英语对话作文写一篇关于2个动物科学家的对话作文.内容是关于把动物用于人类药物实验

英语对话作文写一篇关于2个动物科学家的对话作文.内容是关于把动物用于人类药物实验
英语对话作文
写一篇关于2个动物科学家的对话作文.内容是关于把动物用于人类药物实验

英语对话作文写一篇关于2个动物科学家的对话作文.内容是关于把动物用于人类药物实验
“Don't scientists have a responsibility to use animals in order to find cures for human diseases?”
Educating people and encouraging them to avoid fat and cholesterol, quit smoking, reduce alcohol and other drug consumption, exercise regularly, and clean up the environment will save more human lives and prevent more human suffering than all the animal tests in the world. Animal tests are primitive, and modern technology and human clinical tests are much more effective and reliable.
Even if we had no alternative to using animals, which is not the case, animal testing would still be ethically unacceptable. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behaviour.” After all, there are probably some medical problems that can only be cured by testing on unwilling humans, but we don’t conduct such tests because we recognize that it would be wrong to do so.

“If we didn’t use animals, wouldn’t we have to test new drugs on people?”
The choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe—even if they have been tested on animals—because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused “adverse reactions.” In 2000 alone, the prescription drugs removed from the market were the popular heartburn drug Propulsid (removed because it caused “fatal heart rhythm abnormalities”), the diabetes drug Rezulin (“removed after causing liver failure”), and the irritable-bowel-syndrome treatment Lotronex (“removed for causing fatal constipation and colitis”). According to the study’s lead author, “Millions of patients are exposed to potentially unsafe drugs each year.”
If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would be better protected from harmful drugs, not less protected.

“If we didn’t test on animals, how would we conduct medical research?”
Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and computer simulations are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests. Ingenious scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain” that can be used to study tumors and have also come up with artificial skin and bone marrow. Instead of killing animals, we can now test irritancy on egg membranes, produce vaccines from cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories—a company that uses only human tissue and computers to develop and test its drugs—says, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”
“Doesn't animal experimentation help animals by advancing veterinary science?”
The point is not whether animal experimentation can be useful to animals or humans; the point is that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary suffering on those who are at our mercy. Saying that it’s acceptable to experiment on animals to advance veterinary science is like saying that it’s acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit rich ones.

“Don’t medical students have to dissect animals?”
No, they don’t. In fact, more and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors who choose to learn by assisting experienced surgeons instead of by using animals. In Great Britain, it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals, and British physicians are just as competent as those who were educated elsewhere. Many of the leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of cruel animal laboratories. Harvard, for instance, offers a cardiac-anesthesia practicum in which students observe human heart bypass operations instead of performing terminal surgery on dogs. The Harvard staff members who developed this practicum have recommended that it be implemented elsewhere.
“Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on animals? Would you refuse to take them?”
Unfortunately, a number of things in our society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using non-animal research methods from now on.
“Don't scientists care about the animals they experiment on? Doesn't their research depend on the animals’ well-being?”
Investigations at even the most prestigious institutions show that this is simply not the case. At the City of Hope in California, one of the country’s most prominent research facilities, animals starved to death and drowned in their own feces. Many experimenters become calloused after years of research and don’t see the animals’ suffering. They treat animals like disposable tools and consider proper animal care to be too expensive.
“Don't peer-review and animal-care committees prevent animal cruelty at institutions?”
No, because many such committees are composed mainly or completely of people who have vested interests in the continuation of animal experimentation. Members of the public were not allowed access to committee meetings until lawsuits were filed.

“Cats and dogs are killed in pounds anyway, so why not let them be used in experiments to save lives?”
A painless death at an animal shelter is a far cry from a life of severe pain and deprivation and an agonizing death in a laboratory.
“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”
No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.
“What about experiments in which animals are observed and not harmed?”
If there really is no harm, we don’t object. But “no harm” means that animals aren’t isolated in barren, cold steel cages because even confinement causes stress and fear, as shown by the differences in blood pressure between caged and free animals. Caged animals also suffer because they are prevented from performing their normal behaviors and social interactions.

