下载文档原格式
动物试验的争议雅思口语范文Should experiments be conducted on animals for the benefit of human beings?Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. This essay will examine arguments for and against animal testing.Those against the use of animal testing claim that itis inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree pletely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugson children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live pared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However,we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this pla eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research.。
Advantages of Animal Testing in Medical Research Medical research involving animals has dramatically improved the health of the human race. Without animal testing，the cure for polio would not exist and diabetics would suffer or die from their disease. Despite these benefits， some people believe that animals should be not be used for testing medical techniques and drugs. This essay will outline the advantages of animal testing. Animal testing allows scientists to test and create new drugs. Animals such as monkeys or rabbits have similar physical processes to humans. This allows scientists to test the effects of certain drugs. If a drug produces adverse effects in animals it is probably unfit for human use. Animal testing is cheap. There is a large supply of animals for medical research. Animals are easily bred， and maintained safely in controlled labs. The costs of testing in humans would be extremely high. Many people argue that animal testing is cruel. In some cases this is true. However it would be much more cruel to test new drugs on people or children， or to let people die because there was not enough information about a drug. Furthermore， legislation in most countries sets standards for animal treatment， and laboratories have guidelines to prevent cruelty. Opponents of animal research also say that information from animals does not apply to humans. They point to certain commercial drugs which have been withdrawn because of side-effects in humans While it is true that animal systems differ from human systems， there are enough similarities to apply information from animals to humans. Animal rights campaigners claim that we don't need new tests because we already have vast amounts of information. However， many new deadly infections appear every year and new treatments and drugs are needed to combat these deadly plagues. Animal testing is needed in the world we live in. Our responsibility is to manage the animals in our care and balance their suffering against the good that comes from them. 321 words。
雅思考官级9分范文：动物实验利弊雅思考官级9分范文：动物实验利弊题目是Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines andto test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experimentsshould be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, whileothers are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.Discuss bothviews and give your own opinion.范文：It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested onanimals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards theviewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support alimited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animalexperimentation. T o use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice maybe given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured.Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals tothis kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures shouldbe respected.They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused,and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may notalways be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical researchbelieve that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can bejustified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such researchmight feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medicaltreatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation.Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products,but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medicalprocedures are concerned.In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing onanimals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives havebeen developed.。
雅思写作模板雅思写作高频词汇动物类动物测试animal testing今天我们雅思写作的相关文章来研究下动物类话题下是否应该进行动物测试的问题。
跟之前一样，小编会给出题目，相应的雅思写作高分词汇，以及大致的汉语思路。
题目Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.Discuss both views and give your own opinion.现在，动物实验被广泛应用于开发新药品以及测试其他产品的安全性。
一些人认为这些实验应该被禁止，因为给动物造成痛苦是不道德的。
然后另一些人同意动物实验，因为它们对人类有意。
讨论双方观点并给出你的意见。
雅思写作高分词汇-动物类-动物测试animal testingmedicine 医药are routinely tested on animals 常规的在动物身上做测试morally wrong 道德上错误的a limited amount of 有效数量的the development of medicines 药品的开发ethical arguments 道德理由laboratory mice 实验室的小白鼠effectiveness of a new drug 新药品的有效性opponents of such research 这类研究的反对者lives of all creatures should be respected 所有生物的生命都应该被尊重justify the suffering 使痛苦合理化alternative methods 替代方式medical treatment 医疗治疗方式non-medical products 非医药产品necessary evil 必要的恶equally effective alternatives 同样有效的替代方案雅思写作思路-动物类-动物测试animal testing开头段1. 事实如此，药品和其他产品在给人类使用之前，会常规的在动物身上进行实验。
