Deleon 1

Noareal Deleon

Prof. Lindsey Slanker

English 1201 Online

30 June 2019

Annotated Bibliography

Davies, Jamie A. “Replacing Animal Models.” Sinclair College Off-Campus Authentication

Form, Chichester, West Sussex : John Wiley & Sons, 2012, onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119940685.ch1.

Jamie Davis, a Professor of Experimental Anatomy, University of Edinburgh explains

how alternatives can be developed and used by providing useful advice on developing others.

After looking at the reasons for and potential benefits of alternatives to animal experiments,

Jamie covers a range of methods and examples emphasizing the design considerations that went

into each system. There are sections including 'case studies' that illustrate the ways in which

culture models can be used to answer a range of important biological questions of direct

relevance to human development, and healing. Jamie’s purpose for this book was to persuade

others and give evidence as to where the alternatives work. The audience for this book is

researchers seeking for answers. Jamie is not trying to be critical but connecting with researches

and informing them on the alternatives to decrease the override of animal testing. The book was

released in 2012, so the information is still appropriate.

This source is credible because the sole writer is Jamie Davis, who has been working

within the experimental field since 1994. He has written a total of six books that are used for

further research within similar topics. This source is also credible as it has been approved by
 Deleon 2

Sinclair’s database. This will be helpful in final paper by helping my standing point that there are

alternatives that work to decrease the harming of animals.

Jarrod Bailey, and Michael Balls. “Recent Efforts to Elucidate the Scientific Validity of Animal-

Based Drug Tests by the Pharmaceutical Industry, pro-Testing Lobby Groups, and

Animal Welfare Organizations.” BMC Medical Ethics, no. 1, 2019, 1. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0352-3.

Jarrod Bailey, a senior research doctor, and Michael Balls, a renowned zoologist and

Emeritus Professor of medical cell biology at the University of Nottingham, studies the recent

research by pharmaceutical industry scientists, and discusses criticisms by advocacy groups that

support animal testing for new drugs. Both writers show how, after decades of animal use in

human drug development, there is little evidence to support using animals in drug tests, or to

suggest that animals can effectively predict how people will react to drugs. The paper was

written to be argumentative. It shows the anti-animal testers side within the pharmaceutical

industry. The audience for this article is the public. Baily and Michael wanted to reach out to

educate on a perspective. The content in this article is effectively relevant as it was released this

year.

Both Jarrod and Michael are credible writers as they both have respectable degrees within

the field of this topic. Furthermore, with Jarrod Baily being a senior research doctor, information

is reported reliable as they are passed through many editors. This source would be a great

implement for my paper to provide support of using alternatives and proving the traditional

testing is not a reliable option for the future of medicine.

 Deleon 3

MacClellan, Joel P. “Animal Testing.” Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2018. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89473959&site=eds-live.

Joel MacClellan, a writer for the Salem Press Encyclopedia, explains the growth of

Animal Testing and the controversy of the people who are for or against it. He states that the

central cause for testing is that animals supply interactive replicas that scientists can operate in

order to find out what they want to know. While this article can come off as opinionated, it

provides fact-based data. MacClellan was aiming for an audience of both pro and anti-animal

groups to somewhat convince them into making a settlement. This piece was written in 2014 so

it is applicable data.

The author of this article is Joel MacClellan. This writer credible because his piece was

edited by many people behind respectful fields. This source is also deemed reliable as it was

passed through Sinclair’s library database. This will be helpful in final in my final paper by

showing animal experimentation is not only expensive but unethical.

Masci, David. "Fighting Over Animal Rights." CQ Researcher, 2 Aug. 1996, pp. 673-96,

library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1996080206.

David Masci, a professor of philosophy and director of the Centre for Human Bioethics at

Monash University in Australia, provides a broad overview of the animal rights debate, carefully

detailing the arguments for and against the use of animals, whether it’s for entertainment or

medical research. He also reviews the history of man's long relationship with other creatures,

including attempts by philosophers and others to distinguish a proper role for animals in society.