“If you were in a fire and could save either your child or your dog, who would you choose?”
I would save my child, but that’s just instinct. A dog would save her pup. Regardless, my choice proves nothing about the moral legitimacy of animal experiments. I might save my own child instead of my neighbor’s, but that hardly proves that experimentation on my neighbor’s child is acceptable.

“Why Should Animals Have Rights?”
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. For more information, click here.



EU proposes to strengthen protection of animals used in scientific experiments

The European Commission on Wednesday proposed legislation to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific experiments and to minimize the number of animals being tested on.
The proposal, which intends to strengthen existing European Union (EU) legislation, asks ethical evaluations to be carried out before projects using animals are authorized and lays down minimum requirements on housing and animal care.
The proposed directive covers all live non-human vertebrate animals plus certain other species likely to experience pain. The use of non-human primates is subject to restrictions, and the use of great apes -- chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans -- is banned in scientific procedures. Only when survival of the species itself is at stake, or in the case of an unexpected outbreak of a life-threatening or debilitating disease in human beings, can a member state exceptionally be granted permission for their use.
The proposal seeks to ensure that animals are used only where no other means are available. Their use must be fully justifiable and the expected benefits must outweigh the harm caused to the animals. The proposal would also ensure that animals receive suitable care and treatment such as appropriately sized cages and an environment adapted to each species.
The proposal would also require projects involving animals to be authorized by a competent authority before they can go ahead. Organizations wishing to breed, supply or use animals would be obliged to seek authorization for their activities and for the personnel working with the animals.
"It is absolutely important to steer away from testing on animals. Scientific research must focus on finding alternative methods to animal testing, but where alternatives are not available the situation of animals still used in experiments must be improved," said EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

祖国在我心中 记青年科学家郭雷
郭雷，中国科学院系统科学研究所所长、研究员、博士生导师，长期从事控制论和系统科学研究。1998年当选美国电子与电气工程师学会会士，1999年起任国际自动控制联合会系统辨识委员会主席。曾荣获中国青年科学家奖、“中国十大杰出青年”荣誉称号和“中国青年五四奖章”。
熟悉了郭雷，了解了郭雷的经历，记者的心情久久不能平静。我们想到了很多，想起
了...

