Bryan Fitzgerald

Adam Padgett
English 102
February 27, 2016
Annotated Bibliography
Inquiry: Should animals be used for medical testing?
Proposed thesis: Animals should not be used in medical testing because they are often mistreated
and there are other more productive options.

Commented [Office1]: Clear thesis. Try strengthening it.

Baier, Stephen W. "The Impact of Animal Rights on the Use of Animals for Biomedical
Research, Product Testing & Education." The American Biology Teacher 55.3 (1993):
136-39. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Bailer writes this article to point out a societal issue and give an unbiased description of
the problem. He begins this article by addressing the history of animal testing in the
medical profession. Then he addresses both sides of the argument without stating which
side he supports to ensure that his credibility holds up. In addition to being unbiased this
source is peer reviewed which adds even more to its credibility. The one thing that hurts

Formatted: Highlight

this sources credibility is that it was written in 1993. I plan to use this source as
background information to build my argument upon.

Commented [Office2]: Try expanding on some of your

thoughts in this source

Cartmill, Matt. "Animal Rights: A Reply to Howard." Journal of Mammalogy 75.4 (1994): 1080082. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Cartmill writes this source to refute an argument made by an author that supports animal
testing, so Cartmill writes this article to state his support for the abolition of animal
testing in the medical field. He supports his position by writing Like many scientific

Commented [Office3]: Try rewording this. Seems a little

repetitive and I had to read the sentence three times to
understand what you were saying.

critics of animal rights doctrines Howard defends animal experimentation by pointing to

its utilityThe benefits of the knowledge acquired to people and animal welfare are
enormous. But equally enormous benefits could be obtained by experimentation on
human beings (1081). This source may lose credibility because the author has a bias, but
the information is still credible because it is peer reviewed. I plan to use this a supporting
evidence for my argument.
Howard, Walter E. "An Ecologist's View of Animal Rights." The American Biology Teacher 56
(1994): 202-05. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
In this article Howard argues that animals should be used in medical research by stating
that there is a very thorough review process that ensues that these animals are not abused.

Commented [Office4]: Using sources that favor both sides

allows for you to have credibility

He references medical students by writing Those who oppose any use of live animals in
medical schools need to consider whether they would be willing to be the first animal and
living flesh that their surgeon performed emergency surgery on to further emphasize the
benefits of animal use in medical school (203). Since this source was found on the
JSTOR search engine it is credible because all sources on the JSTOR search engine are
peer reviewed. In addition this source loses some credibility because it was written in

Formatted: Highlight

1994, which isnt extremely old but also not new, and it also has a bias supporting animal
testing. Even with these two setbacks, this source provides very nice information that I
plan to use as supporting evidence for my counterargument in this upcoming research
paper.
Loew, F. M. "Animal Rights in the Laboratory." Science 201.4355 (1978): 482+. Academic
Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Loew writes this source to investigate whether or not animals should be used in future
medical testing. He questions the assumed right that humans hold that they have the right

to experiment on animals. He also points out alternatives to animal testing with bacterial
testing and computer simulations being other viable options. This author is credible
because he works for a Johns Hopkins, a prestigious medical university, and because he
had his writing published in a peer reviewed journal. Some of this papers credibility is
lost because if was written in 1978, which is slightly outdated, but I still plan to use this
information in my paper as support for my main argument.
Long, Judy. "In the Positive Side: What's Fair for the Chimps of the Alamogordo Primate
Facility?" Las Cruces Sun-News 27 Nov. 2010: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic
[LexisNexis]. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
Long writes this article is about a group of chimps that were used for research by scientist
who neglected them and treated them cruelly. She references veterinary schools when she
writes Veterinary schools, for example, traditionally used "acute" conditions to teach
their students about necessary treatment of trauma. (Acute experiments are those the
animal does not survive). With current technology, however, vet schools have found that
these teaching goals can be achieved via computer simulation. They can run the
simulations as often as necessary, with no loss of life. This source is credible because it
is written for Las Cruces Sun-News, which has an editor that reviews everything written
for the newspaper before it is approved to be printed. This was written recently which
shows animal abuse is still an issue and I will probably use this source as evidence for my
argument or as information for my background in the introduction.
Pycroft, Laurie. "Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?" New
Internationalist July-Aug. 2011: 34-36. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 27
Feb. 2016.
This article was written for the New Internationalist on the issue of animal medical
testing. This source has two advocates writing for either side of the issue, one for animal

rights and one for the use of animals in testing. Both advocates give very convincing
arguments and often contradict one another. They both reference specific examples with
the pro animal rights advocate referencing things such as how we can find viable
replacements for animals and the pro testing advocate writing about the complexity of the
human body only being comparable to an animal.. The main point of releasing this article
was to get the audience thinking on this issue and also give arguments for both sides of
this issue. This source is credible because both of the advocates are experts in their
respective fields and therefore they have the utmost knowledge on both the benefits and
disadvantages of medical research on animals. In addition, this article was also written
recently which increases its credibility even more. I plan to use this article as either
background information or as supporting information for my argument.

I think you could go into further detail on a lot of these sources. While you gave a short
description of each source I still feel as if you could use another line or two describing
some of your sources a little better. I thought all of your sources were credible and you
did a great job finding sources on both sides of the argument which is important to your
credibility. I think you did a good job.