1. Acampora, A. J., Rossi, L. F., Ely, J. B., & Vasconcellos, Z. A. (2009). Is animal experimentation fundamental? Acta Cirirgica Brasileira, 24(5). Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/acb/v24n5/15.pdf.
The article “Is animal experimentation fundamental?” was written by Armando d’Acampora, Lucas Rossi, and Zulmar Vasconcellos and was published in 2009. In the article the authors argue that animal experimentation is significant in undergraduate teaching and special attention needs to be provided to the public of its importance. The authors go on to claim that a human’s life may be saved in an emergency because of the procedures experimented prior on an animal. They also state that the reason vaccines and therapeutic tests were attained is because of animal models for research and teaching. Finally, they discuss how the ethical relationship between animals and humans strengthens the experimentation. The authors conclude by stating that the distorted information provided to the public is the biggest problem in animal experimentation.
2. Barnard, N. D., & Kaufman, S. R. (1997). Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading. Scientific American, 80-82. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf
The article “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading” was written by Neal Barnard and Stephen Kaufman and was published in the Scientific American in 1997. In the article the authors argue animal research is unsuitable for experimentation. Barnard and Kaufman go on to state that animal tests are not accurate. They also explain that there are better methods for centuries that would better suite the experimentation needed today. Finally, they discuss how animals are not humans and therefore should not be tested on for the needs of humans. The authors conclude by determining that these issues should encourage people to change this and spend money on a better suited solution.
3. Liechty, D. (2001). Animal...