Who Are You Writing For?

            All of this time has been spent researching the topic to understand and develop it. However, sometimes you need to read non-scholarly sources, such as biased web articles, or watch videos on the topic. Now that you have a solid background of your topic after reading many scholarly sources without bias, you will not be easily swayed by biased and powerful advertising or websites.

            But why read through these sources? Can they even be used for your research paper?

            Many will probably not be useful for your paper. So why bother? Well, while researching scholarly sources is important, looking at biased videos by Novartis advertising animal research or skimming through PETA’s website helps me to get an idea of how my topic applies in the real world, and what I want to write about or include in my paper. It helps to see what people think and what I should keep in mind for my readers. This is important in understanding the readers’ various viewpoints. (To view the mentioned examples, click here for the Novartis video and here for PETA's website.)

(For the original source, click here.)

            In the video above, for example, many people are interviewed and asked about their opinions on animal research. While many have very different opinions as to whether or not animal experimentation should continue, many of them also agree that it is still very important in medical research. For example, one French woman says that she doesn’t much like the idea of animal experimentation, but agrees that it will slow down research if banned, unless they can find an alternative. Watching this video helps me to understand part of my audience and what points will be important to get across.

            So try watching a video on your topic, or skim through a biased source; it is just as important to understand your readers’ views and the modern aspect of your topic as it is to research it thoroughly through case studies and scientific journal articles.        

Helpful Critics

            Many sources that are peer-reviewed are considered scholarly sources. Researchers have their peers review their work before it can be published. Even if you are an expert at the top of your field, having your paper peer-reviewed by fellow researchers helps you in more than one way— both in getting your research published and making sure it is well-written and presented.

            Many of us don’t like it when we are criticized. We get defensive about our work or uncomfortable about our mistakes. However, constructive criticism is good for us. If we never let anyone criticize our work, we would never learn and be able to get better.

            So whenever you write a paper, see if you can’t find a peer to review it for you. They might catch something you didn’t see, or have you rewrite something to make it clearer for your audience to understand. It’s important to remember your audience. You may find that you understand what you wrote, but the reader would not understand without a simpler or clearer explanation. Remember, when writing a research paper, it’s not written for you; you know what you’re talking about. Your research is written for your audience, so that they can see the importance of your research.

            If research is the way to spread your knowledge and new ideas, then having it peer reviewed is the way to make sure your ideas are getting across to your readers correctly. Take advantage of constructive criticism; having an outsider’s perspective can be very helpful.

Pros and Cons: Putting Information into Perspective

Taking notes as you read is important in research. Arguing with your sources and writing reminders of pages to review on sticky notes are both excellent ways to better understand your sources and the different aspects of your topic. However, after a accumulating an abundance of sources, one way to begin to organize all of the information is making a pro and con chart.

In the previous two posts, I shared with you new information that I learned while researching my topic. The first talked about the importance of animals, specifically in the case of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) research, while the second discussed alternatives to using animals.

So, how would I organize this information into a pro and con chart, for example?

Pro

Con

·    There are regulations to follow when using animals as experimental models. ·    Animal testing allows researchers to understand how a drug will affect an organism as a whole. ·    There are no other tests that can replace animal testing when full-body testing is needed. ·    Animal testing gives us insight into certain diseases that are not fully understood or for which there is no cure. ·    Animals have played an important part in medical research.

·    Animal testing can be cruel and inhumane (especially when protocols are not followed). ·    There are many alternatives to test how a drug may affect different cells. ·    Animal testing is not always accurate because of the differences in structure compared to humans. ·    Animal testing is very expensive; other alternatives, such as in vitro testing, are much more cost-effective. ·    Alternatives have also furthered medical research.

Although you can jump back and forth between the two, it is not always the best method. The best way to organize is to begin by writing down all of the pros you know off of the top of your head, and then do the same for the cons. Then, you can go back into your sources and look for any other pros and cons you missed and add that as well.

In addition to the pro-con chart, I also take notes next to each bullet point or write down relevant and useful quotes from my sources to use later on. This is just one useful way to make research easier to interpret and use. Write down the sources you want to use for each side, too, so that it is easier to follow your notes.

For example, I would put the article “Animal Experimentation is Unscientific,” (from Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints) under Con, and write notes about it. This article specifically talks about how animal models are inadequate because they are different from us on a molecular and cellular level. It also states that they challenge the idea that animals have been responsible for major scientific breakthroughs.

I disagree, as although we may be different from animals, there is a lot of similarities that make animal models helpful in research. In addition, it is wrong to say that animals have not been responsible for major discoveries; they have played such a large role that many developments, such as the smallpox vaccine that was created by studying cowpox, would not have been possible without it. I would write all of this under Pro. In this way, my notes stay organized and I can find my arguments easily.

Alternatives: From Test Tubes to Computers

Are animal models necessary in all research, or are there alternative methods that are better suited to the situation at hand? First and foremost, one must discover what the alternatives to animal testing are. 

One is in vitro testing, which is testing drugs or a vaccine in test tubes using human cell and tissues cultures. Computerized models are also used, as well as stem cell and genetic testing methods. Non-invasive imaging techniques, like MRI, are another example. And a final one is micro dosing, which is when “humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system” (Neavs.org). (Click here to link to the source used for this post.)