全部展开

祖国在我心中 记青年科学家郭雷
郭雷，中国科学院系统科学研究所所长、研究员、博士生导师，长期从事控制论和系统科学研究。1998年当选美国电子与电气工程师学会会士，1999年起任国际自动控制联合会系统辨识委员会主席。曾荣获中国青年科学家奖、“中国十大杰出青年”荣誉称号和“中国青年五四奖章”。
熟悉了郭雷，了解了郭雷的经历，记者的心情久久不能平静。我们想到了很多，想起
了艾青先生的诗《我爱这土地》，似乎也更理解诗句“为什么我的眼里常含泪水？因为我对这土地爱得深沉”中所包含的真挚感情。 “我要为乡亲们做点事”
有人说“吃苦是一笔财富”，郭雷深以为然。1961年，正值三年困难时期，郭雷出生在山东省一个农民家庭。少年时期的郭雷一直在贫困和繁重的农活中度过。每当放假或星期天，他便随大人们到生产队干活挣工分，十来岁的郭雷，从挖猪圈、造绿肥到收庄稼、犁地、种地等已样样都很精通。“穷人的孩子早当家”，此时的郭雷已深切地体会到农民生活的艰辛。“我要认真读书，学好本领，为乡亲们做点事。”郭雷回忆说，“干农活真的很累，我当时多么希望乡亲们坐在家里一按电钮，农田里的水泵就能自动浇水，在家里也能自动监视农田灌溉情况，那时，大家就不用大清早到地里干活了。这也是后来我选择自动控制专业当初最朴素的愿望。”
少年的这段经历，使郭雷学习特别勤奋，在后来的科研工作中也很卖力。在读博士的两年时间里，郭雷几乎每天晚上12点以后才离开办公大楼；有好几个假期，他都放弃了回家探亲的机会，甚至爱人在外地生小孩，他也是在办公室度过的。在澳大利亚作博士后的两年时间里，他甚至没去过悉尼歌剧院；每当圣诞节前后，留学生们纷纷利用假期开车外出旅游观光，他却把自己关在实验室里搞研究。郭雷说，当时唯一想的就是多做出些研究成果，我们的祖国太需要这些东西了！ “这片土地太让我留恋了”
1984年，郭雷顺利通过硕士论文答辩。当时正值出国潮，昔日的同学都在纷纷联系出国，郭雷这时也犹豫了。但他经过一番冷静的思考之后，果断地选择了“土博士”之路。郭雷说：“我不是赌气，想证明什么。我只是觉得在国内同样能把科研做好，而且这里确实也需要我。”
虽然郭雷不想证明什么，但在别人看来，郭雷却创造了奇迹。读博士期间，他与导师合作完成了近20篇论文，全部以英文发表在国内外核心学术刊物上。科研课题“动态系统的辨识与适应控制”，获得1987年国家自然科学三等奖，同时也被国际自动控制联合会理论委员会选为1984年至1986年国际控制理论的重要进展之一，这是当时所有被选入的结果中唯一一项完全由中国人在中国本土上取得的成果。
1987年，郭雷第一次登上出国的飞机。澳大利亚国立大学提供全部资助，邀请他去做博士后研究，期限两年。从出国伊始，郭雷就做好了回国的设想。他说：“我的出国目的很明确，就是在国外学习一段时间，增长见识，准确把握科学研究前沿课题，为回国更好地开展工作做准备。这片土地太让我留恋了！没有什么可以阻挡我的回国路。”
1989年6月初，郭雷怀着一腔报国情，克服了当时环境下的种种困难，谢绝了多方邀请，回到了祖国。当时，年仅27岁的郭雷已在国际自动控制领域享有一定声誉。该领域多位国际著名的专家在提职推荐书上是这样评价郭雷的：郭博士是随机系统领域内最富有才华和创造力的青年学者之一，可能是辨识和适应控制领域内国际上最好的研究者。由于学术上的成就，国外许多著名大学和研究所向郭雷发出了一封封热情的邀请函。去美国、去加拿大，还是留在澳大利亚，郭雷的选择很多，而且处处都是丰厚的待遇。但郭雷早已认准了自己的目标，正如他说的，没有什么可以阻挡他的回国路。
回到国内，当时郭雷的工作和生活环境是这样的：他和其他五位同事挤在一间小房子里办公，一家三口被安置在12平方米的小屋里，每月的工资是100元左右。而在澳大利亚，他一个人专用一间宽敞的办公室，并配备一台微机，而每月的薪金更是不能跟国内的相比。郭雷笑着说：“至少是国内的几十倍吧。”我问郭雷：“你后悔吗？”郭雷的回答很干脆：“没有。”
“能为祖国争光，我感到很欣慰”
郭雷在科研上勇攀高峰。1990年，郭雷被国际控制理论权威刊物——美国工业与应用数学学会的《控制与优化杂志》聘任为副主编，成为该刊创办30年来进入编委的第一个中国人。这一年郭雷仅28岁。1993年，郭雷因解决了“自校正调节器的稳定性与收敛性”这一国际自动控制领域20年悬而未决的著名难题，在悉尼召开的第12届国际自动控制联合会世界大会上，荣获其三年颁发一名的“青年作者奖”，成为获得该奖的第一位中国人。1998年，因为对随机系统自适应控制和系统辨识领域几个关键的基本理论问题的突破，郭雷当选为美国电子与电气工程师学会（IEEE）的会士，在80年代以来出国留学的华人同行科学家中，至今也很少有人能得到该荣誉。郭雷的荣誉很多，当问及郭雷的感受时，郭雷显得很平静，他说：“能为祖国争光，我感到很欣慰。”(本报记者 王光荣 林英 王远方)

收起