Ha 1

WP2 Original
You have probably written about a topic that many other writers have written about
before. Though its the same topic, each writer forms their writings differently based on what
they want to portray their topic as. For example, in a topic like animal testing, it can be written
from two distinct disciplines such as from a chemists point of view or from a psychologists
point of view. While both disciplines cover the same topic about animal testing, each discipline is
written distinctly from each other because they each cover a certain area of animal testing.
In the area of chemistry, a chemist would use animal testing to test out a chemicals effect
on living beings, as shown in Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the
Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? by Natalie Burden, Fiona Sewell, and
Kathryn Chapman. The authors use a chemist approach to explain animal testing. They address,
One area that remains heavily reliant on animal models, however, is chemical safety
assessment, in which toxicity tests are carried out to ascertain whether manufactured products
pose a threat to the health of humans or the environment (1). Animals are used to test the effects
of chemicals as a safety measure for humans to use those chemicals. However, the authors argue
that there are now alternative ways to test for chemical safety without using animals. They
Ha 2
proceeded by saying, Several initiatives are nevertheless underway that promise to increase the
confidence in newer alternative methods, which will support the move towards a future in which
less data from animal tests is required in the assessment of chemical safety (1). The authors are
trying reduce the use of animals for testing chemicals and many chemists have taken upon

themselves to start using alternative measures to decrease animal testing. In this article, the
authors main purpose revolves around the chemicals affiliated with animal testing.
The article, Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread
Application of Non-animal Approaches? was formatted to easily give the readers a run through
of the reason for animal testing, why animal testing can be reduced, and what to do in the future
to prevent further animal testing. The authors sectioned their article with subheadings about what
the paragraphs below are going to be about, such in the case of under the subheading,
Introduction, the paragraphs below it explains, There are the beginnings of a move towards a
future in which more human-relevant, non-animal systems are used in the study of biological
processes and in the early stages of the development of novel pharmaceutical compounds. The
authors introduce what animal testing is and what its used for. To suggest a problem with animal
testing, another subheading called What Are the Incentives to Move Away from Animal
Toxicity Tests? explains in the paragraphs below, One obvious motivation for reducing,
refining, and replacing the use of animals in chemical toxicity testing is ethical; toxicity tests can
be associated with high levels of suffering, and/or large numbers of animals are used. The
authors explain the reason to why animal testing should be reduced. To combat these problems, a
subheading called Current Status: The Reduction and Replacement of Animal Use in Practice,
explains, It is important to recognise that using these tools [the 3Rs] alongside each other is a
Ha 3
vital first step towards the commonplace use of alternatives, and will allow for comparisons to be
made between the traditional and newer approaches. The 3Rs, also known as reducing, refining,
and replacing, can be used to help reduce the use of animal testing in the future. By using

subheadings, the authors can showcase what animal testing is about in their article and what they
plan to discuss about animal testing in which is about the having chemicals tested on animals.
For the authors of Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread
Application of Non-animal Approaches? to get across their point to stop testing chemicals on
animals, they use a specific tone to relay their message. The authors use a formal, straight to the
point tone for readers to understand what chemists use animal testing for and how we can stop
the chemists from using of animal testing. The authors tone also seemed to be in a professional
manner that is pointed towards chemists that use animal testing. By being professional and
straight to the point, a chemist who reads this paper would be able to quickly follow through
what can be used as an alternative to using animals for testing chemicals.
To claim there are alternatives to testing chemicals on animals, the authors use specific
evidence from other researchers in the article Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to
Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? From the article, the authors
use many references from other researchers to support their argument that there are other options
to test for chemicals than using animals to test for them. The authors imply, Russell and
Burch first introduced the concept of the 3Rsthe reduction, refinement, and replacement of the
use of animals in research and testing (1). The 3Rs are alternatives to animal testing and is a
common practice for chemists to use to reduce the use of animal testing. The evidence used are
not followed through with descriptive detail for a normal person who is not a chemist can read.
Ha 4

Therefore, this article seemed to be for chemists who understand what the evidence given is
about with out a full on explanation. This article used evidence from other researchers to
applicate potential substitutes for specifically testing animal testing for chemicals.
A chemists purpose of animal testing is for finding the effect of chemicals, while a
psychologist would use animal testing as a way to understand their behavior and mind. Shown in
Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies by Edward L. Thorndike, Thorndike is a
psychologist who tries to figure out how the behavior and mind of animals work through animal
testing. In the preface of Thorndikes book, it specifies, The main purpose of this volume is to
make accessible to students of psychology and biology the authors experimental studies of
animal intellect and behavior (v). Thorndikes use of animal testing is for figuring out more
about the animals while chemists use animal testing to figure out what chemicals are safe for
humans. Psychologists seem more interested in the test subjects in animal testing while chemists
are more interested in how chemicals react when tested on animals.
As a psychologist interested in the behavior and mind of the animals, Thorndike would
like to have his research be used from other psychologists that are also researching about the
behaviors and mind of animals through animal testing. The tone used in Thorndikes book is set
in first person so that he can comfortably feel like hes talking to another psychologist face to
face to explain the results from his animal testing. Rather than teaching about his studies found
about animal psychology, Thorndike would just like to share his experience with the animals
through his experiments on them.

Ha 5

To figure out the psychology of animals, Thorndike takes it upon himself to do his own
experiments to conclude what kind of behaviors and minds do animals have. Rather than the
article, Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of
Non-animal Approaches? who uses other chemists research, Thorndike, a psychologist uses his
own experiments to claim his study of animal psychology. In a psychology discipline, a graph
shown on page 39 of Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies, Thorndike shows pictorial
graphs to show what his study came up with, while in a chemist discipline they showed links
from other research. A psychologist uses his own studies and research to to support his own
claim that he had to figure out himself by using animal testing while a chemist can use other
studies from other researchers to help support their claim of the effects of chemicals on animals
can be substituted for other alternatives.
The topic of animal testing was present in both the article, Testing Chemical Safety:
What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? by Natalie
Burden, Fiona Sewell, and Kathryn Chapman and in the book, Animal Intelligence;
Experimental Studies by Edward L. Thorndike. However, in Testing Chemical Safety: What Is
Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? the authors use a
chemistry discipline while in Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies, the author uses a
psychology discipline. Through the difference in purpose, tone, and evidence used helped show a
different perspective of animal testing. Even though each fact in the article and book are distinct
form each other, they both were able to tie back to their topic about animal testing and how
differently it is used in a chemist perspective and a psychologist perspective.

Work Cited

Burden N, Sewell F, Chapman K (2015). Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to

Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? PLoS Biol 13(5): e1002156.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002156.
Thorndike, Edward L. Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1911.