Bachtel 1

Kaitlin Bachtel

Professor Stalbird

English 1201

16 March 2019

Annotated Bibliography

Akhtar, Aysha. “The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation “Cambridge quarterly

of healthcare ethics: CQ: the international journal of healthcare ethics committees vol.

24,4 (2015): 407-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/

“The flaws and Human harms of animal experimentation” is a journal list written by

Aysha Akhtar, which was written in 2015 October 24 published by Cambridge Quarterly of

Healthcare Ethics. It shows how the use of animals to test and experiment on is poorly

predictive of human outcomes. That it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, and

that the collective harm that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms

and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals.

The author of this article is making a point to show that animal experimentation often

significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of

effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods.

He also explains how the resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to

humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be

better invested in developing human based testing methods.

 Bachtel 2

This is a credible source that was written and published by Aysha Akhtar who has a

M.D., M.P.H., who is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford

Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

I’m going to use this article to answer my question of “Is animal testing

and experiments reliable in the medical field?”. This is a good article to use because there are

examples and facts given about how unreliable animal testing actually is, along with a couple of

real examples of when animal testing has failed in the past.

Capaldo, Theodora, president, New England Anti-Vivisection Society. “Animal Data Is Not

Reliable for Human Health Research” Live Science (Op-Ed) June 6, 2014.

https://www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html

“Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research” is an article written by

Theodora Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. The article is

published on Live Science website on June 6 2014. The articles main point is to show how

unreliable animal testing can be when it comes to testing products for humans.

The author of the article mentions methods that would be a better fit for testing

medications, such as, in vitro methods. The author also states the fact that animal use in testing

diverts the limited resources away from modern developments that will better lead to real
 Bachtel 3

breakthroughs. The article also has additional information in the text that can be clicked and re

direct you to other sites with even more information.

This is a creditable source to use in my paper. The author is president of NEAVS, a

Boston based national animal advocacy organization dedicated to ending the use of animals in

research, testing and science education. The author is dedicated to helping educate people on

the issues we face with animal testing in hopes to end it. Also all of the additional resources

within the article will lead to other good sources.

This is going to be another source that will help me not only prove that animal testing is

unreliable but also give the facts to show that it is. There is a lot of different research and

sources I can use to prove this.

Humane society international. “About Cosmetics Animal Testing”. Why do companies still

animal test if it’s not required? 2019 Humane Society International.

http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html

“About Cosmetics Animal Testing” is an article on the Humane Society

International website. There is not an author that is mentioned in the article or website. The

web page has a date of 2019. The main purpose of this website is to answer frequently asked

questions about animal testing.

 Bachtel 4

The author of the questions and answers isn’t anyone specific but is the humane society

international as a whole. The main purpose of this site in my research is going to be to provide

the answers to questions such as; Why do companies still use animals to test if it’s not

required? What are the alternatives to animal testing? And do these animal tests have scientific

limitations.

This site is going to be good in providing me with the answers to frequently asked

questions about animal testing along with a couple of questions that I had originally asked. This

is going to be a reliable site to use because it is a group of people around the world dedicated

to making everyone more knowledgeable to animal testing.

Murnaghan, Ian BSc (hons), MSc. “What Happens to Animals After Testing?”. About animal

testing. http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/what-happens-animals-after-testing.html

“What Happens to Animals After Testing?” Is an article written by Ian Murnaghan. It is in

the website called about animal testing and was updated on the 15 of march 2019. The main

purpose of this article is to let us know what happens after animals are done being used for

testing.

The author of this article is stating facts about what happens to animals after testing

and after they are done being used for experiments. The author talks about things such as what

the animals go through while being used for testing and common misconceptions about
 Bachtel 5

animals after testing. They also state how to care for animals after testing and what you can do

to help with animal testing and making sure it isn’t happening.

This is a reliable source to use because the author of it is an environmental health and

safety specialist, which conduct research for the purpose of identifying, abating or eliminating

sources of pollutants or environmental hazards. He is an environmentally friendly person.

This source will help me in my paper by giving me facts about what exactly happens to the

animals when they are done being used for testing which was one of my questions that I had.

