Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other people think that is necessary for the development of science

Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other people think that is necessary for the development of science. Discuss both views and give your opinion.  

Animal experimentation has been a debated issue for many decades. Some people believe that scientists’ locking up animals in a laboratory environment is not what nature intended – and they are probably right. Others believe laboratory animals perform a great service for humankind.

For many years now, scientists have been working hard to develop cures for diseases. From time to time, new medicines and drugs are created which may be a solution to a serious illness affecting mankind. In order to determine if there is any level of danger in these drugs, these are first tested on animals. For example, who has not heard of the Thalidomide case? In 1952, a drug was used for vomiting of pregnancy. Obviously, it was not tested properly. All the children born had seal-like limbs. By the time it was known that thalidomide was responsible, it was too late and much harm had been done.  

Another reason for justification of animal experimentation is that the life span of guinea pigs used for experimentation is very small, only 3-4 years and so the effect of drugs can be tested over generations. Even if humans volunteered for testing, it would not help to test whether the effect passed from one generation to the other.  

The arguments against animal experimentation are that animals are also sentient beings and we have no right to exploit them for our selfish motives. Secondly, they are very different from humans and so what is tested on animals cannot be applied to humans. Finally, unnecessary experiments are done just for new cosmetics which are not even needed, which is bad. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that animals are not humans. Although the life of animals in a lab is regrettable, I much prefer a guinea pig to die than a human being. The human need must always come first. It is sad that any living thing must suffer but the use of laboratory animals in testing new products made today goes a long way toward helping humankind enjoy a better tomorrow.

The only way to improve the safety on our own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders

The only way to improve the safety on our own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

It is irrefutable that careless driving and violation of traffic rules certainly result in a large number of accidents and stricter punishments are necessary to reduce them.  However, there are also certain other measures that have equal or more effectiveness in ensuring road safety. 

In the first place, there are certain accidents that occur not because of traffic violations.  To explain it further, poor road condition is considered a major reason for road casualties.  For example, narrow roads and sharp curves often force even law-abiding drivers makes mistakes.  Therefore, it should be noted that drivers alone cannot be blamed for such mishaps and giving them stricter punishments in these cases is no solution.  A more effective strategy by the government would be to straighten accident prone curves and widen narrow roads.  Larger number of road signs and proper traffic signals can also be effective in reducing accidents on roads. 

Furthermore, poor climate condition can be a major cause of accidents.  For instance, poor visibility due to dense mist and rain, slippery roads on account of snowfall cause make driving difficult and cause serious accidents in many countries.  Stricter punishment for drivers is a futile exercise in handling such problems.  Modern technological innovations should be used to deal with such emergency situations. 

On the other hand, reckless driving, speeding and breach of traffic rules by careless drivers have caused many accidents.  Moreover, drunken and drowsy driving have also resulted serious traffic mishaps.  While we admit that more stringent punishment for drivers would be an effective measure to an extent, it should not be considered the only way towards road safety. 

In summary, there are certain situations where drivers are not responsible for a particular accident.  Hence apart from punishing drivers with heavier penalties other effective measures should also be taken.

Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents

Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Role of family atmosphere in a child’s development is a cause of concern. However, I disagree with the notion that children of poor families are better equipped in dealing with the challenges of adult life than those of rich families. No doubt, adversity is a good teacher of life, but rich parents can also prepare their children to face the problems of adult life by good education and good nurturing.

A child of poor family has more situations to solve a problem or make a decision as both parents are working to make both ends meet and children have to look after themselves. They realise the value of money as they have to live with the barest minimum and as a result they find it less difficult later on in life when they face financial challenges. In contrast, the children of wealthy families are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They are completely ignorant of the value of money as everything is provided for them in their youth and expect the same situation in adulthood. 

