English Discourse Site Menu:

Vive Les Animaux: An Annotated Bibliography
Jillian Cox
Academic affiliation: Oklahoma State University
©Read the copyright notice at the bottom of this page
before reproducing this essay/webpage on paper,
or electronically, or in any other form.

Animal Experiments. 2004. 2 Feb. 2005 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml>. This internet source is very informative and contains valuable statistics in relation to animal testing and even mentions some useful alternatives. One of the key points it mentions is "more than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorized in Great Britain in 2002. This number has halved in the last 30 years" (1). The site goes on to argue how almost every medical treatment we [humans] use, it has already been tested on live animals. It further suggests the question of "does animal testing work?" It compares and contrasts the use of lab animals in experiments and the results that are or can be produced depending on the experiment or the animal itself.

Balls, Michael. "Alternative Methods and Cosmetic Testing." Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics 70.6 (1997): 47-49. Michael Balls discusses the misunderstandings in which the ban on animal testing was originally established along with a list of alternative methods that have been successfully developed. Balls, however, is not clear on exactly how many animals are used specifically for cosmetic testing purposes or even in the UK where in 1995 alone a total of 2,709,631 procedures were performed on living animals specifically for cosmetic testing (48). He goes on to list a number of alternative methods such as phototoxicity, skin corrosivity, skin irritation, etc. and goes on to describe each method in detail. In conclusion, Balls insists we should not be pessimistic about the prospects for replacing animal tests for cosmetics ingredients and to make sure that the regulatory authorities live up to their undertaking to accept scientifically validated alternative test methods and testing strategies. Overall, Michael Balls article is informative and is efficient in listing and describing a number of alternative methods.

Debbasch, Caroline et al. "Eye Irritation of Low-Irritant Cosmetic Formulations: Correlation of In Vitro Results with Clinical Data and Product Composition." Food and Chemical Toxicology 43.1 (2005): 155-65. This scientific article not only contains information related to animal testing, but also provides statistical data according to an alternative testing methods to the Draize eye irritation test. For a number of years cosmetic and consumer industries have searched for suitable in vitro methods to assess the safety of cosmetic formulations and raw materials. The Draize rabbit eye test, the former "gold standard" for assessing eye irritation, refers to the testing of eye irritants on rabbits compared to the results of the in vitro testing (alternative method). A further confounding factor in the validation of in vitro eye irritation tests may be the anatomical dissimilarity of rabbit and human eyes: possibly, some of the problems of comparing in vitro test results with those of the Draize test may be due to the difference of rabbit and human eyes, as well as the poor reproducibility of subjective Draize scores. This article is quite long and doesn't provide an abundant amount of information, however, it has outstanding statistics and comparisons.

Heringa, Minne B., et al. "Toward More Useful In Vitro Toxicity Data with Measured Free Concentrations." Environmental Science Technology 38.23 (2004): 6263- 270. As an alternative to animal testing and experimentation, In Vitro assays and computer models are being substituted. But the risks associated with these alternative methods producing the kind of results found from in vivo testing are still very limited. Although this article is confusing and very scientific, it does provide comparisons between results from an In Vivo test verses In Vitro. It mainly explains the recognition of other alternatives to animal testing and how these other experiments would be performed. In conclusion they [the researchers] found that when in vitro testing is used or applied, usually a precise answer is found ultimately without harming any animals.

LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. "Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research." The Philosophical Quarterly 45.179 (1995): 141-60. According to LaFollette and Shanks, the two types of models in biomedical research are called causal analogue models (CAMs) and hypothetical analogical models (HAMs). The reigning view of animal experimentation, however, is the CAM model. Both of these models are live and well within the biomedical research fields. The article goes on to explain each model in detail and describes the purpose of each. First, a CAM model is described as the primary function of animal tests that uncover the "causal" mechanisms, which produce and direct the course of a disease or condition in animals. After which, the results are compared to that of a human. In contrast, the hypothetical analogical models prompt the formation of hypotheses about the nature of biomedical phenomena in humans. In conclusion, this article is full of insightful information and presents useful information as to how and why animal experiments are conducted according to a scientific point of view.

