Russell 1

Eleanor F. Russell

Professor Dunham

English 1201

30 June, 2019

Online Casebook

“Animal Testing - Pros & Cons.” ProCon.org, 9 May 2019, animal-testing.procon.org/.

Although this article does not have a labeled author, it is located on ProCon.org. This

website provides unbiased standpoints on many different controversial issues. This article was

published in 2019, which allows for the audience to stay up to date by reading this source. The

main purpose of this article is to show the reader different views on animal testing, as well as

provide some background on this process.

The author’s purpose in writing this article is to provide the reader with both sides of this

controversial debate. This article is targeted toward young adults that are looking for a quicker

read on this topic. The source uses small bullet points on both standpoints to allow readers to

make their own opinion on the topic.

The author of this article is apart of the ProCon website. When digging further into the

article, the author uses footnotes in order to cite the sources of the facts that are provided. By

properly citing the sources, the author further justifies the credibility of the article. This website

would provide both sides of the argument, which would allow for a more developed pro and con

list within my research paper. Also, there is a link within the article that leads to more

background information about animal testing.

 Russell 2

“Animal Testing.” National Anti-Vivisection Society, www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-

informed/science-corner/areas-of-science-that-use-animals/animals-in-

testing/#.XQ6vtC-ZPfY.

This article does not have an author, but it is titled “Animal Testing” and was published

in 2019 by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. The main purpose of this article is to further

explain what animal testing is from a scientific standpoint, and what animal testing is used for.

Also, this source explains why animal testing needs to be ended and what can be done to further

improve this process.

The author’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the reader of the facts of animal

testing and what can be done to protect the animals during this process. This article is targeted

towards the general public who want to be more educated with animal testing and how it is

currently regulated.

Considering that this article was published in 2019, the provided regulations and statistics

are up to date and current. The author of this article is a part of the National Anti-Vivisection

Society. This scientific organization is widely accepted and recognized in the scientific

community. This allows for the credibility of the writer to be verified. This source not only uses

government supported websites for research but also uses personal experiences to further support

the reliability of the article. This source will allow an explanation of animal testing, as well as

information on the usefulness of animal testing within my research paper.

 Russell 3

Gonchar, Michael. “When Is Animal Testing Justified?” The New York Times, The New

York Times, 20 Nov. 2015, learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/when-is-animal-

testing-justified/.

The author of “When is Animal Testing Justified” is Michael Gonchar. The article,

published in 2015, is located on The Learning Network department of the New York Times. This

article uses the real-life example of the endangered species of chimpanzees in order to make the

reader question animal testing from a scientific standpoint.

Gonchar’s purpose in writing this article is to use real experiments and factual evidence

to make the reader ponder if ending animal testing and experimentation would ultimately help or

further endanger the species. The intended audience of this source is middle to high school

students. By shortening the article, as well as directly asking students their opinions, this source

targets students who are researching and still determining their standpoint on the topic.

Michael Gonchar is an author within the New York Times. Gonchar has been writing for

the New York Times since 2012 and mostly writes about current topics and about different

countries. This background, as well as the sources cited in the article, allow for the credibility of

this author and the source to be properly justified. Although this article was published in 2015,

the evidence provided stands true in current articles. This source will be useful for the pros and

cons research within the paper. This article makes the reader question their standpoint by

providing evidence from both sides of the debate, which will allow for my research to be

properly developed with many diverse standpoints.

 Russell 4

Löwa, Anna, et al. “Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and Preclinical Research of

Atopic Dermatitis - Löwa - 2018 - Experimental Dermatology - Wiley Online

Library.” Experimental Dermatology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 19 Feb.

2018, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/exd.13498.

Anna Löwa, Marijana Jevtić, Frida Gorreja, and Sarah Hedtrich are the four authors of

the article titled “Alternatives to Animal Testing in Basic and Preclinical Research of Atopic

Dermatitis - Löwa - 2018 - Experimental Dermatology - Wiley Online Library”. This article

mainly focuses on Atopic dermatitis and how scientists are experimenting with improved

methods to test therapeutic options without using animals.

