Analysing the TEXT

Experimenting with animals is a moral dilemma, because it involves two things that we 1
should protect, but it seems that we cannot protect both at the same time.

On the one hand, we have the advance of knowledge and the hope of curing some diseases
that affect human beings and also other species of animals. It is about the hope of saving
lives, as María Gálvez, director of the Spanish Parkinson's Federation, said at the round
2
table. For anyone who suffers from a health problem, and for their families, scientific
research is an absolute priority. And we know that the use of animals has contributed to the
advance of both human and veterinary medicine.

On the other hand, we have the lives of animals that are used in scientific experiments,
which suffer and die to achieve this progress, and will not be able to benefit from it. Is it
morally correct to sacrifice animals to achieve scientific progress? It is a difficult question, 3
because animals are not beings that exist for us, they are not our property, they are not
mere tools that are reduced to their instrumental value. Animals are beings that exist for
themselves, to live their own lives, and to which an intrinsic value must be recognized, as
stated in Directive 2010/63 / EU of the European Parliament on the protection of animals
used for scientific purposes

The terrible thing about this dilemma is that it seems that, whatever decision we make,
there is always someone who loses. Either the animals suffer, or we will not be able to cure 4
any disease. There seems to be no way to protect both parts at the same time.

Because of this, the solution that has been adopted in Europe and in most Western Countries
is an intermediate one: to accept the use of animals, but guaranteeing a certain degree of
well-being. The key is the 3Rs [Reduce, Replace, Refine] principle. The 2010 European 5
Directive is based on this principle, and the legislation of European countries such as Spain
is based on it.
Exercise 1:
Match the following headlines to the paragraphs in the text:

A) BOTH LOSE, NEITHER WINS

B) A HALF-WAY SOLUTION

C) REASONS AGAINST EXPERIMENTING WITH ANIMALS

D) A MORAL ISSUE: ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

E) REASONS IN FAVOUR OF USING ANIMALS IN EXPERIMENTS

Exercise 2:
Read the sentences and order them according to the ideas in the text:

1. There’s no way to protect both animals and human beings.

2. Animals’ rights have been defended in legal documents passed by European
Institutions.
3. Those who have an illness and their relatives consider medical progress to be
absolutely essential
4. There’s a terrible moral issue when we deal with animal experimentation.
5. Animals aren’t in the world to serve us. They have their own right to exist and
have value by themselves.
6. The least bad option seems to be using animals for experiments but in the best
possible condition for them.
7. In experiments many animals lose their lives or suffer with no reward.
8. This solution is reflected in the 2010 European Directive.
9. Animals’ sacrifice is necessary for the advance of medicine in order to save lives.
10. However, there’s an intermediate position supported by many countries in our
part of the world.
11. Animals have proved to be very important for both animal and human medicine.
Exercise 3:
Look for words in the text with the same meaning as:

Obtain Ethical Investigation welfare possession

Relatives inherent Illnesses defend from attack instruments

Progress assuring goals law helped heal

Exercise 4:
Rewrite the following sentences using the given words so that the meaning
remains the same:

1.Experimenting with animals is a moral dilemma, because it involves two things that
we should protect (INVOLVED)

2.For anyone who suffers from a health problem, and for their families, scientific
research is an absolute priority. (ILL PEOPLE / RELATIVES / CONSIDER / CRITICAL)

3.Is it morally correct to sacrifice animals to achieve scientific progress? (SHOULD)

4.Animals are beings that exist for themselves (INDEPENDENT)

5.whatever decision we make, there is always someone who loses (NO MATTER)

6.The solution that has been adopted in Europe and in most of the Western Countries is
an intermediate one (EUROPE AND MOST…)
 SOLUTIONS

Exercise 1:
1-D
2-E
3-C
4-A
5-B

Exercise 2:
4/ 9 / 3 /11 / 7 /5 / 2 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 8

Exercise 3:
Obtain: achieve Defend from attack: protect

Ethical: moral Instruments: tools

Investigation: research Progress: advance

Welfare: wellbeing Assuring: guaranteeing

Possession: property Goals: purposes

Relatives: families Law: legislation

Inherent: intrinsic Helped: contributed to

Illnesses: diseases

Heal: cure
1.Experimenting with animals is a moral dilemma, because it involves two things that
we should protect (INVOLVED)

Experimenting with animals is a moral dilemma because two things that we should
protect are involved.

2.For anyone who suffers from a health problem, and for their families, scientific
research is an absolute priority. (ILL PEOPLE / RELATIVES / CONSIDER / CRITICAL)

For ill people and their relatives scientific research is considered to be critical.

3.Is it morally correct to sacrifice animals to achieve scientific progress? (SHOULD)

Should we sacrifice animals to achieve scientific progress?

4.Animals are beings that exist for themselves (INDEPENDENT)

Animals are beings that have an independent life.

5.whatever decision we make, there is always someone who loses (NO MATTER)

No matter which decision we make, there is always someone who loses.

6.The solution that has been adopted in Europe and in most of the Western Countries is
an intermediate one (EUROPE AND MOST…)

Europe and most of the Western Countries have adopted an intermediate solution.