of the animals used in the U.S’ medical labs are not included in the official statistics published by the U.S Department of Agriculture. British statistics in the article also shows that almost 3 million animals used the in the U.K are not counted in the official statistics.
Evaluation:
The quality of data is high because the data represent a large group. It is true that large sample size is not necessarily a dominant factor in overcoming source biases but the data can depict a high degree of generalizability to reflect the actual outcome and truth. All the collected data have large sample sizes. However, the cited article above has publication biases. Human Society International only publishes data against animal tests but fails to provide a tangible correlation between the transparency of animal tests and why animal tests should be banned. It lacks of objectivity in the way of presenting ideas.
In the article, Human Society International points out that “39 countries” have passed laws banning cosmetic animal testing. The sale or import of newly animal-tested cosmetic products are also banned. The article suggests that other countries should also follow suit and ban cosmetic animal testing.
3.Source:
Human Society International (2020). Be Cruelty-Free Campaign. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://www.hsi.org/issues/be-cruelty-free/
Summary:
In the article, Human Society International points out that “39 countries” have passed laws banning cosmetic animal testing. The sale or import of newly animal-tested cosmetic products are also banned. The article suggests that other countries should also follow suit and ban cosmetic animal testing.
Evaluation:
Human Society International has listed tangible facts about many countries are banning cosmetic animal testing but it seems that the cited article has the problem of survivorship bias. It shows that Europe Union, the world’s largest cosmetic market, among the 39 countries, has already taken the leadership in banning these tests but it cannot further conclude that other countries should undertake the same measures. More evidences and data should be used to justify why Europe and other countries have made the banning decisions. Otherwise, it cannot simply conclude that because Europe is the largest market so the banning decision is justified and applicable for other countries.
3. Source:
Rose, S. (2018). Poll Results: 70% Worldwide Want Animal Testing Ban. Crueltyfreekitty. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]: https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/animal-testing-poll-results-2016/
Summary:
In the article, authors have listed survey results elicited from online users from many countries in the world. One survey result depicts that nearly 88% of surveyed Canadians believe that a national cosmetic animal testing ban should be implemented.
Evaluation:
The survey result may have the problem of selection bias. When I look into the survey questions, it writes, “do you agree that cosmetic testing can cause pain and suffering to animals. It is not worth causing this kind of suffering just to test the safety of cosmetics”. I immediately realize that it is actually a selection bias because target surveyees are guided to answer this question. The word “suffering” and “not worth”, etc, are actually luring respondents to make the conclusion that animal testing is cruel. The objectivity and reliability of the result is thus compromised. Thus, the result of 88% of Canadian respondents support the animal testing ban cannot substantiate and verify that animal ban should be implemented.
4. Source:
Swetlitz, I. (2017). Americans’ opposition to animal testing at record high, survey finds. STAT. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/12/americans-oppose-animal-testing/
Summary:
In the article, Swetlitz (2017) manages to depict the survey results published by Gallup about whether animal testing is “morally wrong”. 44% of surveyees from the U.S holds negative opinion toward animal testing.
The data is just because it reflects a longitudinal study on American respondents’ opinions toward animal testing from 2001 to 2017. In 2001, only 26% of respondents indicate that animal testing should be banned. But this number goes up significantly to 44% in 2017. Then, the author makes the conclusion that American’s opposition to animal testing is at historical high. However, similarly, the article has the problem of selection biases. It is largely because the results are derived from semi-structured focus-group surveys. The survey questions are rather researcher-centered.
Evaluation:
The data is just because it reflects a longitudinal study on American respondents’ opinions toward animal testing from 2001 to 2017. In 2001, only 26% of respondents indicate that animal testing should be banned. But this number goes up significantly to 44% in 2017. Then, the author makes the conclusion that American’s opposition to animal testing is at historical high. However, similarly, the article has the problem of selection biases. It is largely because the results are derived from semi-structured focus-group surveys. The survey questions are rather researcher-centered.
5. Source:
ProCon.org (2020). Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://animal-testing.procon.org/
Summary:
The article depicts both pros and cons of animal testing. In the Pro 11, it indicates that animal test on personal care products are essential because it is estimated that American women use an average of twelve persona care products everyday.
Evaluation:
The data actually has health user biases. It is true that American women may use a lot of personal care product everyday, it does validate that animals should be used for personal care products or cosmetic products testing. Correlation is not equivalent to causation. The author fails to notice that there are many available alternatives of animal testing such as computer simulation. Hence, author cannot derive the conclusion that animal test should not be banned simply because such testing can ensure products safety for women.