雅思写作动物实验类话题论点雅思考生遇到这类题目常常不知所措，由于我们平时的生活关注点不同，多数同学都不会关心这类话题。
考场上遇到动物实验也表示没有话说不知道从何种角度论证。
下面一起和雅思小编看看，这个题目该如何解析。
Arguments for Animal testing 动物实验的论点Animals are used in important scientific research It.Is necessary to do medical tests on new drugs.动物是重要的科研试验品。
(有一些实验)必须使用动物作为新药的试验品。
Animal testing helps to advance medical and scientific knowledge.Many important medical discoveries involved experimentation on animals.动物实验帮助我们提高医疗与科学水平。
很多重要的医疗发现都涉及了动物实验。
Researchers aim to minimize the suffering that animals experience.研究人员尽量会减轻动物在动物实验中所遭受的痛苦Testing for the cosmetics industry is now banned in many countries在很多国家，化妆品动物实验已经被禁止了Arguments against Animal Testing 反动物实验的论点The benefits of research using animals do not justify the suffering caused.用动物做实验的优点并不能替代(它们的)痛苦。
There are alternative methods of research.替代的研究方法。
Animal Testing: A Controversial PracticeAnimal testing, also known as animal experimentation, remains a controversial practice that has sparked debates for decades. On one hand, proponents argue that animal testing is essential for scientific and medical advancements, as it helps in developing new treatments, vaccines, and understanding complex biological processes. On the other hand, opponents emphasize the ethical concerns surrounding the use of animals in research, citing animal welfare and the questionable reliability of extrapolating results to humans.Advocates of animal testing point to numerous medical breakthroughs that have been made possible through experiments on animals. Drugs, vaccines, and treatments for various diseases and conditions have been developed using data obtained from animal studies. For example, the development of insulin for diabetes and certain cancer treatments would not have been possible without animal testing. Proponents argue that the benefits to human health and well-being outweigh the ethical considerations.However, opponents of animal testing raise valid ethical concerns regarding the treatment of animals in research settings. Many argue that subjecting animals to potentially painful and harmful experiments is cruel and inhumane, as animals may experience suffering and distress during testing procedures. Additionally, there are questions about the relevance of animal studies to humans, as physiological and genetic differences between species may limit the applicability of results to human populations.Furthermore, advancements in alternative methods, such as in vitro testing, computer simulations, and human cell-based models, have raised questions about the necessity of animal testing in modern research. These alternative methods offer opportunities to reduce the reliance on animal models while potentially providing more accurate and human-relevant results.In conclusion, the practice of animal testing remains a complex and contentious issue that requires careful consideration of both scientific and ethical aspects. While animal testing has contributed to important discoveries in science and medicine, the ethical implications and advancements in alternative methods raise questions about the continued necessity of this practice. Moving forward, a balance between scientific progress and ethical responsibility must be struck to ensure the well-being of animals and the advancement of human knowledge and health.。
动物实验英文作文Animal testing is a controversial topic that has sparked heated debates among people. Many argue that it is necessary for scientific research and medical advancement, while others believe it is unethical and cruel to animals.I can understand the need for animal testing in some cases, especially when it comes to developing new medicines and treatments for diseases. Without testing on animals, it would be difficult to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these products before they are used on humans.However, the way animals are often treated in these experiments is definitely questionable. Many animals suffer from pain, distress, and even death as a result of these tests. It's hard to justify causing harm to innocent creatures in the name of scientific progress.There are also concerns about the reliability of animal testing. Some argue that the results from animalexperiments may not always be applicable to humans, leading to potential risks and inefficiencies in medical treatments.On the other hand, there are alternative methods to animal testing that can be explored. For example, using human cells and tissues in lab-grown models, or computer simulations, can provide valuable data without harming animals.Ultimately, I believe that there needs to be a balance between the need for scientific research and the ethical treatment of animals. It's important to continue exploring alternative methods and to ensure that animals used in testing are treated with the utmost care and respect.。