On the other hand, children of rich families study in the best schools and get the best higher education. They can learn problem solving in such academic institutes. What is more, a wealthy child may be well trained by a parent who himself has a lot of knowledge of money. Such parents themselves know money management better and can pass on those skills to their children.
Life experiences also play a role. Children can have innate ability to face problems of life. They may have personality traits such as being optimistic, outgoing, confident and openminded. Due to these abilities they can solve problems in a better way. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, a poor child may learn to get along without wealth and a wealthy child may be well trained by a parent to face hurdles of life by effective education. Therefore, I disagree that the economic situation of the family has a role in problem solving skills.

Some people think that people moving to a new country should accept new culture in the foreign country rather than living as a separate minority group with different lifestyle

Some people think that people moving to a new country should accept new culture in the foreign country rather than living as a separate minority group with different lifestyle. Do you agree or disagree?  

Today, with the passage of time each and every country is on the path of development, and with this development there is a growing trend of visiting different places in different countries. It is a highly debated issue whether immigrants should do and behave as the people of the host country or should they stick to their traditional lifestyle and live as a separate minority. It is necessary to look into pros and cons of both situations before forming an opinion.   

There are many benefits of adopting host countries customs. Firstly, it decreases chances of misunderstanding and embarrassment. For e.g. in the UK it is offensive to ask about pay to anyone, which is common in India. Secondly, a nation’s customs and traditions are fascinating and offer a deep insight into that country. People move to other countries to broaden their horizon. So, if immigrants copy the customs of host country, they learn more about them and that too in an interesting way. Finally, visitors establish a rapport with local people because people feel respected when their customs are understood and imitated. They become a member of the host country and so they don’t suffer any culture shock. 

On the other hand there are many advantages of making a minority group. If a person is from a country with strong and old traditions, it will be difficult for him to adapt to the new customs. He can’t break the old customs such as food habits and wearing certain types of clothes. In such cases if he retains his old customs and lives with his own community as a separate minority, he won’t suffer from homesickness.  

On balance, I feel that someone who is moving to another country should respect the customs, culture, traditions etc. of that country. This is necessary because a newcomer is like a guest in someone else's home. So he is expected to follow the rules of that country. However, it should not be obligatory for him to follow those customs and change himself altogether. As time passes and he gets to know the hosts better then he can decide if he wants to adopt any custom or stick to his own. After all being a cosmopolitan is the need of the hour.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, mutual understanding between both the visitor and the host is necessary to maintain harmony. A cosmopolitan society in which everyone is tolerant of each other’s customs and traditions is the need of the day. After all, today, we are part of a small global village and not a big planet Earth

Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals.

Some scientists believe that studying the behaviour of 3-year-old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals. To what extent in your opinion is crime a product of human nature or is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals?
 
Some scientists are of the opinion that hereditary characteristics are responsible for the person’s temperament and hence future career. I disagree with this notion. I believe that genes do play a role but the primary determinant is nurture – education and bringing up. It is definitely possible to mould a child into any direction by proper bringing-up. 

If we adopt the mindset that if parents are criminals so will the children be then we are limiting or even damaging the individual’s basic right to achieve his very best. Children can rise above the gene pool and rise to great heights. Even if a child is born to criminal parents but brought up away from that environment and provided quality education, he will not be a criminal.  

The debate on nature versus nurture has been raging for ages and no clear cut answer has come forward. A child prodigy can be born to ordinary parents and many intelligent parents can have ordinary children. A talented person can go unnoticed in the absence of right environment and upbringing and an ordinary person can reach great heights with proper training. So, interplay between hereditary and environmental factors must be there.  

It has been seen that children born to intelligent parents also are intelligent and successful. But it is also possible that such parents provide an environment which nurtures the development of their children. When we see some programmes such as ‘India’s Got Talent’ and ‘Little Champs’, we notice some extremely gifted children who are born with talent and also some who have achieved great heights with great perseverance and proper coaching.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that both nature and nurture play a part in determining the character of a person. It can also be concluded that both are inextricably linked with each other. But nurture weighs over nature and it is definitely possible to prevent children from growing up to be criminals.