Ha 1

WP2
Animal testing is a phrase that can be applied to different fields. For example, in a
discipline like animal testing, it can be written from two distinct discourse communities such as
from a chemists point of view or from a psychologists point of view. While both discourse
communities cover the same topic about animal testing, each discourse community is written
distinctly from each other because they each cover a certain area of animal testing. Animal
testing through a chemist and psychologists perspective provide distinct information that only
apply to a specific discourse community.
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
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

Ha 2
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 chemists article was formatted to easily give the readers a run through of the
chemicals involved with 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,
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. 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 the chemistry discourse community, to get across their point to stop
testing chemicals on animals, they use a specific tone to relay their message. Swales states,
[D]iscourse of another reifies particular values or beliefs (29). 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 chemists article. The authors imply, Russell and

Ha 3
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.
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
the psychologists article, 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

Ha 4
about animal psychology, Thorndike would just like to share his experience with the animals
through his experiments on them.
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
chemists who uses other chemists research, Thorndike, a psychologist uses his own experiments
to claim his study of animal psychology. In a psychology discourse community, 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 discourse community they showed links
from other research. Swales explains,[A] particular discourse community uses its discoursal
conventions to to initiate new members because That groups develop their own conventions
for those genres in light if their desired goals (28). 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 articles, but in Testing Chemical Safety:
What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches? the authors
use a chemistry discourse community while in Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies, the
author uses a psychology discourse community. Swales states, [D]iscourse community is a
powerful and useful concept (29). 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.
Swales, John. The Concept of Discourse Community. P27-36.
Thorndike, Edward L. Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1911.