6. Source:
MacLeod, D. (2005). Scientists back animal testing. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/aug/24/highereducation.uk1
Summary:
In the article, 500 leading UK scientists and doctors have signed a declaration pledging their support favoring animal tests in scientific researches and experiments. Then, the author further concludes that scientists support animal testing and it is also ethical to do so.
Evaluation:
The article certainly has biases in the source of data. First, the data cannot represent a larger group. Only 500 scientists, researchers and doctors are supporting animal testing. The data itself are lacking generalizabaility. In addition, it does not have a reference group to compare. Only scientists in the U.K sign the declaration. It is more advisable for the author to enhance the quality, validity and reliability of the data from a larger sample size, compare with another group of scientists in other countries and collected data by conducting longitudinal and cross-sectional studies.
7. Source:
Jha, A. & Lewis, P. (2006). Scientist backs animal testing for cosmetics. The Guardian. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/mar/04/businessofresearch.research
Summary:
In the article, among all the invited survey respondents from National Association for Biomedical research American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology, over 60% supports the use of animal testing in the cosmetic product development. The two authors further conclude that scientists are in favor of animal testing in cosmetic product development.
Evaluation:
The article involves the selection biases in the data source. It is true to a certain extent that scientists and researchers’ opinions, attitudes and perceptions are relevant in justifying the use of animal test. But it should also be noticed that scientists may be sponsored in doing experiments especially in the process of developing cosmetic products. As such, the surveyed results collected from the cosmetic product researchers and scientists may be thus biased. In other words, they may support animal testing simply because they receive money from cosmetic companies who favor animal testing.
8. Source:
Understanding Animal Research (2020). Forty reasons why we need animals in research. Accessed on March 19, 2020.[Online]:http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/contact-us/science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/
Summary:
The editor of the article lists statistics to verify the use of animals in scientific and medical researches. One fact is that human beings share about 95% of genes with a mouse. Therefore, the editor concludes that animals and human beings are biologically similar. He (she) further infers that the organs of animals will more or less perform the same way as human beings.
Evaluation:
The author is apparent making a healthy user bias. First, even though 95% of human’s genetic materials are similar to a mouse, it cannot make a conclusion that human beings’ organs are similar with animals. Further, the conclusion that “more or less” the organs of human beings and animals are performing in the similar way is also illogical. The correlation cannot be used to represent or explain a causation. A mouse and human beings may have similar genes but it does not mean that it is ethical to perform animal testing or infer that human beings’ organ also perform similarly to a mouse.
9. Source:
Speaking of Research (2016). USDA publishes 2016 animal research statistics – 7% rise in animal use. Accessed on March 19, 2020. [Online]: https://speakingofresearch.com/2017/06/19/usda-publishes-2016-animal-research-statistics-7-rise-in-animal-use/
Summary:
In the article, the author points out that 97% of research in the UK is done on mice, rats, fish and birds in 2016, so it suggests that animal test is an essential in medical and science researches.
Evaluation:
The author has clearly made a healthy user bias. On one hand, he observes that 97% of tests are conducted on animals. It certainly shows that animals are widely used in the experiments and researches in the U.K. But the result cannot be linked to the conclusion that animal tests are essential because there are many available alternatives to animals. The correlation cannot be used to explain the causation.
All in all, it is difficult to make a tangible conclusion about whether animal tests should be permanently or selectively banned. Conclusions should be made upon reliable, just and generalizable data sources. As compared with academic scholarly articles, media articles are often discovered to have biases in the way of deriving conclusions based on secondary data or survey results. Selection biases, healthier biases and other source of data biases can be easily discovered in presenting ideas either favoring or against banning animal test. In order to make the source of data more reliable, it is advisable for writers and researchers to analyze a larger sample size, it will effectively enhance the overall generalizability of the data source. It is not enough just to increase the sample size. Besides, writers and researchers should also compare the data with a reference group. For instance, authors cannot make the conclusion that animal tests are good just because 97% of scientists from the U.K support them. Opinions and perceptions should also elicited from other countries. Last, in order to make the source of data just and reliable, longitudinal or cross-sectional studies can be viable options. In other words, researchers should try to follow people overtime, let say, within a period of five years or above, or measuring responses from one group of participants at one point of time but repeating the same experiment in other groups.