动物试验英文作文英文：Animal testing is a highly controversial topic intoday's society. On one hand, it is argued that animal testing is necessary for medical research and the development of new drugs. On the other hand, many people believe that it is cruel and inhumane to subject animals to such testing.Personally, I believe that animal testing should be minimized as much as possible. While I understand the need for medical research and the development of new drugs, Ialso believe that there are alternative methods that can be used. For example, computer modeling and in vitro testing can provide valuable data without harming animals.Furthermore, we need to consider the ethicalimplications of animal testing. Animals are livingcreatures and should be treated with respect and compassion.It is not fair to subject them to pain and suffering for our own benefit.In addition, it is important to note that animaltesting is not always reliable. Animals are not the same as humans and the results of animal testing may not always be applicable to humans. This can lead to misleading results and potentially dangerous drugs being released onto the market.Overall, I believe that we need to find a balance between medical research and animal welfare. We should strive to minimize animal testing as much as possible and explore alternative methods. We should also ensure that animals used in testing are treated with respect and compassion.中文：动物试验是当今社会一个极具争议的话题。
如何看待动物实验英文作文英文：Animal testing is a controversial topic that has been debated for decades. Some people argue that it is necessary for scientific research and medical advancements, while others believe it is cruel and inhumane. Personally, I believe that animal testing should be minimized as much as possible and alternative methods should be explored.One reason for my stance is that animals are living beings and should not be subjected to unnecessary harm and suffering. It is unethical to use animals for testing cosmetic products or other non-essential items. However, I understand that some medical research requires animal testing in order to develop treatments and cures for diseases. In these cases, I believe that strict regulations and guidelines should be put in place to ensure that animals are treated as humanely as possible.Another reason for my stance is that there are alternative methods that can be used instead of animal testing. For example, computer models and in vitro testing can be used to simulate the effects of drugs and chemicals on human cells. These methods are more cost-effective and do not involve the use of animals. In addition, they can provide more accurate results as they are based on human biology rather than animal biology.In conclusion, while I understand that animal testing has been used for many years and has contributed to important medical advancements, I believe that it should be minimized as much as possible. Animals should not be subjected to unnecessary harm and suffering, andalternative methods should be explored.中文：动物实验是一个备受争议的话题，已经争论了几十年。
动物实验做雅思作文Animal testing, a topic surrounded by controversies, has been a part of medical and scientific research for centuries. It involves the use of animals to test new drugs, medical procedures, and chemicals, with the goal of improving human health and diseases.Despite the progress it has led to in the fields of medicine and science, animal testing is often criticized for its ethical concerns and the potential harm it causes to animals. Animal rights activists argue that animals have the right to live free from unnecessary suffering and Experimentation. They claim that alternative methods, such as computer simulations and cell cultures, could be used instead, which would cause less harm to animals.However, many scientists and researchers argue that animal testing is necessary and crucial for the advancement of medical knowledge. They believe that without animal testing, medical progress would be severely hindered, and many life-saving treatments and vaccines would not be possible. They also argue thatanimal models are essential for understanding the human body and diseases, and that replacing them with alternatives would not be as effective.In recent years, there has been a growing movement towards reducing the number of animals used in testing and finding alternatives to replace them. Many countries have implemented strict regulations and guidelines for animal testing, requiring researchers to minimize animal suffering and find alternatives when possible.In conclusion, animal testing is a complex and controversial issue. While it has contributed significantly to medical and scientific advancements, it also raises ethical concerns and questions about the treatment of animals. It is important to continue searching for alternatives and improving the ethical standards of animal testing to minimize the harm it causes.中文翻译:动物实验，一个充满争议的话题，已经成为医学和科学研究几个世纪的组成部分。
