Annotated Bibliography

“The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing” Issue Report

By: Carly Johnson

Date: 2/20/2020

Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New Statesman, vol. 141, no. 5115, Jul 23,

2012, pp. 14. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1027219

827?accountid=10163​.

Brooks displays the good things that come from animal experimentation and shows why it is
essential to humans. He added that cancer is more survivable than ever, and that is due to
research carried out on animals. In addition to that, researchers are getting an idea of how to
cure life-threatening diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. That would not be
possible without animal testing. He believes that experimenting on animals is vital to save the
lives of many humans. The campaigning group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(Peta) claims that it would be a better world if an alternative to animal testing could be found,
but there is currently no alternative. Because of that, animal testing will remain the best option
for the present. Brooks also makes the point that many people believe scientists are evil
because they are harming animals, but they do everything for the good of humans.

Frey, R. G. "Pain, Vivisection, and the Value of Life." Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 31, no. 4,

2005, pp. 202. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1781056

312?accountid=10163, doi:​http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.008367​.

In this article, Frey talks about the beliefs of David Thomas. He presented Thomas’s case
against animal experimentation. Thomas believes that it cannot be proven ethical. The following
is a concise statement that tells his beliefs: “We should look at things from the perspective of the
victim, human or animal, not that of the would be exploiter.” He believes that the degree of
immorality comes directly from the degree of suffering inflicted on the animal and experiments
on animals are as immoral as experimenting on humans. Frey questions these beliefs and asks
“Is it really true that nothing can be proved or established in ethics?” Thomas tried to make
people empathize with the animals to feel their pain, but Frey still believes that infliction of pain
is the right course of action. Overall, both Thomas and Frey argued for the value of life, human
and animal. They agree that all life is equal and should be treated that way.

Gelpi, A. P. "Animal Rights and Animal Experimentation. Implications for Physicians." The

Western Journal of Medicine, vol. 155, no. 3, 1991, pp. 260. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1775228

039?accountid=10163​.

I learned from Gelpi that the animal rights movement did not receive much attention until the
1980s. The campaign against animal testing was called the antivivisection campaign and began
in England. It later found its way to the United States, but it took a while to gain momentum.
Gelpi said that the animal rights movement goes far beyond the issue of animal
experimentation. Animal rights activists are concerned with the millions of animals killed to
satisfy our appetites, the millions destroyed for product testing, the millions brutally killed for
their furs, the millions sacrificed for trophies, the millions of lost or abandoned pets, and the
extermination of endangered species. The activists see these things as a type of genocide and
crime against nature. There are many people against animal experimentation, but there is little
hope of giving up animal experimentation because it is an essential to bioscientific inquiry and
human health.

Jans, Verna, et al. "Balancing Animal Welfare and Assisted Reproduction: Ethics of Preclinical

Animal Research for Testing New Reproductive Technologies." Medicine, Health Care,

and Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 4, 2018, pp. 537-545. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1999282

329?accountid=10163, doi:​http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9827-0​.

Verna believes that newly developed technologies should be tested in order to ensure human
safety. Humans could be exposed to harm if they used products that had not been tested on
animals. Though Verna believes that, he/she also has the opinion that animal testing is morally
sensitive. Though many people believe it is unethical, there are no full replacements. Many
alternatives for animal testing have not been shown to be safe. Rodents such as mice or rats
are vital to research because of their physiological resemblance to humans. Once something is
successfully tested on mice or rats, it may be tested on other species to better show the
outcome of use on humans. There are three Rs in the animal research field: replace, reduce
and refine the use of animals in research. According to the principles of the Three Rs,
researchers using animals should show that there are no other scientific methods to conduct
their research and how they aim to minimize animal numbers and suffering.
Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. "Bioethics: A Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and

Cosmetics in the UK." Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, 2019.

ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2352706

980?accountid=10163, doi:​http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875​.

In this article, Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel discuss the use of experimentation on animals
in the UK and other European nations. They said there are two positions on animal testing. One
is that animal testing is acceptable if suffering is minimized and there are human benefits that
could not have been achieved using any other means. The second position considers animal
testing unacceptable because it causes suffering, and the benefits to human beings are either
not proven or could be obtained using other methods. There are also many people who only
support it in certain situations. Animal experimentation is extremely effective in determining if a
product or medicine is harmful to humans, but many people argue that better methods exist.
Some argue that advancements from animal testing can also be beneficial to animals and can
cure animal diseases. Experimenting on animals for cosmetics is a whole different story, and it
has been banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Nation.

Moreillon, P., and J. M. Entenza. "Antibiotic Resistance: Learning from Animal Feeds and

Animal Experimentation." Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 7, 2001, pp. 13.

ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2217075

02?accountid=10163​.

I learned from Moreillon that chemotherapy is one of the major contributions of medicine to
public health. Infectious diseases were the main cause of death in humans of all ages until
antibiotics were introduced. Because bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics, researchers
used animals to learn more about bacterial resistance. Testing on animals has also helped
researchers overcome bacterial resistance. Researchers have also learned things such as:
resistance developed much more slowly against levofloxacin than against ciprofloxacin. Similar
observations were made with other drugs. They have made improvements in many drugs to
minimize bacterial resistance. Animals were used to detect the risk of resistance emergence
during treatment. Experiments were performed in rats infected with penicillin to gain information
about streptococci bacteria and bacterial resistance to penicillin. Because of these
advancements, the risk of inappropriate treatment is minimal. All of this information shows how
useful animals are to medicine and treatment.

Orlans, F. B. "Animals, Science, and Ethics--Section V. Policy Issues in the use of Animals in

Research, Testing, and Education." The Hastings Center Report, vol. 20, no. 3, 1990,

pp. S25-30. ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2223644

19?accountid=10163​.

Orlans believes that animal experimentation is a needed part of science, but it should be
conducted in accord with certain humane standards. She informed me that national policies
require registration and inspection of facilities, compliance with specified standards, and efforts
to minimize pain in animals. Any animal experiment that involves pain, death, or holding a
creature captive is questioned with the issue of justification. Some of these cases are justified,
but it depends on the purpose of the experiment, the severity of pain that the subject would feel,
and the quality of the facility where the experiment is conducted. The decision to approve or
disapprove depends on the judgements of the decision maker. I also learned from Orlans that
animal research is done for 2 main purposes: to add to scientific understanding of basic
biological functions, processes, and behavior and to improve human health by finding methods
that can cure or get rid of diseases.

Rowan, Andrew N. "Animals, Science, and Ethics--Section IV. Ethical Review and the Animal

Care and use Committee." The Hastings Center Report, vol. 20, no. 3, 1990, pp. S19-24.

ProQuest,

https://login.proxy039.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2223661

97?accountid=10163​.

I learned from Rowan that the use of animals for research began to grow in the late 1800s. 5
basic rules regarding animals were put in place for animal testing: vagrant dogs and cats should
be held in the care facility for as long as they would be at the city pound and returned to the
owners if claimed; animals should reveive every consideration for bodily comfort; surgical
procedures could only be conducted if they were sactioned by the laboratory director; in a
procedure that caused discomfort, the animals should be rendered incapable of feeling pain;
and at the end of an experiment, animals should be killed painlessly, except when the
continuance of life was necessary. These rules were set before the second world war, so more
concerns later arose. The facilities where experimentation was conducted began to be
questioned. Another concern arose about the knowledge of the experimenters or the lack
thereof.