Masci wrote this article to be informative to the audience of both activists and scientists. He

wanted each side to see and know the facts of the different perspectives. While this piece was
 Deleon 4

written almost twelve years ago, the information is still relevant as animal testing is an ongoing

occurrence today with scientists continuing to ignore the moral of the controversy.

The writer, David Masci, is credible because the information used within is accepted as a

historical fact. Masci and the other contributors are experts in the field and all the information

was reviewed by specialist. Moreover, I found this in Sinclair’s library database where majority

of sources are considered credible for research. This would be a good resource for my research

paper as it will discuss the moral views of scientists and activists on this topic.

“Medical Benefits.” Speaking of Research, 3 Apr. 2018, speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-

benefits/.

Medical Benefits talks about how animal research has brought around medical

advantages in the development of medical treatment. It gives a variety of selections within the

medical breakthroughs made possible by animal research. Such treatments have been used to

save or improve the lives of people all around the world. The cooperation is not really fond of

the alternatives as it believes the methods tend to supplement rather than replace the use of

animals in research. Medical Benefits purpose of writing this article was to inform and argue.

They wanted to inform the public and researchers of the advantages of to testing and convince

them that if animal research continues the results will save human lives. This piece was written

in 2018 so this information is relatively up to date.

The writer of this piece is Medical Benefits. This source is credible as it was generally

listed as a resource for previous reliable sources and the source itself also provides links to

further inform people for its facts. This source will provide support within my paper to

respectfully become informed on the other viewpoint of animal experimentation.

 Deleon 5

Perrone, Matthew. “Technology Aims to Replace Animal Testing.” U.S. News & World

Report, U.S. News & World Report, 14 Jan. 2010,

www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/14/technology-aims-to-replace-animal-

testing.

Matthew Perrone, an AP Business Writer for U.S. News, informs the public on the

procedure that L’Oréal and The Hurel Corporation had designed in which human cells are grown

in a laboratory to imitate a human’s allergic response. This procedure, if carried into effect,

would authorize for mice and guinea pigs to not be tested and then used for dissection. With this

technology, L’Oréal is hoping to still have it in the future, so they can become a company

leaning towards not testing on animals. A toxicologist that previously worked for the

Environmental Protection Agency estimated that tens of thousands of animals could be saved

each year because of Hurel’s technique; this development can remove 100 million dollars from

creating new drugs. The purpose of this writing was to inform the public on a company’s plan to

decrease animal testing. With groups growing that are not in support of animal testing, such

people would be the intended audience as they can now use products that are leaning towards

being vegan. All of this information was written in 2010, but many alternatives have worked, and

this development has been made similar in many ways.

The writer of this piece is Matthew Perrone, an AP Business writer. This author is

credible because he is heavily referred, and his piece is not biased. I plan to use this information

in my paper to explain the alternative options, especially as it’s made from a makeup company.
 Deleon 6

Schneider, Marlon R., et al. “Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and Preclinical Research of

Atopic Dermatitis.” Experimental Dermatology, no. 5, 2018, 476. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1111/exd.13498.

Schneider, assistant professor at Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, writes that,

to improve animal testing, scientists will have to improve procedures for minimal animal

suffering. Such as, 2D Cell Culture. When animals were tested for Atopic dermatitis after affects,

they showed different results from those of humans. Skin models is another alternative that

helps. Lastly, The Vitro method, the most popular substitute for animal testing. This is the most

reliable and affordable alternative. DNA damage can be easily detected and its more effective to

where safe vaccines can be created. Schneider’s purpose of writing this article was to educate

and persuade. He wanted to inform scientists and the public of the many alternatives to testing

and convince them that if they are used, the results will be even more accurate without harming

animals. The information was just written last year, so the facts provided are still in effect. This

source is credible as it has gone through each element to be labeled credible from Sinclair’s

library. There are also resources to support the facts along with other credible authors. This

source will be good for my research paper as it not only gives a list of alternatives to animal

testing, but it provides the pros and cons for each one.