Download Click here to SA3

Huang 1
Yuwei Huang
Tesla Schaeffer
ENGL 131
May 5, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
1. Rollin, Bernard E. "The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research." Hastings Center
Report 42. (2012): S4-S6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2013.
This article discusses about the moral status of invasive animal research in contemporary
society. The author states science should not only concern what is observable or empirically
testable, but also ethical judgments about consciousness and pain (physically, mentally, or in
other aspects) for laboratory animals. He also mentions that some people reject considering
animals’ pain because “research should not be hampered by moral considerations,” and it is still
doubtful that animal researchers understand the social expectations regarding animal care and
use even today. Then the author furthermore introduces three layers of ethical concern regarding
invasive research on animals. The first layer is the justifiability of harming animals in research
for human benefit. In other words, the author questions the value or position of laboratory
animals – are animals worth less than human beings, just as what researchers thought when they
did experiments on untreated syphilis in black men? The second layer is the relationship between
the cost of the laboratory animals and the benefits from the invasive animal researches. People
believe doing researches by using animals costs little but benefits much, while the fact is there
are many experiments harming animals but don’t provide significant benefit. The third layer is
the choice between researchers’ convenient and animals’ needs. Researchers like setting up
experiment environments which is convenient for them to do research, dispose or other human-
Huang 2
oriented purposes instead of caring about animals’ living quality. The author summarizes that all
these three levels of concerns should be considered by researchers; even though the first level
makes progress slowly, the third level concern, to care more about animals’ living conditions
instead of humans’ convenience, is currently practicable.
This article is useful to my paper because it introduces the current moral status of laboratory
animals and three layers of ethical concerns for animal researches. This paper tells me what
moral status of invasive animal research is and what it should be in the future, which is
fundamental to my paper.
2. PYCROFT, LAURIE, and HELEN MARSTON. "Is Animal Testing Necessary To Advance
Medical Research?" New Internationalist 444 (2011): 34-36. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 5 May 2013.
This article discusses about the general consideration of whether animal testing for medical
research is necessary, and the answer is directly given – yes. This article firstly states the
necessity of animal test – so far we still need a living organism to test the complicated reactions
of creatures. Later the author complicates the claim by questioning whether animal models work
well enough to represent humans’ biological features because humans differ from other animals
anatomically, genetically and metabolically. These differences mean the data derived from
animals could not be directly applied to human beings and there is a risk of making wrong
conclusion based on animals’ feature which is different from human beings’. Then the author
explains that researchers have devised many routes to minimize inter-species variation. Thus,
researchers are good at choosing appropriate animal models for researches. Finally, the author
states scientists have invented some technological alternatives of animal models, such as
microfluidic chips and micro-dosing that analyze the effects of drugs on an entire living system
Huang 3
without error caused by species differences. But He/she also mentioned that these technological
alternatives of animal models are still being developed and still need a long time to replace the
position of animal testing for medical research.
The claim of this article is not related to the ethical problem of animal experiments, but it
gives us an answer of the root question – It is necessary to perform animal testing for medical
research, which help me complicate the claim for my paper – we should agree the rationality of
animal experiments first, then discuss about the ethical problems taking place in these
experiments.
In addition, the thesis stated by the author that the difference between human beings’ and
animals’ features influences the significance of the research result is actually an example of the
second layer ethical concern, because it is an example of possibly high cost and little benefit. The
statement that modern technologies can potentially replace animal experiments also supports the
second layer ethical concern by giving us a counter-example of low cost (or without harming
animals) and much benefit, and this statement is also a very strong solution to solve the moral
problems of animal experiments – replacing more and more animal models by artificial models
as time goes by.
3. Gershoff, Stanley N. "Animal Experimentation – A Personal View." Nutrition Reviews 67.2
(2009): 95-99. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2013.
This journal demonstrates us how animal experimentation improves health for man and
animals by illustrating animal research in the field of nutrition. The author first answer us the
question of whether the use of animals in nutrition research done much to improve human health.
He/she first quotes a statement from PETA (an anti-animal experiment organization) that it is the
improved nutrition and sanitary standards that reduce the number of death since 1900 instead of
Huang 4
the knowledge gained from animal experiments. Then the author refutes this statement by
illustrating the 20th century vitamin history that involves a lot of animal experiments. This
statement by the author responses to the second layer moral concern of animal experiments by
showing us how much we can benefit from animal experiments with little cost. The author then
answer the question of whether animal research is on biomedical needs of animals ethical by
telling us we can do animal experiments for improving animals’ health instead of human beings’,
which is a good example of evading the first level concern – it is nothing about the hierarchical
relationship between animals and human beings. Then he/she also talks about the toxicology
testing in animals – the problem about the difference of metabolism between human beings and
animals, which responses to the second layer concern and is similar to the statement in the
second article mentioned above. Later the author states most of the laboratory animals are
purpose-bred like rats and mice instead of some pet animals like cats and dogs. This statement
kind of answers the first layer concern by telling us they just use animals biologically for
experiments instead of other animals for people to play with or appreciate the appearance. But it
doesn’t explain why some animals are higher-level than others. Finally the author discusses
about animal rights and humane treatment of animals. The author doesn’t believe animals have
rights similar to those of people, but people do have obligations to not unnecessarily hurt or
abuse animals. He/she states that all animals are not equal, which explains for his/her
categorizing animals into different classes and responses to the first layer concern – it is nothing
necessary to concern because animals are naturally not equal. This thesis may not be absolutely,
but it is a good point to argue about.