Annotative Bibliography
Peter Tatchell. (2009, July). The Long Fight Against Animal Testing. The Guardian.
Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/23/animal-research-rate-rising
This is an opinionated piece regarding the dilemma of animal testing in the united states. The author takes a strong stance towards the side of the abolition of animal testing. He supports his claim by hinting at the inadequacies of animal testing and the existence of alternative methods.
Overall this article is good for a surface level analysis of the subject but it fails to go in depth on a couple of matters. He doesn’t make an effective counterclaim regarding the existence of animal testing because he fails to state the effectiveness of alternative methods and only brings up specific cases to argue the inadequacy of animal testing. Regardless this article is a great surface level interpretation of arguments made by those who oppose animal testing
Foundation for Biomedical Research. Retrieved from
This is a website that contains various information regarding biomedical research.
This source is bias towards the continuation of animal testing as it relies on it to thrive. Regardless of this bias this source is indicative of what those who want to keep animal testing argue.
Henry Cohen. (2006). The Animal Welfare Act. Michigan State University: Animal Legal and Historical Center. Retrieved from
https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-welfare-act
This piece is a summary of animal welfare act and its evolution throughout the late 1900s.
This source is integral to the paper because it gives an indication of how animal rights has evolved over time. It also gives a good indication of where we are now in terms of animal rights and how we should change. This source is very informative and unbiased.
Goodman J. R., Borch C. A., Cherry C. (Spring 2012). Contexts Vol. 11, No. 2, From Sweatshops to Surrogacy: Mounting opposition to vivisection (pp. 68-69). Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41960817
This source does as the title says and mounts opposition towards vivisection. It frames the argument as a whole without taking an clear stance, giving arguments from both sides of the argument.
Because this source is painting the argument for the reader it is relatively unbiased. I can use this source to further frame the argument and what some ones position in society might entail about their stance.
Speaking of Research. Us Statistics. Retrieved from
This source is simply statistics regarding the animal research controversy.
This source has no perceived biases and can be used to further understand the controversy as a whole.
