Term Paper Outline Template S21 (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
160D
Subject
Medicine
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by PrivateStar7310
TERM PAPER outline template
Title Page
Medical Research on Animals
Josh Jacobs
Course/section (e.g. ACBS 160D section 1 @ 10am )
Jenna Fenwick
10/5/2021
NOTE:
-
Use this template to develop you Outline. After you received feedback, you will continue to use your Outline to write your Term Paper
-
Outline has no page length requirement / Term Paper should be 6-10 pages (excluding title page and references). This page is not included in the auto page numbering.
-
Outline format should follow the bullet format provided below / Term Paper should follow this outline organization with the same 5 section headers and must use 12pt font, 1-inch margins and double spaced lines.
-
Plagiarism or use of direct quotes is not allowed for this project. To prevent any accidental plagiarism or copying of any text, you must take 2 short tutorials on plagiarism and paraphrasing (each worth 9 pts) before you begin your Outline. These are found in D2L
🡪
Content
🡪
Term Paper:
▪
T1. Plagiarism tutorial
▪
T2. Paraphrasing tutorial
1
Introduction (This frames the issue sufficiently so the reader knows what this paper is about)
●
Introductory sentence/attention grabber (provide a shocking statistic, rhetorical question or other device to get the attention of the reader)
●
Short summary of topic (background information)
A.
Medical research on animals B.
If it is morally correct to do research and tests on animals. And do the pro’s of testing outweigh any negatives there is
. C.
What are the PRO and CON positions? Pros would be that it helps us create new cures for diseases because we can make sure it is safe before we begin testing on humans. Also, it is very beneficial in general medical research. Cons would be it is cruel and inhumane to subject animals to that kind of treatment. and alternative testing methods now exist and are much more morally acceptable. D.
What are the 2 different perspectives you will take on the PRO position? In other words, who are the proponents of the PRO position that you will explore?
The two positions I will be looking at for pro are medical researchers and vaccine/medical companies. Medical researchers would believe that it is necessary to continue testing on animals because it is the most accurate way to test without using actual humans. Vaccine/medical companies would not want to stop because testing on animals is much quicker, easier, and safer than testing effects on humans. E.
What are the 2 different perspectives you will take on the CON position? In other words who are the proponents of the CON position that you will explore?
The two con perspectives will be animal rights activists and ethicists. Animal
rights activists believe every animal has a right to its own body. Forcing the animal to be subjected to test is seen as cruel. Ethicists would question the morality on animal testing and what we subject them to. ●
Thesis statement (Example you may use: The purpose of this paper is to present opposing positions on the topic of (put your selected topic here
), considering a variety of perspectives, and concluding with a position on (your topic) that seems most justifiable
.)
The purpose of this paper is to present opposing positions on whether animal testing
is justifiable or not, considering a variety of perspectives, and concluding with a position on the lab testing of animals that seems most justifiable.
II.
PRO Position: Perspectives/Proponents in Favor
●
Perspective/proponent #1 A.
Introduce and explain perspective thoroughly- What kind of a person is a proponent of this perspective (e.g., medical researcher)?
This would be talking about how important animal testing is for research for
diseases and making sure humans live the healthiest life possible. All of the tests are done in the most human way possible and are for research purposes only. B.
Supporting evidence ●
Describe the source that supports this perspective (peer-reviewed source is best)
Peer-reviewed Source ●
Paraphrase the source’s ideas (no direct quotes, no plagiarism) followed by an in-text citation. Examples of in-text citations: 2
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
●
The source provides evidence that supports why animal testing is beneficial in medical research. It focuses on how we need animals for the lengthy testing process. It comments on how crucial animals are to create a good hypothesis and get the all clear to move on to clinical studys.
●
It is much more unethical to test unknown chemicals on humans (
Garattini, 2016)
●
Because of the limited amount of alternatives, animal testing remains the best course. (Garattini 2016)
●
A recent report showed that 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year (Doolittle, 2015)
●
According to Dr. Doolittle (2015) 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year.
●
Explanation or analysis of evidence and how it relates to this perspective C.
Summarize perspective #1 argument/evidence
Scientits believe animal testing remains the best method for testing/fidning new treatments for humans. Although some may oppose the idea and see it as cruel. A lot more people benefit from the research than are negatively affected by it. ●
Perspective/proponent #2 A. Introduce and explain perspective thoroughly What kind of a person is a proponent of this perspective (e.g., medical researcher)? This is through the perspective of vaccine creators. When creating a vaccine you
need to be able to test it quickly and make sure it is accurate. Testing through animals is the quickest and safest way to do so. Clinical trials with humans would take too long and it would be hard to find enough participants. Animal testing provides as many test subjects as you need to get an idea of what works and what does not. B. Supporting evidence ●
Describe the source that supports this perspective (peer-reviewed source is best)
The source is an article from https://mrc.ukri.org/
a medical resource council ●
Paraphrase the source’s ideas (no direct quotes, no plagiarism) followed by an in-text citation
Animals were used in a multitude of ways to find a treatment for covid 19. It proved to be an essential step in creating the vaccine so fast. ●
Through testing, scientists were able to cultivate covid 19 antibodies through the test animals (“Impact Research in the Covid 19 Response” n.d.)
