Annotated Bibliography

Dolgin, Ellie. “Animal testing alternatives come alive in the US.” Nature Medicine 16.12(2010): 1348. Web. 26 March. 2015.

Ellie Dolgin is writing this article to express how the United States has taken a recent interest in finding new and better ways to do research, without the use of animals. Her article is about the use of “in vitro” methods to replace the use of animals. “in vitro” is using a lab dish instead of using a full live animal to run the test. Her article also displays who has become interested in pursuing a future where animals no longer have to be in pain and suffer for the wellbeing of research. One issue that could arise from this article is that it is on the short side, but does have a lot of information crammed into a few paragraphs. From this article I would take who in the United States is becoming increasingly interested in removing animals from the research labs.

Liebsch, Manfred. "Alternatives to Animal Testing: Current Status and Future Perspectives."Archives of Toxicology 85.8 (2011): 841-58. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

Manfred Liebsch and his team have been working together since 2011. They have been published in many journals, including the Archives of Toxicology. Liebsch writes about ZEBET, which is an organization established to come to alternatives to animal testing, and regulate whom is capable of allowing such testing. This source has information about a multitude of different alternatives that many pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies can use in order to ensure the health of animals. The source also speaks on the issue of which animals are most often used for the testing, complete with charts and graphs to illustrate the amount of animals that are affected. The statistical information found in this scholarly journal is going to be beneficial to my research paper because it puts numbers to how many animals are used and for what purposes. The only obstacle with this article is that it is foreign and comes from the Netherlands.

Lund, Thomas. “Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits.” Public Understanding of Science 23.4(2012): 428-444. Web. 26 March. 2015.

Thomas Lund’s article is about the views that the public has on animal research. Throughout his article he surveyed many individuals who stated whether or not they approved of the research being done. His article has very interesting findings, showing how much the public approves of animal testing, only when it comes to certain issues. On some issues the public stood behind more confidently, for example, cancer research, but when it came to testing the animals for cosmetic purposes, the public had a very disapproving opinion. Because this article was published in Denmark, it is possible that their public opinion may differ from here in the United States. Thomas Lund does not belong to any group or organization which could have skewed his data. This scholarly article is going to benefit my paper in the fact that it the public does have some support when it comes to improving their lives, but respects animals when it does not pertain to their overall health.

Saraf, Shayam. "Basic research: Issues with animal experimentations." Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 47.1(2013): 6-9. Web. 22 March. 2015.

Shayam Saraf is a professor at the Institute of Medical Sciences, and works specifically with the orthopedics department. Her article is about the necessity for animal testing and all the benefits that it provides. She lists many different companies and organizations that monitor the safety of the animals during the experiments and parallels her research with the ethical standpoint that many take. This source is going to be very beneficial in the fact that it contains a different viewpoint than many other sources whom oppose the use of animals for research purposes. This article gives rise to all the benefits that come from animal testing and why it needs to remain available to improve the lives of both humans and animals alike.

Badyal, Dinesh. “Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario.” Indian Journal of Pharmacology 46.3(2014): 257-265. Web. 26 March. 2015.

Dinesh Badyal’s scholarly article is about the use of animals in the pharmaceutical industry. He explains that animals do not need to be placed under certain conditions for pointless research projects. He does incorporate information in his article about what the pharmaceutical company feels about having the animals to use for research. This article may pose some issues because it is from the Indian Journal and not an American view, but it does contain some very important information about the treatment and alternatives that can be done to remove the use of animals. Dinesh explains that there is technology that can now be used replacing the traditional animal testing methods. This article will benefit my research paper in the fact that it lists alternatives that can be used, but also lists the viewpoints that the companies explain is the reason they need the real animals to experiment with.