Source Communication

Source A: “Animal testing alternatives come alive in the US.” Dolgin, Ellie. ·         Source A shares similar views as the source: “Alternatives to Animal Testing: Current Status and Future Perspectives”… Both Dolgin and Liebschs’ articles are about how alternatives to animal testing are growing in popularity in the United States, and specifically Liebsch’s article is about alternatives in the Netherlands. ·         Source A disputes the claims made by Dinesh Badyal whose article is about the necessity of animal testing, and the learning that gets done at universities and labs, testing that cannot be done by in vitro methods. Also Shayam Saraf’s article is about the benefits of animal testing but also parallels her research with an ethical standpoint that is most often taken. ·
Source B: “Alternatives to Animal Testing: Current Status and Future Perspectives” Liebsch, Manfred ·         This source is about alternatives to animal testing and lists different ways that testing can be done without using animals.	Source C: “Painful Dilemmas: A Study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits.” Lund, Thomas ·         This source is primarily about the public view on animal testing. It does not offer any insight on to the ethics or necessity of animal testing, just the public’s view on whether or not it should be allowed based on varying scenarios.
Source D: “Basic research: Issues with animal experimentations.” Saraf, Shayam. ·         This source is about how beneficial animal testing can be, but it also includes an ethical standpoint on how the animals should be treated during experimentation.	Source E: “Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario” Badyal, Dinesh. ·         This source is about the pharmaceutical view on animal testing, and why they should now be using the technological alternatives.