Animal Testing Annotated Bibliography

This is an annotated bibliography of animal testing and if it’s morally justified. There are many opinions on the results and the entire process that it takes to test a cosmetic product or a medicine on an animal. There are many alternatives and benefits to animal testing but is it really justified? Or are animals in potential danger.

Nancy Day talks about the two unique perspectives of the generally discussed subject of creature testing and altogether discusses the results of creature testing and experimentation and furthermore the advantages we pick up and expand upon. Staying nonpartisan, she gives the pursuer a decent opportunity to see where both sides are originating from additionally giving many motivations to reject the other so that no inclination is affecting the pursuer’s sentiment. Implied for any one, mindful of this level headed discussion or not, she clears the reality this issue has been overstated and is undoubtedly influencing our day by day lives regular. This book has a fundamental motivation behind giving the pursuer some data about what is going on with the goal that they can choose for themselves which side in this warmed debate to take. This two sided pugnacious source gives an alternate bend and draws in the pursuer to an unceasing fight while alternate sources are exceptionally uneven and straightforwardly tending to the solid contradiction toward creature testing. Before perusing this book I would quickly blame the creature experimenters for such superfluous savagery and abuse yet after some exhaustive exploring, I found that there are a few advantages for creature

Ferdowsian,Hope R. and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.PIOS ONE, vol.6, no. 9, Sept. 2011, pp. 1-4.

Around the world, millions of scientists conduct their studies by testing their research on animals. Many people believe that experimenting on animals is crucial to the advancement of medical discoveries. Studies show however, that animal experimentation is brutal and unnecessary. There are alternatives though: “replacement, reduction, and refinement” (Howard 2).

. "No such Thing as Humane Animal Experimentation." The Ecologist, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005., pp.

Approximately 26 million animals are used every year in the United States alone for research and commercial testing (“Background of the Issue” 1). For years, legislators have debated the pros and cons of animal testing, and laws were passed to attempt to fix the inhumane treatment of the cute, innocent testing subjects, the animals. Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was revised numerous times, “the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories” and are the animals that are specifically exempted from protection under the act (“Experiments on Animals” 2). A simple fix to animal cruelty during testing is to use alternative methods since human and animal bodies already vary greatly. For years, animal testing was the best option because there was no alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system; however, in the age of technology, there is no reason for millions of animals to be killed due to the severity of the testing. Therefore, animal testing should be banned because alternative methods provide more accurate results since human bodies are very different than animal bodies; furthermore, animal advocacy organizations should promote cruelty-free products more so customers know what to purchase and use.

Throughout the years the use of animals in medical research has been a hot debate around the world. Although animal testing may be cruel and inhumane, thousands of humans are saved thanks to the research that animals supply researchers with. Animals testing have taken over our knowledge of medicine and treatments to a whole different level. Animal testing also does this in a cheap and effective way. Without animals testing out knowledge wouldn’t be up to date, in other words animals’ testing is good.

Aziz, T., & Stein, J. (2011). Animal testing: TV or not TV? Two views on whether scientists

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel and inhumane but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. There have been past occasions where drugs passed on animals weren’t even safe. There is no excuse for animal testing in today’s techy world, there are now many alternatives for animal testing that would put an end to the pain and suffering endured by these innocent animals during human testing.

Whether animal testing is considered to be useful or unnecessary in the development of medicine is an ongoing discussion. Animal testing is the issue Andrew Rowan and Jack Botting with Adrian Morrison discuss in both their articles. “Avoiding Animal Testing” was written in 2011 by Andrew Rowan and was published in The Scientist. Jack Botting along with Adrian Morrison are the authors of “Animals are Vital to Medicine,” which was published in the Scientific American. All three authors clearly state their position on this issue from the beginning of their articles, starting with each of their titles. In “Avoiding Animal

https://qfalcon.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/animal-testing-should-be-banned/ ANNOTATION; I used this website to find evidence that animal experimentation provides misleading data and is often inaccurate. https://www.essaymasters.co.uk/animal-testing/argumentative-essay-example ANNOTATION; I used this website to come up with a definition of the term ‘animal testing’ to use in my speech so that my audience would understand exactly what i am referring to in my protest speech. The main animals used in experimentation are rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats. Dogs are often subjected to particularly invasive experiments for cardiology, endocrinology and bone studies.

Annotated Bibliography “Is Animal Testing Morally Justified?" Issues & Controversies. Infobase Learning, 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2015.

Many of us are unaware of the sheer number of animals that undergo constant suffering in the name of human vanity. Animal testing was originally introduced in the early 20th century and is still prominent today. It is morally unacceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes. The procedures used in animal testing are cruel and inhumane, nor are they the most reliable source of data; resulting in many mishaps. Moreover, with the perpetual advancements in technology, there are several alternative methods making animal testing unnecessary. If testing cosmetics and drugs on humans is unacceptable, what makes it acceptable to test on animals?

Unfortunately, animals being put through testing face conditions that are extremely unhealthy. Animals are kept in unsanitary areas with little to no space at all. According to the organization Humane Society International, “animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation…” (“Animal Testing - ProCon.org”). With no rights at all animals are being forced into harsh medical testings for diseases that can kill or severely injure the animal, such as polio. Through undercover investigation animals located in these labs are living “stressful, monotonous, and unnatural lives of daily confinement and deprivation” (“Animal Testing - ProCon.org”). Not only are these conditions being displayed in large laboratories, but also universities such as University of Oklahoma. During these experiments animals are being“fed chemicals, infected with diseases they would not naturally get, and are treated with no painkillers” (Animal Testing - ProCon.org”). As a result, medical testing facilities should be unable to be this inhumane to animals. Even though these tests may combat a widespread disease, animals should not have to endure this type of treatment at their own will.

Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics