-
Bekoff, Marc. "Should Animals Be Used in Laboratory Testing? (Op-Ed)." livescience. Web. Novemeber 11, 2013 05:49pm ET
Marc Bekoff, a Emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is one of the world's pioneering cognitive ethologists, a former Guggenheim fellow, and a co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the Ehtical Treatment of Animals. This is an adaption from one that appeared in Bekoff's collumn Animal Emotions in Pyschology Today. It talks about whether animal testing should be used in Laboratory testing or not because animal testing is a necessary way to do the researches by killing them in the name of science. Bekoff claims that no matter animal testing is a wrong or right way for science, people should consider the reason they must do that and at least have a debate to argue the question. In order to expand his opinion about animal testing, he does some interviews and researches to collaborate his idea. He starts to write the article with what Dr. John VandeBerg says about animal testing. The intended audience of Bekoff's article will be people who has interested in animal testing, like students who need to write a homework report about animal testing or researches who focus on their researches in animal testing. The purpose of this article is to call on people, no matter who, to think about animal testing deeply and the exact reason why they need do this, not just for the name of science.
-
Rowan, Andrew. "Avoiding Animal Testing." TheScientist. Web. December 1, 2011
Andrew Rowan, a president and CEO of Humane Society International, serves on the committes of several animal protection groups, including the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the advisory committee on animal testing for Royal Dutch Shell. Rowan constructs a idea in the field of animal testing that the advanced cell-culture technology is on the way to eliminate the animals from the laboratory. In order to prove the benefits of nonanimal testing, he uses a report of the US National Academy of Sciences released in 2007 at the beginning of the article to show that animal testing can be avoided from toxicity testing programs and gives the readers several movements and ideas of others about animal testing. The common audience of this article are usually someone who are supportive in banning the animal testing, especially those animal protection organizations. The purpose of it is to show people that science can also develop without animal testing and there are some good perspectives of getting rid of animal testing.
-
Overton, Kelly. "Stop animal testing - it's not just cruel, it's ineffective." BaltimoreSun. Web. June 23, 2006
Kelly Overton, a founder and executive director of People Protecting Animals & Their Habitats, has published his writings on humanity's mistreatment of animals on a great amount of website, such as Washington Post, Boston Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc. He is also one of contributors who wrote 2008 Greenhaven Press Current Controversies textbook The Rights of Animals. Overton claims his agrument about animal testing that it should be stopped because it is not only curel but also useless. In order to prove his opinion, he points out an example that people fail to find the cure of cancer by testing on thousands of mice. He provides several reasons to support that animal testing is not have any great help and animal testing will bring people cruelty. The common audience of this article are people who care about animals' life and hope to protect animals from nonsense testing. The purpose of it is to insist that people need to stop harming innoncent animals by vivisection and wasting tax payers' money.
-
Pacelle, Wayne. "A Scientific Indictment of Animal Research and Testing." Huffingtongpost. Web. February 20, 2013
3:31 pm EST
Waynee Pacelle is a president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States and his work on animal issues has been featured in thousands of newpapers and magazines all over the country. He is also an author of a forthcoming bookd named "The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them" which has been published in April 2011. He posts a question "What are the alternatives to using animals in medical research?" at the beginning of the article and answers it with a yes because there are increasing shortcomings of animal testing. He indicates the failure of animal testing that sometimes human studies are so different from animal studies and then he changes his topic that people are encouraging to find new investments in the development of non-animal testing due to human cell systems and human studies. Pacelle believes that alternative ways of researching cure of diseases are good for human as well as animals. The common audience of this article are someone who work on animal testing problems and people who support to replace animal testing in the medince research. His purpose of it is to tell people animal testing sometimes is ineffective and it will be double win for both animals and humans to find an alternative way to study in medical field.
-
Engebretson, Monica. "Being Green and Cruely-Free." Huff Post Green. Web. April 20, 2015. 4:25 pm EDT
Monica Engebretson, a North America campaign manager for Cruelty Free Internation - aglobal campaign to end animal testing for cosmetics, has worked on protect animals from cruelty and exploitation including lobbying, field work, etc. for over fifteen years and she turns her attention to the issues of animals used in cosmetics testing right now. In the article, she talks about two points - good business and good science. Engebretson considers that humans are not animals so that alternative ways are far more creditable than animal testing. Morever, she also claims that there are many reasons to choose non-animal testing for good business sense. Banning animal testing is not only benefical to animals, but also is good for human science. The common audience are people who think there are more benefits for science and society if they get rid of animal testing or people who agree to give animals a safe protection. The purpose of this article are to show some good reason of non-animal testing and hope people can care about animals and enviroment hand in hand.
-
Weise, Elizabeth. "Three U.S. agencies aim to end animal testing." usatoday. Web. February 14, 2008
This article talks about an important program that a group of government agencies may lead to an end of animal tsting. Three agencies - the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the NationInstitutes of Health sign a "Memorandum of Understanding" in order to find alternatives to test new chemicals and drugs for human.The reason
for government agencies the sign the deal is because they realize that animal testing is ineffecitive and waste money. The intended audience for this policy are people who care about animal testing as well as consider animal testing as a useless way. The purpose of it is to tell people that animal testing cannot disappear immediately, but government agencies have already tried some other methods to test everything instead of animal testing.
-
Liebman, Matthew. "ALDF lawsuit against California Animal Testing facility Gain Support". aldf.org. Web. January 28, 2014
The organization named Animal Leal efense Fund is aim at protecting the lives and advance the interests of animals throught the legal system. The ALDF uses high-impace lawsuits to achieve their goal in order to protect animals from testing, farm, etc. In the article, it talks about a lawsuit that ALDF filed on behalf of stop animal exploitation to protect animals who have been neglected and mistreated. The intended audience of the article are someone who hope to end animal cruelty and protect them from inhumane animal testing. Its purpose is to show a lawsuit that tells others ALDF is actually doing something useful and vital to stop animal testing in their best.
-
Murnaghan, Ian. "Local Laws on Animal Testing". aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. Web. March 6, 2015
In the article, it talks about the Local Animal Tesing Laws published in the United Kindom. The animal testing law is strictly execute and the government cares to protect animals and ensure their use is ethical and humane. However, it also criticizes that the approval of detailed reuqirments for project using animals by Home Office is too quick to make sure whether it is necessary or not. The intended audience of the article are United Kingdom citizens who worry about animal testing and its laws. The purpose of the article is to tell people that the country is trying their best to protect animals and decrease the concern of people about animal testing.