You are on page 1of 4

Prochnow 1

Annotated Bibliography

What is life like for animals in research facilities and how can we come up with effective

alternatives?

Caitlin Prochnow

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

18 October 2017
Prochnow 2

Annotated Bibliography

Feder, Barnaby, J. Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products. The New York Times, The

New York Times, 11 Sept. 2011. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12animal.html.

This developed article from the New York Times expands on new alternatives including

In Vitro. In this process, new human cells are grown for testing from donor cells.

Although this has proven to be more effective than testing on rodents, the extreme costs

are too much for drug companies to upkeep. A cheaper alternative known as Endosafe,

which can be as cheap as $5, has not only replaced most rabbit testing in quality-control

rooms at factories but is also finding a market at dialysis centers as a check on water

quality. The only argument is that these alternatives are not always as accurate as testing

on living organisms. The article emphasizes multiple times that the methods for

engineering tissue samples are among the most complex of an expanding technology

intended to eliminate or reduce animal testing. Throughout the article I liked how Feder

was able to present the good, the bad, and the ugly while most articles involving harm to

animals just want to tell the reader the fluffy side of animal experimentation. This source

was extremely helpful when covering the scope of my topic and I will be referring to it as

I write my paper.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. Ethnical and Scientific Considerations Regarding

Animal Testing and Research. PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, 7 Sept. 2011,

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024059. Accessed 16

Oct. 2017.
Prochnow 3

This academic article closely examines the alternative idea, known as the 3 Rs, that

was introduced by scientists William Russel and Rex Burch. This method encourages

researchers to reduce the number of animals used in experimentations, refine or limit the

amount of pain and distress exposed to animals, and replace the use of animals with non-

animal experimentations when possible. The 3 Rs are a basis for current animal

research guidelines, but questions remain about whether researchers and funders have

fully and adequately implemented this concept. Further, while the 3 Rs capture

important changes, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our

new knowledge about the cognitive capabilities of animals, an updated understanding of

the harms inherent in animal research, or the changing cultural perspectives about the

place of animals in society. The information presented in this article is reliable because it

is supported by numerous studies and trusted sources. I found the information helpful

because it produced an unbiased opinion and brought in ideas from both viewpoints.

Harm and suffering. Harm and Suffering, 2017 New England Anti-Vivisection Society,

www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering. Accessed 13 Oct. 2017.

This website source discusses the suffering and protocols that animals in research

facilities face as it relates to the increased amounts of deaths within this experimental

group. The authors bring up the point that people accept animal research only when they

think that animals dont suffer, and that its scientifically necessary. In fact, they do

suffer and its not necessary. The primary idea brought to my attention in this article was

the fact that, no animals cant reason or talk, but they can suffer. Although the article

does a good job at presenting background information and examples to back up their

claims, they dont offer detailed alternatives in order to fix the issue. Besides that, this
Prochnow 4

article was very helpful because it was able to share new and different approaches to my

previous knowledge of animal experimentation. This is a reliable source because NEAVS

is an established, national organization with important ties to researchers and experts.

They also author and publish papers in peer-reviewed journals on scientific cases.

M.P.H., Aysha, Akhtar, M.D. New Study Finds Alarming Rise in Animals Used in

Experiments. The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 Mar. 2015,

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/post_9111_b_6783322.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

In this website source, Akhtar discusses the fact that at least 95% of all animals in U.S.

laboratories are not considered animals under federal law. This furthers our awareness

of this huge scientific and ethical problem. The main topic is that during the 15-year

period from 1997 to 2012, the use of animals in top-tier laboratories rose by a staggering

73%. While the use of most species stayed constant, the alarming stretch was primarily in

the use of mice. This is likely because of the spread of genetic-modification experiments,

for which millions of mice are bred to carry genes that predispose them to painful

diseases and other ailments, even though they have proved to be ineffective. The author

makes a good point that whatever the government says they will do to minimize animal

use is meaningless, because they dont even know how many animals are inside their

laboratories. Our tax dollars pay for these animal experimentations so taxpayers deserve

to know the truth, right? The best feature of Akhtars article is that she included statistics

and scientific studies to back up her knowledge. However, I wish she would have shared

her ideas on how the problem of animal experimentation can be solved.