Enloe 1

Abigail Enloe
Professor Dorhout
ENGL 1001
6 October 2016
Annotated Bibliography
Paul, Ellen F. Why Animal Experimentation Matters. Society, vol. 39, no. 6, 2002., pp. 715doi:10.1007/s12115-002-1000-x.
This is a scholarly article that was written to argue that animal experimentation is
necessary. It is geared more towards students and scientists interested in this topic. It is
biased towards animal experimentation because it does not consider the opposing side.
This article discusses the many discoveries of which experimenting on animals has been
a vital contributor. It states that there is no equal alternative to using animals. It gives
many examples of how animals have been the cause of many breakthroughs in research
in the past. This article also argues that without animal experimentation, people with new
or rare conditions would have little hope for new solutions and medicines. It says that
unknown pathogens do not wait for new discoveries to be made. This source will be
used.

Frey, R. G. Justifying Animal Experimentation. Society, vol. 39, no. 6, 2002., pp. 3747doi:10.1007/s12115-002-1003-7.

Enloe 2
This is a scholarly article that was written to give information on how animal
experimentation is the best option. The audience is students and scientists interested in
this topic. This article uses the words always and never frequently. However, they
seem to be used in appropriate contexts. It, in summary, argues that animal
experimentation is an important option. Instead, it focuses more on quality-of-life and
whether human quality has an influence over using humans instead of animals for
experimentations. The author says,
Mine is not a position that advocates the use of humans in experiments. Indeed, the
adverse side effects of any such use, especially on those humans who are the weakest
among us, are likely to be considerable, and my position would be strongly sensitive to
these concerns. (Frey 10)
They also say, If quality-of-life is ubiquitous in making health care decisions for
humans, how can it be sundered from medicines bedrock-experimentation? Clearly, it
cannot (Frey 11). This source will not be used.

Fox, Michael A. The Case Against Animal Experimentation: Comments on Dunayers

Name of Science. Organization & Environment, vol. 13, no. 4, 2000.,

in the

pp. 463-

467doi:10.1177/1086026600134008.
This is a scholarly article that argues against animal experimentation. It entertains an
audience of students and scientists interested in this topic. It uses the word always
twice, but neither instance is biased. This article focuses on why the author believes
animal experimentation is wrong. It argues that animal experimentation is unethical and

Enloe 3
that those scientists should research alternatives instead of conducting experiments with
animals. This source will not be used.

Harrington, Jean. A Predicament: Animal Models and Human Tissue in Medical Research.
Configurations, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013., pp. 183-200.
This is a scholarly article about alternatives to animal experimentation. It was written for
students and scientists interested in this topic. The author says, With organisms in flux,
the variables that affect translation can never be truly identified (Harrington 3). This use
of the word never may have bias. It is unlikely that never is the case even if it is
frequently true. This article specifically focuses on the use of human tissue and its pros
and cons. This source will be used.

Animal Testing ProCon.org. ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2016.
This is a popular website that explores both the pros and cons of animal experimentation.
It was created to inform anyone interested in this topic. There was no bias found. This
website gives facts and arguments for both sides of this controversial topic. It gives
statistics for each side as well. This is very convenient when looking for reliable
information to use when debunking a point from the opposing side. This source will be
used.

Enloe 4
Forty Reasons Why We Need Animals in Research. Forty Reasons Why We Need
Animals in Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2016.
This is a popular website that was written to argue the positive side of animal
experimentation. The audience is anyone interested in the topic. It is biased towards
animal experimentation because it does not include the opposing side. It gives statistics
and points about why animal testing is the best option. This website gives general points
and then backs them up with examples of successes with animal research in medical
history. To give the reader even more reason to consider these points, the website also
includes a section for statistics. This source will be used.