Annotated bibliography

Korn, David. “How Animal Research Helps Pets.” Foundation for Biomedical Research,

Foundation for Biomedical Research, 18 Aug. 2016, fbresearch.org/animal-research-

helps-pets/.

Indicates instances that animal experimentation for human disease also improves

veterinary medicine. Writing over 150 scientific journal articles, Dr. David Korn

dedicates his work to integrity in scientific policy. Differs from other sources by stating

animal experimentation is mutually beneficial for animals and humans. Using this

information to show the other side of the animal experimentation debate.

Poole, Trevor. “Happy Animals Make Good Science.” Laboratory Animals, vol. 31, no. 2, 1997,

pp. 116–124., doi:10.1258/002367797780600198.

Discusses why an animal being unhappy could lead to unreliable scientific studies.

Participates in the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare with a PhD in Ecology.

Teaches Zoology at the Chelsea College of Science and Technology in London. His

degree and teaching within the animal behavioral field make him a credible source for

experimentation’s effects on the animals used. Differs from other sources by questioning

if the animal’s state of mind influences results. Ties into animal experimentation by it

being an animal experiment itself.

Rasmussen, Claire. "Nonhuman Legal Personhood." Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks:

Gender: Animals, edited by Juno Salazar Parrenas, Macmillan US, 1st edition,

2018. Credo Reference,http://ezgcc.vccs.edu:2048/login?

url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/macusgender/nonhuman_legal_perso

nhood/0?institutionId=3489. Accessed 04 Mar. 2019.

 States that extending human rights to animals could do them more harm than good.

Writing this section of the book is Claire Rasmussen, an associate professor at the

University of Delaware. Specializing in political and social theory. Differs from other

sources by opposing the addition of more rights. Supports the idea that animals are

already protected.

“Rats, Mice & Birds.” Animal Welfare Institute, awionline.org/content/rats-mice-birds.

Analyzes the Animal Welfare Act. Exposes that there are no protections for rats, birds,

and mice. Contributing authors include PhD holders such as Mary Lou Randour, a

psychologist with over twenty years’ experience studying human-animal interaction.

Contributes to an argument against animal experimentation by revealing the absence of

laws for the animals’ care. Differs from other sources by looking at the national

guidelines instead of the effects of those guidelines on the animals. Shows an area where

scientists could compromise by increasing regulations while continuing to experiment on

the animals.

Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. National Academies Press,

2009. EBSCOhost,ezgcc.vccs.edu:2048/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=308622&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Studies the pain of animals used for testing. Argues handling methods can decrease

animal stress and lead to more credible testing results. Presenting the data is The National

Research Council. Referencing experts such as David Borsook, the director of the Pain

and Imaging Neuroscience group at Boston’s Children’s Hospital. Differs from other
sources by stating that sometimes the pain is necessary for the experiment. Managing

pain is crucial to determining the morality of animal experimentation.