Animal Testing Is Bad Science By Noah Berlatsky

Polarization is the division of one large group into two contrasting groups with different sets of opinions or beliefs. Polarization can be a result of income inequality, economic fluctuations, and different social groups. For my research topic I chose animal testing because it has been a highly debatable topic for decades. After the articles I have read and the topic I chose, polarization is a result of a group of people who tend to associate with like minded people and stray from others with separate opinions. Most of the time these groups separate into these groups because they have similar viewpoints. Most people argue whether or not animal testing is important for future medical advances like the cause of cancer. Many people in my family

The downside to this tactic is he is completely ignoring the other side of the argument. He gives multiple examples on why animal testing is dangerous for both humans and animals. He refutes the idea that if we didn't test on animals that we would have to test on humans by stating, “No matter how many animal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on” (Berlatsky). He wanted to include this because no solution to an illness can automatically work on humans. He wanted to show that no matter if there were animals to test one, there would always be some sort of testing on a human as well. He also includes in this article that animal tests are unreliable and can be more risky for humans because so many side effects are different between animal and human trials. Towards the end of his article he describes how animals are especially harmful to animals and if there is no physical harm. He wrote, “animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress” (Berlatsky). The results of the distressed animals are inaccurate and can cause more harm to both humans and animals all while not helping further medical

He explained this when describing how animals and humans are biologically different and included examples of times when trials have been unsuccessful, dangerous and even fatal for humans. The author wrote, “Nonhuman animals don’t contract many human diseases such as HIV, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, and certain types of cancer“ (Otto). This means that when scientists test new treatments on animals it is unlikely to show the same results as it would on humans. At that point the animal testing process is pointless if it’s still dangerous for humans. In this article, Otto includes examples of people who have experienced when trials have been unsuccessful, dangerous and even fatal for humans. However when successful, animal testing can have many benefits for humans and animals. This author does not address the other side of the argument and has some biased statements which can lead to polarization in the United