Literature Review: Annotations
Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing
Group, Inc. 2000. Print.
Summary/Description: This book discusses the pros and cons of animal testing. It gives a brief history of the animal right movement, and It also address the legal and ethical issues involved around this cruel testing. The Animal Act was rejected by Congress in the United States and animal testing became a part of scientific and medical life. Evaluation/Assessment: It is really bad that the U.S rejected the Animal Act and still continue to use animal as a tool. This important point right here could be a great help on how cruelty the society can be even the Congress. I could use this to talk about the animal right when and where the Act was passed. And talk about why Congress did not pass the law to help animals to free away from the suffer of the experiments. Quotations: "The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk?, but, can they suffer?" (Bentham 14).
Paul, Ellen Frankel, and Jeffrey Paul. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals
in Medical Research. Library of Congress: Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation and
Transaction, 2001. Print.
Summary/Description: This book is about scientists and moral philosophers who are trying to mount a convincing defense against animal rights. The authors actually talk about how animal experimentation functions in the laboratory, the vital role that it plays and eradicating human and animal diseases, and the moral justification for sacrificing animals for the betterment of human life. Evaluation/Assessment: I can see vividly how animals being tested and how cruel can that be. This is really a fine book to address in the essay so that it will strengthen my argument when I describe or illustrating how painful the animals are suffering. Moreover, I can also add some history of where, why, and when animal testing started, so that readers can have a little bit of knowledge about this. Quotations: n/a
Amin, Haris. "Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Ethically Incorrect." hubpages.com. hubpages, n.p. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.
Summary/Description: Haris addressed that without the process of using animal as a tool for research, all knowledge that we gain today would have been closed off to us. There are many advantages when using animals for research such as increasing the understanding about animals and medical benefits. Many vaccines had invented to help cure diseases in the pass that killed millions of people. In the other hand, there is also some disadvantage. Animal testing is not always accurate and it could do a big damaging to the consumer. Evaluation/Assessment: Haris illustrated many good points about why animal should be use for research. He gave a short history about animal testing and then contribute the disadvantage about it. Some emotional appeals also appear when he related animal is also living things as human. His conclusion that animal testing should not be allow because it is not always dependent and accurate to use animals for test drugs because some disaster may happen. He provided many credible sources that could help him persuade the audience. Quotations: "In addition to physical pain suffered by animals during medicine testing, the animals also experience mental pain."
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small." Santa Clara
University. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, n.p. Web. 16 Apr. 2011. Summary/Description: Animals can feel the pain, too. It is unfortunately that animals cannot communicate, they cannot tell how painful it is that they are suffering. Researchers should know that animals have nervous systems much like humans; however, they continue to experience on those pity animals without a second thought. This is comparing human is different than animal because...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document