雅思写作高分范文赏析：Animal TestingAnimal TestingPlease Read This Warning Before You Use This Essay for Anything (It MightSave Your Life) Animal Testing Using animals for testing is wrong and should bebanned. They have rights just as we do. Twenty-four hours a day humans are usingdefenseless animals for cruel and most often useless tests. The animals have noway of fighting back. This is why there should be new laws to protect them.These legislations also need to be enforced more regularly. Too many criminalsget away with murder. Although most labs are run by private companies, oftenexperiments are conducted by public organizations. The US government, Army andAir force in particular, has designed and carried out many animal experiments.The purposed experiments were engineered so that many animals would suffer anddie without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a singlelife, or benefit humans in anyway at all; but the same can be said for tens ofthousands of other experiments performed in the US each year. Limiting it tojust experiments done on beagles, the following might sock most people： Forinstance, at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, experimentersforced sixty-four beagles to inhale radioactive Strontium 90as part of a larger^Fission Product Inhalation Program^ which began in 1961 and has been paid forby the US Atomic Energy Commission. In this experimentTwenty-five of the dogseventually died. One of the deaths occurred during anepileptic seizure; anotherfrom a brain hemorrhage. Other dogs, before death, became feverish and anemic,lost their appetites, and had hemorrhages. The experimentersin their publishedreport, compared their results with that of other experiments conducted at theUniversity of Utah and the Argonne National Laboratory in which beagles wereinjected with Strontium 90. They concluded that the dose needed to produce^early death^ in fifty percent of the sample group differed from test to testbecause the dogs injected with Strontium 90 retain more of the radioactivesubstance than dogs forced to inhale it. Also, at the University of RochesterSchool Of Medicine a group of experimenters put fifty beagles in wooden boxesand irradiated them with different levels of radiation by x-rays. Twenty-one ofthe dogs died within the first two weeks. The experimenters determined the doseat which fifty percent of the animals will die with ninety-five percentconfidence. The irritated dogs vomited, had diarrhea, andlost their appetites.Later, they hemorrhaged from the mouth, nose, and eyes. In their report, theexperimenters compared their experiment to others of the same nature that eachused around seven hundred dogs. The experimenters said that the injuriesproduced in their own experiment were ^Typical of those described for the dog^(Singer 30). Similarly, experimenters for the US Food and Drug Administrationgave thirty beagles and thirty pigs large amounts of Methoxychlor (a pesticide)in their food, seven days a week for six months, ^In order to insure tissuedamage^ (30). Within eight weeks, eleven dogs exhibited signs of ^abnormalbehavior^ including nervousness, salivation, muscle spasms, and convolutions.Dogs in convultions breathed as rapidly as two hundred times a minute beforethey passed out from lack of oxygen. Upon recovery from an episode ofconvulsions and collapse, the dogs were uncoordinated, apparently blind, and anystimulus such as dropping a feeding pan, squirting water, or touching theanimals initiated another convulsion. After further experimentation on anadditional twenty beagles, the experimenters concluded that massive daily dosesof Methoxychlor produce different effects in dogs from those produced in pigs.These three examples should be enough to show that the Air force beagleexperiments were in no way exceptional. Note that all of these experiments,according to the experimenters^ own reports, obviously caused the animals tosuffer considerably before dying. No steps were taken to prevent this suffering,even when it was clear that the radiation or poison had made the animalsextremely sick. Also, these experiments are parts of series of similarexperiments, repeated with only minor variations, that are being carried out allover the country. These experiments Do Not save human lives or improve them inany way. It was already known that Strontium 90 is unhealthy before the beaglesdied; and the experimenters who poisoned dogs and pigs with Methoxychlor knewbeforehand that the large amounts they were feeding the animals (amounts nohuman could ever consume) would cause damage. In any case, as the differingresults they obtained on pigs and dogs make it clear, it isnot possible toreach any firm conclusion about the effects of a substance on humans from testson other species. The practice of experimenting on non-human animals as itexists today throughout the world reveals the brutal consequences of speciesism(Singer 29). In this country everyone is supposed to be equal, but apparentlysome people just don^t have to obey the law. That is, in New York and some otherstates, licensed laboratories are immune from ordinary anticruelty laws, andthese places are often owned by state universities, city hospitals, or even TheUnited States Public Health Service. It seems suspicious that some governmentrun facilities could be ^immune^ from their own laws (Morse 19). In relation,^No law requires that cosmetics or household products betested