●
. Examples of in-text citations: ●
A recent report showed that 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year (Doolittle, 2015)
●
According to Dr. Doolittle (2015) 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year.
●
Explanation or analysis of evidence and how it relates to this perspective The evidence provides information on one application of animal testing
that bennifited creating cures/treatments. 3
C. Summarize perspective #2 argument/evidence
●
Concluding statement summarizing PRO Position and the 2 perspectives
There is a reason we have continued to use animals in medical testing. They allow us to create safer human clinical trials and have proved to be an essential part of the drug/vaccine creation proccess. NOTE
: At least 1 peer-reviewed source must be used in the PRO supporting evidence.
III.
CON Position: Proponents /Perspectives Against
●
Perspective/proponent #1 A. Introduce and explain perspective thoroughly
This part would explain why some believe animal testing is unethical and cruel. Along with alternatives that are seen by many as better or just as effective as the classical testing done to animals. B. Supporting evidence ●
Describe the source that supports this perspective (peer-reviewed source is best)
The source is a peer reviewed opinion article about the testing on animals still being a europe wide issue. ●
Paraphrase the source’s ideas (no direct quotes, no plagiarism) followed by an in-text citation. Examples of in-text citations: The idea is that there are more alternative and humane methods being created to replace animal testing. and the fact that most of europe is still doing so is troubling and needs to end.
●
Cell based assay has been approved to replace mice bioassy in testing (Taylor et all. ●
Explanation or analysis of evidence and how it relates to this perspective
C. Summarize perspective #1 argument/evidence
The use of animals in testing is unethical, cruel, and provides no greater benefit than other alternatives. The evidence goes into detail about a trial with mice where the drug horrificaly killed the mice and made them suffer. Also goes into detail about alternativs for animal testing and how it is being pushed for
use. ●
Perspective/proponent #2 A. Introduce and explain perspective thoroughly
The biggest critique of animal experimentation/testing is its morality and ethics. It is immoral to subject such harm on any type on animal or being. Animal testing needs to stop because of it does not follow good morals. B. Supporting evidence ●
Describe the source that supports this perspective (peer-reviewed source is best)
Peer reviewed article about the ethical dilema of using animals for testing. ●
Paraphrase the source’s ideas (no direct quotes, no plagiarism) followed by an in-text citation. Examples of in-text citations: ●
A recent report showed that 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year (Doolittle, 2015)
●
According to Dr. Doolittle (2015) 300 mice suffered tail injuries in one year.
4
●
Explanation or analysis of evidence and how it relates to this perspective
Describes the ethical dilema behind expirmentation using animals. Speaks about the harm- benefit analysis and how you can use it to question its morality. ●
Do we differentiate between what experiments we use animals for and does that make it more or less morally acceptable?
C. Summarize perspective #2 argument/evidence
Testing on animals is immoral and unethical because the harm-benefit analysis gives no clear answer. We should not be the ones to hurt animals for our own sake. Its is
unethical to be able to make those decisions. ●
Concluding statement summarizing CON Position and the 2 perspectives
There are a wide variety of new alternatives to animal testing being created and used right now. Ther is no excuse to continue the use of animals when the ethics of the situation are so complicated and provide no clear answer. NOTE
: At least 1 peer-reviewed source must be used in the CON supporting evidence.
IV.
Conclusion ●
In this section, you use your critical evaluation skills—
●
Restate your thesis statement to remind the reader the purpose of your paper
●
Compare and contrast the major arguments on both the PRO and CON side of the issue
●
Discuss which position is more persuasive and why. Give your best argument, not your feelings. How would a lawyer make a closing argument?
●
Concluding sentence justifying which position (or combination of the positions) is supported best
Whether or weather not animals should be used for testing is heavily debated. While it is seen by many as unethical and cruel. Others like medical researchers, see it a different way. They see it as a cruical step when trying to create medicine and save lives. It comes down to what you value. No sane person wants to see rabbits and rodents be killed. But, they would rather see that then a human die. Animal testing saves countless more lives than it takes. The fact of the matter is, that no matter what
your stance is on it ethically. It is a crucial tool needed to continue to advance in medicine to cure dissabilitys and diseases. V.
References Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the PRO position:
●
Bailey, J., & Balls, M. (2019). Recent efforts to elucidate the scientific validity of animal-
based drug tests by the pharmaceutical industry, pro-testing lobby groups, and animal welfare organisations. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 16-7.
Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the PRO position:
●
Garattini, S., & Grignaschi, G. (2016). Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 39, 32-35.
▪
Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the CON position:
●
Grimm, H. (2015). Turning apples into oranges? The harm-benefit analysis and how to take ethical considerations into account. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals,
43
(2), P22-P24.
5
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
●
Impact of animal research in the COVID-19 response - Research - Medical Research Council. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://mrc.ukri.org/research/research-involving-animals/impact-of-
animal-research-in-the-covid-19-response/
▪
Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the CON position:
●
Taylor, K., Gericke, C., & Alvarez, L. (2019). Botulinum toxin testing on animals is still a Europe-wide issue. ALTEX, Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 36(1), 81-90.
●
Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the PRO position:
●
List at least 1 peer-reviewed source for CON
and show it in bold
with this note above it-
▪
Note: This peer-reviewed source was used for the CON position:
6