Animals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Touchstone 1.2 –Research Topic Selection, Question, Thesis, and Outline

Mindy L. Wheeler

Sophia Pathways

April 18, 2021

 

 

 

Research question: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?

Thesis statement: Animals just like human beings have rights that should be valued and respected by all people indiscriminatively. Any use of animals should not be abusive such that it would cause the animal permanent pain and harm.

Outline

1. Thesis introduction

Animals just like human beings have rights that should be valued and respected by all people indiscriminatively. Any use of animals should not be abusive such that it would cause the animal permanent pain and harm. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible to avoid using animals for research and cosmetic test as they help in giving real outcomes that would be used on human beings.

• Demonstration of the number of animals that have been used in researches and cosmetic tests positively and the results were remarkable
• Demonstration of cases where animals have been misused leading to intense pain and others death in a manner that results to waste since such animals products cannot be used.

2. Arguments in support of using animals professionally for research and cosmetic tests

• Medical research and cosmetic testing is done solely to promote and ensure that human safety is attained. The government and researchers has the right to protect patients and the people and it is for this reason that animals are used instead of trying the untested product direct on human. For instance some diseases like asthma and cystic fibrosis involve extremely complex physiological processes that can only be studied in a whole using a living animal thereby making animal use critical.
• The government has provided professional and ethical ways through which medical research and cosmetic testing are done without subjecting the animal to intense pain after realizing the important role that animals play (McLeod, & Hartley, 2018). For instance use of painkillers and anesthetics. Any violation of the set procedures and laws is considered and treated as a crime punishable under the law.
• With advanced technology, there are better ways that scientists and cosmetologists use technology to avoid harming the animal and this means the animal’s life is not compromised while the desired research or test is executed and findings determined.

3. Counter argument

• Animals just like humans have right that should be respected and the fact that medical research and cosmetic tests exposes animals to pain means that animal rights are being violated. This is not ignoring the fact that animals should roam freely and animals being used for research and cosmetic tests are caged.
• The model system of an animal is completely different from that of animals and hence the use of animals in research and cosmetic tests does not guarantee effective working of the product on humans. Clemence, & Leaman, (2016); claims that even some tested medicines and cosmetics reacts negatively while administered to the body due to the differences.
• In the case technology works effectively means that it should replace animal medical research and cosmetic testing (Doke, & Dhawale, (2015).

4. Conclusion

Animals have been used by scientists and cosmetologists but the issue has created a heated debate of whether it is right or wrong. Different ideas on support of the action have been raised as well as opposing views. One thing is that animals have a right and human need to be safe as well. hence, research and cosmetic tests on animals should be done professionally and ethically.

5. References

Clemence, M., & Leaman, J. (2016). Public attitudes to animal research in 2016. Ipsos Mori.

Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.

McLeod, C., & Hartley, S. (2018). Responsibility and laboratory animal research governance. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 723-741.

 

Pre-writing process reflection

In this argumentative essay, the main focus shall be creating a debate on animal rights when it comes to research and cosmetic tests. I am supporting the idea that animals should be used in research and cosmetic tests in a professional and ethical manner that does not cause them pain. As stated Clemence, & Leaman, (2016); the public has mixed reactions due to enormous benefits that have been realized with the use of animals in research and cosmetic tests but there have been some animal rights violation cases. I would focus on demonstrating how it is possible to overcome the challenges and increase the number of benefits since over the years, the practice has yielded positive results.

 

Touchstone 1.2 Rubric and Feedback Rubric Category  Feedback Score (acceptable, needs improvement etc.)   Research Question   Constructs a precise and focused research question relative to a current and debatable topic.   9/10 Advanced Working Thesis   Includes a working thesis that takes a clear, specific position on one side of an issue. 9/10 Proficient Detailed Outline Outline is primarily well-developed and labeled with sufficient notes, such that the reader can get an overall sense of how the essay will build its argument; however, a few necessary elements may be unclear or missing. 12/15 Acceptable Style   Demonstrates effective word choices, primarily avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a variety of sentence structures. 4/5 Advanced Conventions There are some significant errors in formatting and display of outline   3/5 Acceptable Reflection Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; includes multiple insights, observations, and/or examples, following response length guidelines. 5/5 Advanced Overall Score and Feedback: 42/50 Mindy this is solid and well researched. The point loss is associated with a) the way the outline is displayed (see example for difference), b) the way the sources are managed, c) the counterargument? Great topic. Combine the two should statements for one thesis. Chris

 

 

