POST 2
The Life of a Lab Monkey and the Greater Impact
In The New York Times opinion article published in September 2016, “Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher” written by John P. Gluck , the humane treatment for experimental lab animals is questioned. Gluck spent his early career experimenting on monkeys, the animals he now seeks to protect. Having inflicted harm to lab animals for the purpose of research and hope of scientific breakthrough, Gluck now speaks of the terrors these animals are introduced to even under the best conditions. Gluck questions the treatment of human versus animal rights relating to research. He ends his argument by introducing the possibility of discovering better ways in which to conduct research without harming animals.
How Does that Make you Feel?
Being a psychologist, Gluck proves he has the knowledge and accreditation to take the stand on a subject he is closely related to. Gluck provides sufficient first-hand background experience and knowledge, making his point worthy of recognition. These characteristics help to support the effectiveness of his writing as examples of logos and ethos. As Gluck discusses his experience and the trauma which he forced upon a vulnerable baby monkey, the audience begins to feel a tug at the heartstrings. Although decisions should be made upon fact and reasoning, the reality is that as human beings, we tend to make decisions based highly by emotion. The potent use of pathos in this article generates the reader to open the mind to a new way of looking at the ancient practice of animal lab testing.
Logos
Gluck provides an expert opinion about the censoring of animal research constructed in laboratories in the context of learning aids. Gluck states “As the philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer has noted, the descriptions of actual experiments in scientific publications and college textbooks are frequently sanitized, stripped of descriptive language, deliberately preventing the reader from getting a true picture of the emotional and physical torment inherent in the research”. By using an agreeing view on research by another well-qualified scientists, Gluck strengthens his argument. The reader is presented with supporting evidence to shift their view in agreement with Gluck.
Ethos
The reason why Gluck conveys the reader so easily is because he applies his own professional experiences. He demonstrates how he once thought of the lab animals of nothing more than research subjects. When one of his students approached him about writing a doctoral dissertation on a rhesus monkey who had passed during a research project, Gluck came to the realization that the monkey was not just a research tool, but a being capable of feeling. As a researcher Gluck observes, “It became harder and harder for me to argue the importance of my work always outweighed the pain I caused in doing it”. Although Gluck had previous experiences with lab monkeys, he never thought of them as actual “individuals” who had a right to a different way of existence. As he discovered within himself how blind he had been to undermine a living being, Gluck shows compassion for the poor creature. By rejecting his professional opinion, he persuades the reader to agree with his new-found knowledge. The reader then faces the internal dilemma of having the same realization as they read the authors’ experience.
Pathos
Making a strong appeal for pathos, the authors’ description of the impact on the research subjects forces the reader to feel sympathetic. The author understands it is difficult to find a connection between humans and primates. After conducting his research on mother-infant separation, Gluck acknowledges the consequences of his actions. Gluck writes, “ But there is no doubt that [lab monkeys] can fear the onset of pain, suffer the loss of the kind of life for which their brains and biology are intended, and struggle to adjust to the housing that limits the expression of their curiosity and interests”. Using such moving language conveys the reader to mentally depict the trauma undergone by the defenseless monkeys. The reader cannot avoid the overwhelming sense of regret and which Glucks delivers.
In Closing
Having the author have the background of a researcher and his first hand accounts makes this piece incredibly convincing and his delivery appropriate to the audience. Gluck demonstrates the transformation in his way of thinking with the support of rhetorical appeals making his claim very effective. Overall, this piece could convey many readers and possibly change other researchers view on lab animal treatment.
Works Cited
Gluck, John P. “Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/second-thoughts-of-an-animal-researcher.html.