The authors’ purpose in writing this article is to show the audience that scientists are

researching other methods of testing products without dangering animals in this process. This

article is targeted towards a more educated audience than the other sources. This source provides

many medical and scientific terms and evidence to support the alternative methods of testing

products, which a less educated audience would have a hard time understanding.

This article, published in 2018, is written by four authors. All of these authors have

experience in writing, as well as research. The currency of this article allows for the audience to

stay up to date with the information provided in the article. Also, the background of all of the

authors let the reader defend the credibility of the authors and the article. Using this article in my

research will allow for a more developed explanation of the alternatives to animal testing.

Pyroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston. “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical

Research?” Sinclair College Off-Campus Authentication Form, 2011,

 Russell 5

https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=115c4209-32c1-417b-897d-

fe743b6f8e07%40sdc-v-

sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=62091081&db=f5h.

There are two authors of this article, Helen Marston and Laurie Pycroft. This article,

titled “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?”, is an argumentative source

that appeared in a University Library in 2007. This article debates both the dangers and uses of

animal testing. Pycroft’s stance on the article is towards the usefulness of animal testing, She

explains how animal testing has allowed for many advances in scientific research and uses

medical evidence to support animal testing. On the other hand, Marston debates the dangers of

using animals to testing medicines. She states that testing on animals is not necessary for medical

research.

The author’s purpose in writing this article is to debate both sides of animal testing and

allow the reader to form their own opinion from these arguments. This source targets young adult

readers by using pictures and cartoons to further diversify the authors’ arguments.

Both of the authors of this article are credible but in two different ways. Laurie Pycroft is

the co-founder of the organization pro-test. On the other hand, Helen Marston is the head of

Humane Research located in Australia. Within the article, both authors use many forms of

evidence from reliable sources. This not only justifies the credibility of the authors but will allow

for credibility in my own paper. Using this article will allow me to further explain both sides of

animal testing, as well as develop the evidence provided for the pros and cons of this process.
 Russell 6

Rayburn, Elizabeth R., et al, editors. “Figure 3—Source Data 1. Source Data for Plots in

Panels 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, 3f.” FDA-Approved Drugs That Are Spermatotoxic in Animals

and the Utility of Animal Testing for Human Risk Prediction, vol. 35, no. 2, Feb.

2018, pp. 191–212., doi:10.7554/elife.26414.009.

This article, written by Elizabeth Rayburn, Liang Gao, Jiayi Ding, and Hongxia Ding, is

located on Ohio.gov. “FDA-Approved Drugs That Are Spermatotoxic in Animals and the Utility

of Animal Testing for Human Risk Prediction” explains drugs that have been approved by the

FDA but have had negative impacts on animals that they were tested on.

The purpose of this article is to inform the public about why animal testing is necessary,

and how although this process is necessary, it does not always end the verification process of

drugs. The audience this article is targeting is a more educated audience that understands

scientific and medical terms.

The authors of this article have a medical background. The experience of these authors

allows for more intricate information to be used to explain the use of animal testing in scientific

research. Considering this article is located on Ohio.gov, the source’s information can be

justified. All in all, this article will have a positive impact on my research by allowing another

standpoint on the debate on animal testing.

“What Is Animal Testing?” Cruelty Free International,

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing.
 Russell 7

This source does not have an author, but it appears is on the Cruelty Free International

website. The article expands on the dangers that animal testing has on the subjects. Also, this

article goes into depth about the specific animals used in this process and how animal testing can

affect them long term.

The author’s purpose for writing this article is to convince the audience that animal

testing has negative effects on animals, and that this process needs to be ended very quickly. The

targeted audience for this article is the general public, that is still questioning their standpoint on

animal testing. Giving the information used in this article, the author is targeting people who are

going to be easily persuaded.

The author of this article is apart of the Cruelty Free International organization. This

author and website are credible due to the lack of sponsorships, and the information provided

within the article. This source will allow for more cons to be present in my research paper. By

using the harmful effects (short and long term) and the types of animals that are used in the

process within my paper, I am able to take cons from different standpoints to fully research

animal testing.