on animals.Nevertheless, by six^o clock this evening, hundreds of animals will have theireyes, skin, or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed. Manyanimals will suffer and die this year to produce ^new^ versions of deodorant,hair spray, lipstick, nail polish, and lots of otherproducts^ (Sequoia 27).Some of the largest cosmetics companies use animals to test their products.These are just a couple of the horrifying tests they use, namely, the DrazieTest. The Drazie test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits. Theyare preferred because they are docile, cheap, and their eyes do not shed tears(so chemicals placed in them do not wash out). They are also the test subject ofchoice because their eyes are clear, making it easier to observe destruction ofeye tissue; their corneal membranes are extremely susceptible to injury. Duringeach test the rabbits are immobilized (usually in a ^stock^, with only theirheads protruding) and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye ofeach rabbit. These substances can range from mascara to aftershave to ovencleaner. The rabbits^ eyes remain clipped open. Anesthesia is almost neveradministered. After that, the rabbits are examined at intervals of one,twenty-four, forty-eight, seventy-two, and one hundred an sixty-eight hours.Reactions, which may range from severe inflammation, to clouding of the cornea,to ulceration and rupture of the eyeball, are recorded by technicians. Somestudies continue for a period of weeks. No other attempt is made to treat therabbits or to seek any antidotes. The rabbits who survive the Drazie test maythen be used as subjects for skin-inflammation tests (27). Another widely usedprocedure is the LD-50. This is the abbreviation of the Lethal Dose 50 test.LD-50 is the lethal dose of something that will kill fifty percent of allanimals in a group of forty to two hundred. Most commonly, animals areforce-feed substances (which may be toothpaste, shaving cream, drain cleaner,pesticides, or anything else they want to test) through a stomach tube andobserved for two weeks or until death. Non-oral methods of administering thetest include injection, forced inhalation, or application to animals skin.Symptoms routinely include tremors, convultions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis,or bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth. Animals that survive are destroyed (29).Additionally, when one laboratory^s research on animals establishes somethingsignificant, scores of other labs repeat the experiment, and more thousands ofanimals are needlessly tortured and killed (Morse 8). Fewlabs buy their animaltest subjects from legitimate pet stores and the majority use illegal petdealers. There are many stolen animal dealers that house the animals before,during , and after testing. These ^farms^ most frequently hold animals betweentests while the animals recuperate, before facing another research ordeal. Theseso called farms in question are mainly old barn-like buildings used as hospitalsand convalescent (recovery) wards are filthy, overcrowded pens. At one farm inparticular dogs with open chest wounds and badly infected incisions, so weakthat many could not stand, were the order of the day. These dogs were^recuperating^ from open-heart and kidney surgery. Secondly, a litter oftwo-day-old pups were found in a basket, with no food provisions in sight (Morse19). In every pen there were dogs suffering from highly contagious diseases. Ananimal^s road to a lab is seldom a direct one. Whether he^s stolen picked up asa stray, or purchased, there^s a de tour first to the animal dealer^s farm;There he waits- never under satisfactory conditions- until his ride, and oftenlife, comes to an end at the laboratory (23). Every day of the year, hundreds ofthousands of fully conscious animals are scalded, or beaten, or crushed todeath, and more are subjected to exotic surgery and then allowed to die slowlyand in agony. There is no reason for this suffering to continue (Morse 8). Inconclusion, animal testing is inhumane and no animal should be forced to enduresuch torture. Waste in government is one thing; it seems to be an acceptedliability of democracy. But the wasting of lives is something else. How did itever get this way?BibliographyFox, Michael Allen. The Case For Animal Experimentation. Los Angeles：University Of California Press, 1986. Jasper, James M. and Dorothy Nelkin, eds.The Animal Rights Crusade. New York： Macmillion Inc., 1992, 103-56. Morse, Mel.Ordeal Of The Animals. Englewood Cliffs： Prentice-Hall International, 1968.Sequoia, Anna. 67 Ways To Save The Animals. New York： Harper Collins, 1990.Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York： Random House, 1975. OUTLINE I.Introduction II. Supporting evidence on testing A. Experiments funded by USgovernment 1. Strontium 90 2. Irradiation by X-rays 3. Methoxychlor B.Background on laws in US C. Examples of tests 1. The Drazie Test 2. The LD-50Test D. What the animals go through 1. Trip to the laboratory 2. Their stay atthe lab 3. After the tests are done III. Conclusion。