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
Logan Stevens
English Composition II
December 20, 2019
Where’s the Beef?: Ethics and the Beef Industry
Americans love their beef. Despite the high rate of its consumption, in recent years
people in the United States have grown increasingly concerned about where their food comes
from, how it is produced, and what environmental and health impacts result from its production.
These concerns can be distilled into two ethical questions: is the treatment of cattle humane and
is there a negative environmental impact of beef production? For many, the current methods of
industrial beef production and consumption do not meet personal ethical or environmental
standards. Therefore, for ethical and environmental reasons, people should limit their beef
consumption.
The first ethical question to consider is the humane treatment of domesticated cattle. It
has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies that animals feel physical pain as well as
emotional states such as fear (Grandin & Smith, 2004, para. 2). In Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs), better known as “factory farms” due to their industrialized attitude toward
cattle production, cattle are often confined to unnaturally small areas; fed a fattening, grain-based
diet; and given a constant stream of antibiotics to help combat disease and infection. In his essay,
“An Animal’s Place,” Michael Pollan (2002) states that beef cattle often live “standing ankle
Comment [SL1]: Hi Logan! This is a great title.
Comment [SL2]: It will help strengthen your opening
sentence to include some sort of facts or statistics about
beef consumption in America.
Comment [SL3]: Throughout your essay, you talk about
more than just limiting the consumption of beef. How could
you strengthen your Thesis Statement to connect all of
those points?
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick” (para. 40). Pollan describes
Americans’ discomfort with this aspect of meat production and notes that they are removed from
and uncomfortable with the physical and psychological aspects of killing animals for food. He
simplifies the actions chosen by many Americans: “we either look away—or stop eating
animals” (para. 32). This decision to look away has enabled companies to treat and slaughter
their animals in ways that cause true suffering for the animals. If Americans want to continue to
eat beef, alternative, ethical methods of cattle production must be considered.
The emphasis on a grain-based diet, and therefore a reliance on mono-cropping, also
contributes to the inefficient use of available land. The vast majority of grain production (75-
90% depending on whether corn or soy) goes to feeding animals rather than humans, and cattle
alone account for a significant share. As a result, a majority of land available for agriculture also
goes to producing livestock, whether actually housing the animals or growing grain to feed them
(Lappé, 2010, p. 22). This inefficiency means that a disproportionate amount of agricultural,
food, and monetary resources are poured into a type of cattle production which has been
demonstrated to be inhumane and to have negative environmental consequences.
In addition to the inhumane treatment of animals, CAFOs also raise ethical questions in
terms of the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Because cattle raised on factory
farms are primarily “grain-fed,” meaning that their diet largely consists of corn and/or soy rather
than grass or other forage, huge amounts of grain are required to provide the necessary feed. This
grain comes primarily from “monocropping,” an agricultural practice that involves planting the
same crop year after year in the same field. Although rotating crops to different fields each
season helps to retain the natural balance of nutrients in the soil, mono-cropping is considered to
be more efficient on an industrial scale, providing larger yields of grain even though it also
Comment [SL4]: Great use of sources! The transitions here
could be a bit smoother and the connection between these
ideas could be a bit more explicit.
Comment [SL5]: This is a great topic sentence.
Comment [SL6]: In terms of cohesion, you may want to
look into how your paragraphs flow from one to the other.
The content of your essay is great, but how could you
structure it differently to make it even better?
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
requires the use of more chemical fertilizers to provide adequate nutrients for the plants. These
chemicals can leach into the groundwater, polluting both the surrounding land and the water
supply.
Other environmental issues include the amount of manure produced by factory farmed
cattle. Traditionally, cattle graze a large area and distribute their waste accordingly. In contained
situations such as CAFOs, however, animal waste builds up in a relatively small area and the
runoff from rainstorms can potentially contaminate the groundwater (Sager, 2008, para. 7).
Furthermore, because closely contained animals are more prone to disease, factory-farmed cattle
are routinely treated with antibiotics, which can also leach into the local ground and water,
potentially affecting humans. According to Brian Palmer (2010), “Based on some estimates, we
spend more than $4 billion annually trying to clean up CAFO manure runoff. In addition, the
long-term, low-dose antibiotics CAFOs give livestock can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria,
further undermining our dwindling supply of useful medicines” (para. 12). The negative impacts
of antibiotic runoff, manure contamination, fossil fuel use, and mono-cropping indicate that
sourcing beef from CAFOs is neither an ethically responsible nor an environmentally sustainable
decision.
An alternative to the grain-fed cattle raised in CAFOs is cattle which are allowed to range
and forage for grass and other greenery as their primary form of nourishment. This “grass-fed”
beef is, almost by definition, more humane than grain-fed beef because the animals are allowed
