Commentary #4 - Nick

The author does very well at offering an alternative proposal as a solution to his claim on the ethics of vivisection. I would never have thought of the solution to make use of human tissue in the place of vivisection on animals and actually think that this is very feasible and that the problem with vivisection is possible to solve. His first reason adds strength to why his solution would be plausible and he cites a reliable peer reviewed source to support his reason. His second reason, that drug companies would ultimately save money through research and litigation. The support for cutting research costs down is well supported well with cost and time comparison between human tissue and live animals. Something that might make this a little more solid might be to actually add some comparative figures so that the difference in monetary value can easily be seen by the reader and/or skeptic. This was shown in his next reason citing percentage of failure in testing on animals, but again, a specific figure might make his point resonate clearly in the mind of the reader. His third and final reason, which is that there is an endless supply of tissue to use in experimentation, is a valid point. He gives examples that make sense in respect to actual methods of tissue collection for use in research.

For the most part his reasons are well thought out and articulated. One question that came to mind is if testing on human tissue has been attempted and how well it worked. Evidence on this would make the writer’s solution all the more strong. This might help a skeptic who doubts the effectiveness of the solution become convinced. For his refutation the author chose a valid point (live human testing) but I think that some skeptics might also bring up the fact that animal testing should be continued. Human testing seems to be a slightly extreme alternative and I see myself wondering what the ratifications of continued vivisection would entail.