Write an essay in response to the passage below. You should discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the passage and explain your reasons for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the author's opinion might or might not hold true and explain how these consideration shape your position.
The moment the innocent little monkey creeps to its pseudo mother helplessly for help, Dr. Harlow's renowned zoo-behavioral-psychological experiment has been referred to as "cruel". As reporters and critics first spot the controversial experiment on monkeys rather than ordinary rats or rabbits which have sacrificed for science for nearly four centuries since the emerging of modern medical science, light has been cast on the so-called legality of all experiments conducted on animals, especially primates. However, the fiercely critical mass media and the public have made a confusion, in my opinion, between science and real-world life, between which lies huge distinction.
To begin with, by analyzing the criticism from the society, we may find a vital mechanism that functions through, which is called "empathy". Empathy is widely considered to be one of the universal characters of human beings, which leads to sympathy and self-identification while one witnesses the "mom-and-kid" tragedy. From my perspective, empathy should be present in daily life, but in science discourse, absent, which can be proved by the development of modern science.
The theoretical basis of the argument is that science experiments are defined to be different from daily life, since the establishment of logic-positivism science. Logic-positivism science, in its usual term, experimental science, stands for a paradigm of research that utilizes experimental approaches to probe the mechanism or relationship underlying the world. As the France philosopher and mathematician Descartes once pointed out, the instant moment people start to view the world, in other words, to explore, they have distinguished themselves from any other surrounding, which means the single word "human" is established in that other objects are "non-human". Descartes' idea has clearly delineated the boundary between science and daily life and thus prevented empathy from intruding the field of science.
Empathy jeopardizes science, since empathy is most likely to prevail, as emotionalism often does. If we scroll back to the Harlow conflict, it is apparent that those critics are mostly emotion-driven, since there is a strong instinct among human beings to endow objects such as plants and animals with human-like emotions, which has been long utilized by romantic poets and playwrights like Shakespeare to produce literally important masterpieces. Emotion never reasons, since we cannot prove the actual and scientific resemblance of the monkey tragedy to be typical human tragedies, but it tempts human into emotional protests and criticism that cannot be soothed easily, as it often does in the theatre, which significantly hinder the progress of science. It is rather hard to imagine that on the day when the switch of emotion is turned on, any science experiment that includes living organisms could be labelled as cruel and immoral. Besides, it should be re-stated that excluding emotion from science experiments does not necessarily equals causing harm to the environment, since basic ethical rules have made regulations on the proper disposal of lab wastes.
To get my point further, we cannot deny the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism, that is to say, a history of experimental science is equivalent to a bibliography of cruelty. Animal experiments have been designed only to avoid unnecessary harm to human, which can get its evidence from the fact that numerous rats and rabbits have long been used as experimental materials in medical schools so as to function as a platform to test newly-developed chemicals or novel therapies. To trace back to the history of science, many of the scientific findings are conducted at the cost of harm to animals or plants, such as the finding of conditioned reflex, which was done on the pet dog of the Russian scientist Pavlov. As I have stated above, the moment the first human being stretched out to the outer world, he started to seek benefit for himself, either emotionally or materially, which, indeed, is deliberately neglected by some humanitarians. As naturalists and animal protectors insist, nature can adjust to the most balanced condition, so once human beings gain, the surroundings lose.
However, harm to animals has nothing to do with cruelty to people, which means ethical regulations on body experiments should never be loosened even to the slightest extent. The uprising issue of two genetically-modified infants that might be immune to AIDS has stirred up hot debates online that spat venom criticism on a Chinese scientist from Shenzhen. From where I stand, I would strongly oppose the gene-editing practice, as it might trigger complicated aftermath and hidden ethical paradoxes that might mess up the whole post-modern society and thus poison ourselves in turn. It contradicts the essence of science, namely egoism or utilitarianism, as I have circulated above.
Aggressive as my points might be, I would like to clarify and reinforce my opinion that the purity of experimental science along with its paradigm must not be stained due to the admixture of emotion and empathy from the one-sided media, while basic ethical rules of environmental protection and regulations on human gene-editing cannot be surpassed according to the core of utilitarianism.
As countless science figures shine beyond: only with rationalism can science progress, so can we insignificant human beings creep nearer, to the core of universal truth.
首先，文章开头部分第一句直接点题，一句话点明这场论争的主题“The moment the innocent little monkey creeps to its pseudo mother helplessly for help, Dr. Harlow's renowned zoo-behavioral-psychological experiment has been referred to as 'cruel'.”，innocent、helplessly、cruel 等词汇突出了强烈的反差效果，激发了读者的阅读兴趣，想进一步了解作者的观点到底是支持哪一方。然而本文作者并没有直接明确地亮出自己的观点，而是笔锋一转，进而分析公众及媒体对此类科学实验进行批判的原因，可以看出作者意在通过发掘另一方观点的逻辑漏洞来论证自己的观点，体现了较强的逻辑思维能力。
第二，作者通过引证哲学理论、定义等论证自己的观点。作者认为公众及媒体混淆了科学与现实生活的界限，现实生活中人们的“共情”心理让人对动物的悲剧性遭遇产生同情，这种“共情”心理不应该侵入科学领域。为了论证自己的观点，作者从逻辑实证主义理论出发，引用了笛卡尔关于人与外界环境及其他非人类的区别的思想the instant moment people start to view the world, in other words, to explore, they have distinguished themselves from any other surrounding, which means the single word “human” is established in that other objects are “non-human”. 以此为理论基础，作者认为“共情”发生在现实生活，而科学研究与现实生活是两码事，不应该让“共情”侵入。
第三，在接下来的一段，作者从反面论证“共情”对科学的影响，提出Empathy jeopardizes science，作者认为赋予动植物以感情是诗人和剧作家的运用的手段，而在科学研究领域，无法证实猴子的悲剧等同于人类悲剧，“共情”反而会阻碍科学的进步。而科学发展的本质在于“功利主义”（the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism），运用动物进行实验研究的目的在于避免对人的伤害，并造福人类，作者举出在医学领域的研究实例，许多重要发现正是通过动物实验来完成的。这样在这场论争中，作者明确地站在了赛题中“I”的立场上，即科学实验的结果比手段更加重要。但作者也就当前的热门话题基因编辑婴儿以预防艾滋病提出了自己的观点，认为基因编辑后果复杂，可能毒害人类社会，因此坚决反对。