to move freely and eat a more natural diet. There is also some evidence that grass-fed beef is
healthier than grain-fed beef for the humans who consume it: it is higher in cancer fighting,
vitamin-A producing beta-carotene; it is much lower in fat, including having half the saturated
Comment [SL7]: This is a great paragraph, but it could be
stronger with the use of sources supporting and reinforcing
these ideas.
Comment [SL8]: This is a good use of a signal phrase, but it
would also be helpful to indicate what position Brian Palmer
holds so that the audience can understand why his input is
relevant. Is he a scientist? A farmer? A reporter?
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
fat as grain-fed beef; and it contains many more omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid
(CLA), which prevents cancer growth, and vitamin E, which prevents cancer as well as heart
disease (Ruechel, 2006, p. 235). Due to the benefits of a grass-based diet, as well as the benefits
of being raised in pastures rather than feedlots, grass-fed cattle themselves tend to be healthier.
Taken altogether, grass-fed cattle production is better physically for both the cows and humans.
It is important to note that grass-fed does not inherently mean organic, which is a
separate, legal category with its own requirements. It is possible to find grain-fed beef from
cattle raised or slaughtered in inhumane conditions that is labeled “organic” because the cattle
were fed organic grain, whereas grass-fed beef may come from cattle that have been raised on
land that does not meet the requirements for organic labeling (Sager, 2008, paras.10-15).
However, in a guide to raising grass-fed cattle, Julius Ruechel (2006), notes that “Raising [cattle]
in a pasture reduces or even eliminates the use of toxic pharmaceutical pesticides to control
parasites and all but eliminates residues of high doses of antibiotics used on cattle in feedlot
conditions” (p. 236). Even though it may not always be organic, choosing grass-fed beef reduces
or eliminates many of the environmental and ethical concerns raised by factory farming.
Grass-fed beef also comes with some benefits to the environment. As noted earlier, most
grain-fed beef relies on environmentally damaging mono-cropping. This problem is not an issue
with grass-fed beef, which relies primarily on forage and does not require the same crop to be
planted year after year. Further, if the grass-fed beef that one eats comes from local farms and
ranches, it lessens the environmental impact, whereas the long-distance shipping required by
factory farming practices consumes fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming. Lappé
(2010) explains the massive effects that industrial food production has on the environment,
noting that throughout the life cycle of production, processing, distribution, consumption, and
Comment [SL9]: I wasn’t sure how the information in this
paragraph was relevant, but you do a good job of
demonstrating it here. You could make these links a bit
clearer in the earlier parts of this paragraph.
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
waste, our food chain may be responsible for as much as a third of the factors causing global
climate change (p. 11). However, as Pollan (2002) argues by the end of his essay, farms which
focus on traditional agricultural practices are both more humane and more environmentally
friendly than CAFOs. Ultimately, food decisions should be made with an eye to sustainability
and humane treatment, ethical stances that are both supported by local farms focused on
sustainable diversity.
Despite grass-fed beef scoring better on an environmental impact level than grain-fed
beef, it is still not perfect, a fact that highlights the problems of eating beef at all if one is
concerned with environmental ethics. Most notably, to assuage Americans’ rapacious appetites
for beef, landowners in South America often clear cut rainforest in order to create grazing land.
“The realities of the global market are a great temptation to many: Where land is cheap and the
demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local economy may respond by cutting down a
forest to create pasture or by planting grass where millet or rice has been grown” (Sager, 2008,
para. 21). This practice has negative environmental impacts on the local landscape and the planet
as a whole, since losing vast swathes of rainforest increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere, contributing to ozone depletion. In their article for Science magazine, scholars
Molly Brown and Christopher Funk (2008) examine how climate change will affect food
security and find that people in the developing world are at particular risk for a lack of food due
to climate change. Mono-cropping and mono-grazing practices, designed to snag American
dollars in the short term and not to sustain the local population in the long term, will only
exacerbate these effects (p. 580–81). Furthermore, the rise in the market for grass-fed beef has
meant that much grass-fed beef is shipped to the U.S. from South America and Australia. Even if
these animals are raised in a humane and sustainable manner, the long distances they travel to
Comment [SL10]: This is a very good introduction to the
counter-arguments.
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
reach American bellies has significant, negative environmental impact, again due to the use of
fossil fuels (Sager, 2008, para. 21). This reinforces the importance of buying beef which has
been locally produced, reducing the impact of long-distance shipping and potential mono-grazing
in other countries.
No matter how ethically sourced, one can still identify some serious ethical problems
with the raising and slaughter of beef, and those ethical quandaries are passed on to consumers.
While grass-fed beef is clearly an ethical improvement over grain-fed beef in terms of humane
treatment and potentially in terms of environmental impact, “No matter how you slice it, eating
beef will never be the greenest thing you do in a day. Scientists at Japan’s National Institute of
