Position Statement Animal Testing

Document Sample
Position Statement Animal Testing Powered By Docstoc
					Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  

Position	
  Statement	
  
Animal	
  testing	
  or	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  non-­‐human	
  animals	
  in	
  research	
  for	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  determining	
  
the	
  safety	
  of	
  substances	
  such	
  as	
  foods	
  or	
  drugs	
  is	
  an	
  outdated	
  and	
  barbaric	
  research	
  
development	
  technique.	
  Animals	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  abused	
  by	
  individuals	
  for	
  scientific	
  purposes	
  or	
  
by	
  those	
  seeking	
  pleasure	
  through	
  the	
  tracking	
  and	
  killing	
  of	
  innocent	
  wildlife.	
  It	
  is	
  surreal	
  that	
  
some	
  humans	
  believe	
  the	
  person’s	
  interest	
  in	
  cheap	
  cosmetics	
  to	
  improve	
  their	
  aesthetic	
  
appearance	
  is	
  more	
  important	
  than	
  an	
  animal’s	
  life	
  and	
  the	
  pain	
  and	
  suffering	
  it	
  may	
  endure	
  
during	
  tests	
  for	
  these	
  cosmetics;	
  it	
  is	
  nauseating	
  that	
  some	
  believe	
  an	
  animal’s	
  life	
  only	
  has	
  
worth	
  once	
  its	
  head	
  is	
  mounted	
  on	
  their	
  wall.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  Animal	
  Testing	
  
As	
  previously	
  mentioned,	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  use	
  on	
  non-­‐human	
  animals	
  in	
  
research	
  with	
  the	
  intent	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  substances	
  for	
  human	
  use	
  or	
  consumption.	
  
In	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  the	
  only	
  law	
  that	
  governs	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  animals	
  in	
  laboratories	
  is	
  the	
  Animal	
  
Welfare	
  Act.	
  This	
  law	
  “allows	
  animals	
  to	
  be	
  burned,	
  shocked,	
  poisoned,	
  isolated,	
  starved,	
  
forcibly	
  restrained,	
  addicted	
  to	
  drugs,	
  and	
  brain-­‐damaged”	
  (Animal	
  Testing	
  is	
  Bad	
  Science).	
  
Though	
  the	
  act	
  “requires”	
  an	
  experiment	
  use	
  anesthetics,	
  exceptions	
  may	
  be	
  made	
  if	
  a	
  written	
  
explanation	
  is	
  provided	
  (Animal	
  Welfare	
  Act).	
  Also,	
  if	
  more	
  humane	
  alternatives	
  are	
  available,	
  
the	
  law	
  merely	
  suggests	
  that	
  these	
  alternatives	
  be	
  considered;	
  using	
  these	
  alternatives	
  is	
  not	
  
required.	
  	
  
	
  
Knowing	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  animal	
  protections,	
  why	
  do	
  some	
  people	
  advocate	
  animal	
  testing?	
  
	
  
“Animal	
  testing	
  is	
  the	
  only	
  reason	
  for	
  medical	
  advancement	
  in	
  pharmaceuticals,	
  cancer	
  
research,	
  and	
  the	
  understanding	
  of	
  biological	
  complexities.”	
  
	
  
First,	
  animal	
  testing	
  rarely	
  serves	
  as	
  an	
  accurate	
  model	
  for	
  the	
  human	
  body.	
  The	
  U.S.	
  Food	
  and	
  
Drug	
  Administration	
  (FDA)	
  reported	
  in	
  January	
  of	
  2006,	
  that	
  “nine	
  out	
  of	
  ten	
  experimental	
  
drugs	
  fail	
  in	
  clinical	
  studies	
  because	
  we	
  cannot	
  accurately	
  predict	
  how	
  they	
  will	
  behave	
  in	
  
people	
  based	
  on	
  laboratory	
  and	
  animal	
  studies”	
  (FDA	
  News	
  Release).	
  Not	
  only	
  do	
  so	
  few	
  pass	
  
clinical	
  studies,	
  but	
  50	
  percent	
  must	
  be	
  relabeled	
  because	
  of	
  side	
  effects	
  experience	
  by	
  humans	
  
that	
  were	
  not	
  identified	
  during	
  animals	
  testing.	
  One	
  example	
  includes	
  the	
  release	
  of	
  
Thalidomide.	
  After	
  three	
  years	
  of	
  animal	
  tests	
  this	
  drug	
  was	
  prescribed	
  ‘safe’	
  for	
  use	
  by	
  
humans;	
  however,	
  these	
  animal	
  tests	
  did	
  not	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  consumption	
  of	
  this	
  drug	
  would	
  
lead	
  to	
  severe	
  birth	
  defects.	
  Close	
  to	
  8,000	
  babies	
  were	
  born	
  deformed,	
  including	
  missing	
  or	
  
severely	
  misshapen	
  limbs	
  (Medicine:	
  The	
  Thalidomide	
  Disaster).	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  terms	
  of	
  cancer	
  and	
  AIDs	
  research,	
  Ray	
  Greek,	
  a	
  director	
  of	
  Americans	
  for	
  Medical	
  