These alternative tests all have their own benefits. Animal models may not always be the most accurate models for research, such as in drug testing. Many animals have a different response to medication than humans do. Not only were many drugs not passed because they did not pass animal testing, but there are some drugs that were successful in animals, but failed in clinical trials with humans.

In vitro testing is often used because it tests drugs on human cell and tissue cultures so that researchers can have a better idea of how the drug works on humans. Computerized models are also very accurate and can be used to predict the outcome of drug or vaccine testing. In addition to being more reliable, alternative tests are also more cost-efficient.

Because of this, many people feel that alternatives are a better option for testing. In "Alternatives to Animal Testing Should be Pursued," an article in the book Animal Experimentation, Pardue quotes Dr. Martin Stephens, who agrees that animal testing is "expensive, time consuming and often have dubious applicability to humans" (Pardue 79). Pardue additionally states in her article that there are alternatives, such as cell cultures, that are more accurate and should be used in place of animals.

I agree with some of the points that the article makes, especially where it states that as long as researchers use animals respectfully and try to replace them when needed. However, I am still skeptical about how it claims that animal experimentation can and should be completely replaced. (Remember, always be skeptical and question what you read!)

So are there any disadvantages to alternative testing methods? What are the pros and cons, and how do they compare with the advantages and disadvantages of animal models?

Animal Models in MS Research

Animals have played a large role in medical research, from cancer research to creating vaccinations. But how have they affected research specifically? And just how useful are they?

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is “a chronic immune-mediated demyelinating disease of the central nervous system” (Denic, 2). In simpler terms, it’s an inflammatory disease where the myelin sheath, which is the protective covering on the axons of nerve cells, degenerate, which causes cognitive and physical disability. Its true causes are unknown and it’s not yet well understood, so finding a cure is difficult.

Using animal models, mostly mice, researchers have been able to understand parts of the disease and its progression. Although MS is a human disease, other animal diseases are used as models. One is experimental autoimmune/allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), which models MS inflammation. Other models include viral models, such as Theiler’s murine encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV), or toxin-induced models. Each plays a part in modelling a condition similar to a certain aspect of MS. With the lack of biopsy or autopsy samples from humans, these models are invaluable in helping to better understand MS and creating “partially effective preventive treatment modalities… [that] are now available to modify the disease course” (Denic, 2). 

However, there is also the question of effectiveness. Because EAE and the other models are not true models of MS, sometimes treatments that are successful in animal EAE models are unsuccessful or harmful in MS. In addition, EAE and MS do have many differences, such as different immune cell types that are prevalent in the disease, that question whether or not it is useful.

Overall, animal models are important in understanding the progression and effects of MS, as well as developing possible treatments. However, possible treatments studied with these models should be interpreted carefully. In the case of MS research, animal models are one of the few ways we can understand MS. But are animal models necessary in other diseases where there are alternative methods?

Click here to link to the online journal article.

Finding Sources

            There’s something about starting the search for books and articles on your topic; it’s an exciting feeling. You almost forget how little you know and how much you’re learning as you start reading through many different sources.

            My trip to the library yielded me three very interesting books: Why Animal Experimentation Matters, Animal experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints, and Animal Experimentation, (whose citations are available in the Works Cited page here.)

            Just reading through some of these chapters has already given me ideas on how to approach or organize my research. It’s interesting to see how the arguments are built. For example, in Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints, Jack Botting and Adrian Morrison discuss in their article, "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine," how animal experimentation was crucial to many medical developments and refute some of the claims of animal-rights supporters.

          What I found most interesting was how they defended the use of animals. Many sulfanilamide drugs were tested on animals, and this was proved to be a good choice. Prontosil, one of the compounds, was found to have no effect on bacteria in vitro, but successful in combating infection in mice. From this other drugs were created to treat infections. (Botting, Morrison 81).

In Why Animal Experimentation Matters, part IX of the article "The Paradigm Shift Towards Animal Happiness" give a background of how important animal experimentation has been in medical research—from curing smallpox to finding a vaccine for rabies. The most interesting part is that these developments have helped both humans and animals. “Vaccines for distemper, parvovirus, rabies… [and] antibiotics—all these and much more have been developed using research animals” (Tannenbaum 124). Treatments for diseases, and even nutritional foods, have all bettered the lives of animals through animal experimentation.

“Animal Research Saves Lives” (from Animal Experimentation) reiterates the important role animal testing has played in history. Sabin describes how animal experimentation led to the polio vaccination. I agree with how she explains that those who believe animal experimentation should end are not looking at the big picture. “Every child who has… [had] the Sabin Vaccine knows polio only as a word… Thank heavens it’s not a part of their reality” (Sabin 11). This last quote shows just how important animals have been in research, and that by banning it, we are possibly shutting the door on possible future treatments.

This is just the beginning. As I continue to go through these articles, I hope to discover not just the good, but also the bad of animal experimentation. Despite past developments, is it still valuable today? What are some of the claims made by animal-rights supporters? Will they cut holes into the idea of the importance of animal testing, and how will they, in turn, be contradicted?