Ostroumov, S. “Toxicity Testing of Chemicals without Use of Animals.” Russian Journal of

General Chemistry, vol. 86, no. 13, Dec. 2016, pp. 2933–2941. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1134/S1070363216130028

“Toxicity Testing of Chemicals without Use of Animals” Is an article written by

Ostroumov S. published by the Russian Journal of General Chemistry in 2016. The article is

providing information about the issues with toxicity testing with animals and ways to move

toward a new way of testing, one that would not include animals.

The author of this article states good facts that I can use in my research paper such as

how the use of animals in testing is an expensive way to test chemicals. The author says,

“Traditional bio testing and toxicity studies on warm blooded animals require the use of tens
 Bachtel 6

and hundreds of laboratory animals, which makes these studies expensive.” The author also

gives types of alternatives such as phytotest.

This is a reliable source for me to use, it is a scoloray article and is published by a reliable

source. The author or authors of this article are also reliable and the information in the article is

very useful and can be backed up by other sources.

I’m going to use this article to give a lot of examples of alternative testing methods

along with the definition of these methods and how they will work.

Peta. “Animal Testing 101”. Millions of Animals Suffer and Die in Testing, Training, and Other
Experiments. 2019. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-
experimentation/animal-testing-101/

“Animal Testing 101” is an article that I found on peta website. There isn’t a known

author of the article but peta as a whole Is responsible for the article itself. There is also not a

known date on the article itself but Peta website is updated regularly and the website year is

2019. The article is providing information about the basics of animal testing.

In this article there is a couple of main points that are made. They give information

about what animals are used such as mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other

animals. They also give specific numbers of animals that die each year from animal testing just

in the united states.

Peta is an organization that is against anything to do with animal cruelty. They are a

reliable source to use because their main point of the whole site is to protect those who can’t

protect themselves, that being animals. They are a known organization to conduct research and
 Bachtel 7

campaigns against animal testing and animal use. They are also known for holding charity and

such things.

I’m going to be using this in my research to help me answer my question of “what

happens to the animals while in captive for testing?” This is going to be very helpful to help me

answer that question by letting me know how the animals are treated and exactly how there

being used.

Prior, Helen, et al. “Reflections on the Progress towards Non-Animal Methods for Acute Toxicity

Testing of Chemicals.” Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology: RTP, vol. 102, Mar. 2019,

pp. 30–33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.12.008. https://journals-ohiolink-

edu.sinclair.ohionet.org/pg_99?404166594556397::NO::P99_ENTITY_ID,P99_ENTITY_TY

PE:279125150,MAIN_FILE&cs=3Avb-

OpfxcIzPzqmSUD8RW7ouJKvSMW2zd6O4rOjT6KIWxaLvUC9C4_N0WqggAwG5m9hQe1P

wmOpJxgE4vdYflw

“Reflections on the Progress towards Non-Animal Methods for Acute Toxicity Testing of

Chemicals” is an article written by Helen Prior. This article was published by Elsevier 20

December 2018. This article is very recent and talks about the progress being made towards

non animal testing.

The author of this articles main point is to talk about acute toxicity testing of chemicals

and the progress being made towards non animal methods. The author begins out by telling

what the Acute Toxicity ‘six-pack’ is, which is a suite of tests for hazard identification and risk
 Bachtel 8

assessment, primarily for the classification and labeling of industrial chemicals and

agrochemicals. The ‘six-pack’ is designed to provide information on health hazards likely to

arise from short-term exposure to chemicals via inhalation, oral and dermal routes, including

the potential for eye and skin irritation/corrosion and skin sensitization. The component tests

of the ‘six-pack’ heavily rely on the use of experimental animals. The author continues to talk

about ways to move away from this method. In 2017, the UK, Europe, and the US held a

workshop entitled “Towards Global Elimination of the Acute Toxicity ‘six-pack” to explore

opportunities to use alternative non animal methods for hazard identification and classification

without compromising human or environmental safety.

This source is a good and reliable one for me to use in my research paper because it was

a recent study done which was in 2017 and it was recently published which it was published in

December of 2018. Also this is reliable because the author of this along with the people who

conducted the studies are scientists and they do this job for a living, they are all dedicated to

this kind of work and letting everyone know about it.

I’m going to use this article in my paper to explain the procedures that are currently

used when texting chemicals and the actual harm that they do. I am also going to use this

article to explain how we can go about non animal testing toxic chemicals and the work that is

already being done toward that.