Annotated Bibliography for Group Project

Anderson, Gary L., and Kathryn G. Herr. "Animal Rights." Encyclopedia of Activism and Social
Justice. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2007. 108-11. Gale Virtual Reference
Library [Gale]. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.
The source describes topics like animal testing, animal welfare, and animal activism. Animal
rights advocates believe in letting animals live according to their nature and not be used as
commodities whereas animal activist think that animals are similar enough to humans to deserve
serious moral consideration and deserve a life lived without human goals entrenching on them. The
ability to suffer constitutes the rights of animals according to activists who do not condone eating any
animal products, wearing any type of animal fur or leather, and reject corporations that produce items
with the use of animal testing. However, from the animal rights perspective, animals can be used as
commodities but must be treated humanely in the process. Animal rights also uses speciesism which is
the unjust discrimination of member of other species. Animal rights activist think that animals should
not be used as a means to an ends but allowed to lead their own lives. Animal advocates believe that a
life is a life no matter human or nonhuman but there is no evidence seem to back up the claim of a
human life being equal to a non-human animal life. Darwins evolutionary theory that suggests that
humans and nonhumans have systematic, anatomical, and mental similarities. Like humans, animals
feel emotions like pain, guilt, despair, joy, devotion, anxiety, pride, helplessness, fear, and shyness. I
will use this evidence to show the differences between animal activists and people who support
animals rights. Speciesism will also be used in the argument against animal testing. It also contains
information on many different animal activist associations like PETA, ALF, and Centers for
Alternatives to Animal Testing which comment on issues like wildlife trafficking, laboratories,

slaughterhouses, and animal testing for biomedical research. This peer-reviewed academic journal
seems like a very reliable source from the Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Baird Callicot, J., and Robert Frodeman. "Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and
Philosophy." Animal Ethics 1 (2009): 42-52. Gale Virtual Reference Library [Gale]. Web. 8 Dec.
2016.
This source discusses the historical background of animal ethics going back to ancient Greece,
the general trends associated with animal ethics, and the controversial topic of animal experimentation.
Animal ethics concentrates on individual animals and their value. Environmental philosophy uses more
comprehensive means, such as soil, water, and plants, and addresses more holistic concerns like
species, biotic ecosystems and communities. This source will be used as background information to
better understand the topic. It is a reliable peer-reviewed academic ebook.

Norrby, Erling. "Yellow Fever and Max Theiler: The Only Nobel Prize for a Virus Vaccine." The
Journal of Experimental Medicine. The Rockefeller University Press, 26 Nov. 2007. Web. 6 Dec.
2016.
The Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine went to Max Theiler in 1951 when he discovered
an effective vaccine against the yellow fever disease which has caused life-threatening epidemics
throughout the last 500 years of human civilization. Monkeys were a vector for the disease as well.
Theiler used monkeys to isolate the virus and then used mice to conduct his experiments. He repeatedly
passed the yellow fever virus through the mouse brain to propagate the virus and then developed a
method to measure the antibodies in mice. Theilers work on yellow fever allowed for the widespread
use of mice for studies that affect humans and animals. He also used chicken embryos in his work to

grow the virus and his methods of passes the virus through chicken eggs and stored as frozen
homogenate are still used today to produce the virus. I will use this in my argument for the pros of
animal testing to help both humans and animals. I think this source is credible since it come from a
government website and is published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of
Health.

Paul, Ellen Frankel, and Jeffrey Paul. "Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in
Medical Research." The American Biology Teacher 5 (2004): 3-14. Google Scholar. Web. 8 Dec.
2016.
This peer-reviewed academic journal describes the necessity for animals to be used as models to
create new and innovative techniques for surgery and produce medicine. There are many examples that
Paul and Paul use to express the necessity of animal experimentation and testing, some of which are the
vaccine for polio, smallpox, and diphtheria, antibiotics like penicillin, blood transfusions, insulin for
diabetes, anesthetics with allow for life-saving surgery, and trauma surgeries that save lives. Paul and
Paul discuss how animal rights advocates believe that using animals was necessary in the past, but
maintain that such use is no longer justified because other experimental modalities exist that are
equally effective. Moderate advocates know that vaccines and techniques that are developed through
animal experimentation are necessary but activists argue that animal research should be banned or
severely restricted. Paul and Paul know from their knowledge that alternative techniques cannot
replace a complete biological system, an animal, in facilitating our understanding of how a substance
acts upon cells, tissues, and organs, in their complicated interplay in a living organism (Paul 10). I will
use this quote and the examples as evidence towards my argument for the use of animal testing and
why it is necessary to continue.

Post, Stephen G., ed. "Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing,
Research, and Education." Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3rd ed. Vol. 5. New York: Macmillan
Reference USA, 2004. 2887-888. Gale Virtual Reference Library [Gale]. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.
This section of a bioethics book acknowledges the US government requirements for testing,
research, and or training procedures involving the use of vertebrate animals and what principles need to
be considered. There has to be appropriate selection, proper use, used for the good of society, painless
killing, and personnel must be appropriately qualified and experienced before conducting procedures
on living animals. Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress have to be
performed with the animal under anesthesia, sedation, or analgesics. The transportation, care and use of
animals also have to be in accordance to the Animal Welfare Act. This information will be used to
further formulate my argument that animals can be used safely and almost painlessly for testing and
that these laws create a safe environment for animals to be tested on. I found this article on the Gale
Database and it is a credited ebook therefore I think it is credible.

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
The class text helped me to apply utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and cultural relativism to
support the use of animal testing. Utilitarianism constitutes yielding the greatest balance of benefits
over drawbacks. There is factual evidence showing that sacrificing animals to find a vaccine or live
saving procedure is worth it and creates a greater net good. Kantian deontology argues that only
autonomous and rational non-humans are part of humanity. Animals are seen as disposable. I will also
use the Hardening Heart Argument Rejection to show that harming animals does not affect the way that
we treat humans since humans have a greater moral importance than animals. Cultural relativism

bolsters the pro-animal testing argument since so far the US approves of animal testing and
experimentation. I know this source is reliable considering it is the class textbook.