［9月17日大陆区雅思作文真题］
Some people believe that the use of animals for experimentation purpose is cruel; others believe that it is necessary for the development of science. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
［高分关键词］
friends or foes 或敌或友 subject（vt） animals to experimentation拿动物去做实验unjustifiable站不住脚的,不合适的 necessitate 使……成为必需callous残酷的 confinement 囚禁 veterinary 动物医疗 vaccination 接种 vivisection 活体解剖 rodent 指老鼠那一类动物 primate 灵长类 pragmatic 灵活的追求实效的（pragmatism也是美国人最大的特征）pharmaceutical companies制药公司anthropological and genetic 人类学的和基因学的analgesic, anesthetic and tranquilizing drugs医学当中镇痛最常用的三种方法
［范文之一］
Animals were friends or foes of humanity at different times of the human history. In modern times, experiments upon animals have long been a breeding ground for spirited debate. Some animal activists argue that we should ban animal experiments altogether because subjecting animals to experimentation is unjustifiable on moral grounds. Yet some other people contend that the advancement of science necessitates animal testing. Personally, I believe both their views have merit and demerit.
Granted, empirical evidence suggests that many animal experiments are performed callously without any heed to the discomfort or pain that laboratory mammals endure. First and foremost, improper confinement of test animals such as locking them up in cramped cages or poor veterinary is inhumane .It can gravely disrupt natural biological functions of the test animal. Further, the effects of vaccination and vivisection conducted on live rodents, primates and other lab mammals can be gruesome and chilling. They may, in some cases, even constitute sheer torture of live animals.
However, from a more pragmatic perspective, evidence is mounting that animal experimentation is still largely a necessary evil and there is no practical alternative for it at this point. In the first place, it is manifest that drug experimentation on live mammals is far more effectual than experimentation on bacteria or on other lower species in testing drug safety. Drugs that have severe potential side effects on homo sapiens must be tested by pharmaceutical companies on live mammals first to ascertain their toxicity. In the second place, in space research, live animals are still the only viable alternative to humans in testing living creature reaction to outer-space experience on a flight not considered to be sufficiently safe for human astronauts. Lastly, lab research about the behavioral tendencies of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other members of the primate group is also necessary. It produces valuable outcomes consistently advancing anthropological and genetic studies.
To conclude, I concede that experiments upon animals may induce suffering to the test animals. However, I am convinced that there are no feasible alternatives to this methodology at the current stage of scientific development. On balance , I think that we should allow animals testing to be continued but at the same time use techniques such as analgesic, anesthetic and tranquilizing drugs to minimize the pain inflicted upon the test animal and augment the general welfare of these animals. （此范文作者：Patrick Shen）
［范文之二］
Animal testing has been applied as a normal procedure of scientific research for years. There are emerging criticisms arguing that the sufferings inflicted on laboratory animals are brutal. However, the progress of sciences would be seriously hampered if heavy regulations are imposed on animal research.
Many medications and procedures currently in use would not exist if animal testing was banned. Animal testing has assisted mankind in successfully developing vaccines and antibiotics. Life-saving techniques such as organ transplant also own thanks to animal research. Such development in science has cured people around the globe, saving millions of lives. However, what could we use to achieve comparable results without animal research? Our science is not so advanced that we could test a new drug on a flower or tomato before its clinical application. Of course, mankind could not sacrifice human lives for the purpose of research.
In comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings on animals, the advantages that animal testing has brought to humans are much greater. Human society is required to generate valuable consequences, even at the cost of inflicting pain to some animals whose lives may be worthy. Nevertheless, the value of their lives does not count as much as the value of human life because human beings have much higher capability and sensibility than animals.
However, it is also true that pain killers are not administered to animals in many cases of animal testing. Animals even as a lower form of life deserve to be treated with due humanity. So mankind has a moral obligation to decrease the sufferings of animals within their power.
In conclusion, animal testing is crucial as a procedure of science. Its elimination would severely hamper development of sciences. However mankind should also do their best to decrease the sufferings of laboratory animals.