Li, Chien-hui. "The Animal Cause and Its Greater Traditions." Revision 27.2 (2004): 6- 11. Chien-hui Li focuses on animal rights and their need for humane treatment in her article. She suggests that people's concern and action for humans and animals often sprang from the same social and ideological roots. In the introduction of her article Li argues, "…they never receive the kind of seriousness and respect people pay to other 'more important; issues concerning humans"(7). Li also discusses the Literary, Religious, and Radical Traditions that influenced the need to protect animals rights. Her article does not provide much background information to animal testing and experimentation but she avidly argues the rights animals should possess and the compassion they deserve.

Reinhardt, Christopher A., ed. Alternatives to Animal Testing: New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress. New York: VCH Publishers, 1994. According to Reinhardt there are three demands that scientists have placed upon themselves in their search for alternatives to animal testing: refine, reduce, and replace. The concept of the three Rs is discussed in detail while other topics are mentioned such as: reducing and refining animal use with the help of in vitro tests, the costs for the replacement of animals in medical research, and finally the purpose behind animal use. Overall, many aspects of animal testing are discussed in great detail and most of it is very logical and valuable while some information is very scientific.

Rogiers, Vera, and Sonja Beken. Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments. Waversesteenweg: Brussel VUB UP, 2000. As the growing public concern for animal welfare issues, in particular with respect to animal use for experimental purposes, arguments have led to the urgent need for a better and more humane science. The book explains a variety of alternatives to animal testing in order to improve medical research and also to improve accuracy. There are a variety of arguments mentioned including ethical, economical, regulatory and socio-economical that are taken into consideration when forming new alternatives. This book is chalk full of useful information and explains in full detail the purpose behind each new alternative.

Sandercock, Peter, and Ian Roberts. "Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments." Lancet 360.9333 (2002): 586. Sandercock's and Roberts' article examines the comparison between animal experiments and clinical trials and suggests that animal testing results are not always accurate. Two research colleagues are mentioned who performed systematic reviews of the effects of nimodipine in focal cerebral ischaemia verses the same experiment on animals. They concluded that both results were simultaneous. The authors also mention that it seems natural to insist that animal research should be subject to the same rigorous scientific methods used in clinical trials in human beings, yet such a point is sometimes viewed as controversial. In all, this article provides logical commentary about animal experimentation and points out logistic reasons as to why it is viewed as a controversial issue.

Webb, G.P. "A Selective Critique of Animal Experiments in Human-Oriented Biological Research." Journal of Biological Education 24.3 (1990): 191-98. G.P. Webb's article was written with hope that it may help to increase the future effectiveness and reduce waste of experimental animals. His main focus is animal experiments and nutrition. One argument he makes is that mice are not small-scale models of humans, but are a product of society and other options should be considered beforehand. An important statement Webb makes regarding animal testing is "with experimental animals there are fewer restrictions on the nature or severity of treatments that can be used; invasive measurements can be made, harmful mutations propagated, and animals killed at the end of the experiment for post-mortem investigations" (192). Overall, this article contains valuable viewpoints from both sides of the argument for animal testing and has great examples of experiments that have been done to prove each cases point.

Search English Discourse
WWW English Discourse

Copyright notice: this page will hereafter be referred to as the essay/webpage. All rights to the essay/webpage are held by its author. You may hyperlink to the essay/webpage electronically and without notifying either English Discourse—the e-journal or the author of the essay/webpage, but hyperlinks are allowed only for non-commercial and educational use. The essay/webpage may not otherwise be reproduced in hard-copy, electronically, or any other form, unless the written permission of its author is obtained prior to such reproductions. If you do link to the essay/webpage, part of the text in the hyperlink must contain the words "English Discourse—the e-journal".

You may quote from the essay/webpage, but only if the author and English Discourse—the e-journal are unmistakably cited in parenthetical citations and works cited page, endnotes, footnotes, bibliography page, or references page citations.

You may not otherwise copy or transmit the contents of the essay/webpage either electronically or in hard copies. You may not alter the content of the essay/webpage in any manner. If you are interested in using the contents of the essay/webpage in any manner except as described above, please contact "webmaster" at "englishdiscourse.org" for information on publishing rights, and the editor will arrange contact between your organization and the author of the essay/webpage. English Discourse—the e-journal, suggests that such emails should include a subject heading that reads "editorial contact," or "publishing rights." English Discourse—the e-journal will not act as an agent or accept any fees. The essay/webpage is the intellectual property of its author, who retains sole rights. The author has merely granted permission for English Discourse—the e-journal to publish the essay/webpage.