Livestock and Grassland Science estimate that producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more
greenhouse gas than driving 155 miles” (Palmer, 2010, para. 2). A kilogram of beef is about the
equivalent of two generously sized rib-eye steaks. Multiply this by the amount of beef consumed
by Americans in a year and the impact of these greenhouse gasses cannot be ignored. However,
as compelling as this argument is, it is not reasonable to expect that Americans will stop eating
beef altogether. In the short term, Americans need to eat humanely raised, locally sourced, grassfed beef, which will ultimately lessen the ethical and environmental consequences.
If consumers are truly concerned about the ethical treatment of animals and the
environmental impact of agricultural production, then the logical action is to stop eating meat
altogether. If Americans are not willing to do this, then the next best action is to focus on
humanely raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, while acknowledging that this may affect our
beef consumption at many levels. Pollan (2002) concludes his essay by acknowledging that more
humane treatment of animals would likely cause higher prices and lower consumption. However,
he states, “maybe when we did eat animals, we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and
Comment [SL11]: Excellent. I like that you have two
paragraphs addressing the counter-arguments, one focused
on environment and one focused on ethics. This parallels
your discussion nicely.
Comment [SL12]: How could you change the wording to
make it less dismissive of the counter-arguments?
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
respect they deserve” (para. 82). This emphasis on the respect for and well-being of the animals
cultivated for food benefits both the animals and the consumer, acknowledging the desire to be
true omnivores while satisfying our need for ethical clarity. Comment [SL13]: Very good concluding statement!
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
References
Brown, M., & Funk, C. (2008). Food security under climate change. Science, 319
(5863), 580-581. doi: 10.1126/science.1154102
Cook, C. (2004). Diet for a dead planet: How the food industry is killing us. New York,
NY: New Press.
Davis, C., & Lin, B.H. (2005). Factors affecting U.S. beef consumption. Retrieved from
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=37389.
Grandin, T. & Smith. G. (2004). Animal welfare and humane slaughter. Grandin.com.
Retrieved from http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html
Lappé, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet: The climate crisis at the end of your fork. New
York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Palmer, B. (2010, December 21). Pass on grass: Is grass-fed beef better for the
environment? Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/12/pa
ss_ on_grass.htm
Pollan, M. (2002, November 10). An animal’s place. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html
Ruechel, J. (2006). Grass-fed Cattle: How to produce and market natural beef. North
Adams, MA. Storey Publishing.
Sager, G. (2008). Where’s your beef from?: Grass-fed Beef: Is it green, humane and
healthful? Natural Life Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0812/grass-fed_beef_green_humane_healthful.htm
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
Reflection Questions:
1. Provide one example of a place where you have used rhetorical appeals or source
material to support your argument. How does this enhance your essay? (2-3 sentences)
One place I was able to use source material throughout my essay, but I think the part where I
included the statistic about how producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more greenhouse gas
than driving 155 miles. This helps enhance my essay because it puts the information into
perspective for the reader in terms of how much the production of meat can affect our
environment.
2. Touchstone 4 is a revision of this draft. What kind of feedback would be helpful for you
as you revise? Are there parts of your draft that you’re uncertain of? (3-4 sentences)
I think a fresh set of eyes will certainly be beneficial to ensure I come up with the best draft
possible. Sometimes, I can “get in my own head” about my writing and am not able to see
the big picture as easily. An objective critique of the essay is going to be much appreciated
and will help me immensely.
Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
Research Essay Draft Rubric and Feedback
Rubric
Category
Feedback Score
(acceptable, needs
improvement etc.)
Argument
Development
and Support
Your thesis statement takes a specific position
on one side of a debatable issue. Try to focus it a
bit more by adding a bit more detail to it. The
details you provide are primarily relevant and
support your main idea. You consistently use
logical reasoning and source material to support
your argument effectively throughout your essay.
34/40
Research You reference a number of credible, outside
sources effectively, using quotation, paraphrase,
and summary. You primarily incorporate these
sources smoothly into your discussion. You could
fine-tune some of your signal-phrasing in your
next draft. There is a good balance between
original writing and outside sources.
25/30
Organization You have a great start on the organization of
your paper. You have a thesis, an adequate
number of paragraphs with topic sentences, and
you address counterarguments. You also have
an effective concluding paragraph. Look a bit
more closely at the organization of your
paragraphs (see notes in body of essay) to
enhance this even more.
13/15
Style You do a great job with your word choices and
sentence structures. 4/5
Conventions There are few – if any – negligible errors in
grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization,
formatting, and usage.
5/5
Reflection You demonstrate thoughtful reflections, and
consistently include insights, observations, and
examples in your responses. 5/5
Overall Score and Feedback: 86/100