Advancement,	
  agrees	
  that	
  animal	
  models	
  are	
  not	
  adequate.	
  “Of	
  11,000	
  anticancer	
  chemicals	
  
developed	
  in	
  mice,	
  none	
  help	
  humans.	
  While	
  5	
  milligrams	
  of	
  botulinum	
  kills	
  man,	
  10	
  grams	
  has	
  
no	
  effect	
  on	
  dogs	
  or	
  cats”	
  (Insight	
  on	
  the	
  News).	
  Further	
  studies	
  have	
  also	
  shown	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  
little	
  to	
  no	
  evidence	
  that	
  animal	
  experimentation	
  benefits	
  humans,	
  including	
  articles	
  posted	
  in	
  
the	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  Royal	
  Society	
  of	
  Medicine	
  and	
  the	
  British	
  Medical	
  Journal.	
  	
  Therefore,	
  it	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
should	
  not	
  be	
  surprising	
  knowing	
  the	
  inherent	
  inaccuracies	
  of	
  animal	
  testing	
  that	
  animal	
  testing	
  
led	
  to	
  research	
  reports	
  stating	
  that	
  smoking	
  was	
  non-­‐carcinogenic.	
  
	
  
PETA	
  argues	
  that	
  the	
  only	
  reason	
  people	
  are	
  under	
  the	
  misconception	
  that	
  animal	
  experiments	
  
help	
  humans	
  is	
  because	
  the	
  media,	
  universities,	
  and	
  various	
  organizations	
  exaggerate	
  the	
  
potential	
  of	
  animal	
  experiments	
  to	
  lead	
  to	
  new	
  cures	
  (Animal	
  Testing	
  is	
  Bad	
  Science).	
  A	
  realistic	
  
question	
  for	
  animal	
  testing	
  proponents	
  is:	
  If	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  so	
  accurate,	
  why	
  are	
  extensive	
  
human	
  trials	
  required?	
  
	
  
A	
  second	
  reason	
  why	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  not	
  necessary	
  for	
  medical	
  advancement	
  is	
  that	
  new	
  
advancements	
  in	
  technology	
  have	
  made	
  animal	
  testing	
  unnecessary.	
  Some	
  of	
  these	
  
advancement	
  include:	
  
	
  
       • CeeTox’s	
  human	
  cell-­‐based	
  in	
  vitro	
  models.	
  CeeTox	
  reports	
  that	
  these	
  test	
  tube	
  models	
  
              show	
  “real	
  predictive	
  power”	
  and	
  can	
  help	
  “identify	
  new	
  drug	
  candidates,	
  chemicals,	
  
              cosmetics,	
  and	
  consumer	
  products	
  that	
  have	
  the	
  lowest	
  risk	
  for	
  toxicity	
  and	
  the	
  highest	
  
              probability	
  of	
  success”	
  (CeeTox).	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
       • Hurel’s	
  3D	
  surrogate	
  human	
  liver.	
  Hurel	
  combined	
  engineering	
  and	
  cell	
  cultures	
  to	
  
              develop	
  a	
  liver	
  which	
  accurately	
  simulates	
  the	
  breakdown	
  of	
  chemicals	
  in	
  the	
  human	
  
              body.	
  Not	
  only	
  does	
  this	
  mean	
  that	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  obsolete,	
  but	
  Hurel	
  estimates	
  that	
  
              their	
  new	
  liver	
  can	
  save	
  1/8	
  of	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  bringing	
  a	
  
              drug	
  to	
  market	
  (Hurel	
  Corporation).	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
       • Advanced	
  human-­‐based	
  brain-­‐imaging	
  techniques	
  
              such	
  as	
  MRIs	
  and	
  CT	
  scans	
  (MRI	
  image	
  shown).	
  This	
  
              technology	
  has	
  been	
  proven	
  to	
  not	
  only	
  be	
  safe	
  for	
  
              humans,	
  but	
  able	
  to	
  study	
  brain	
  function	
  down	
  to	
  
              the	
  level	
  of	
  a	
  single	
  neuron	
  through	
  small	
  changes	
  in	
  
              radio	
  waves	
  and	
  magnetic	
  fields	
  (Alternatives	
  to	
  
              Animal	
  Testing).	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  2007	
  the	
  National	
  Academic	
  Press	
  released	
  a	
  research	
  report	
  stating	
  that	
  advances	
  in	
  
“toxicogenomics,	
  bioinformatics,	
  systems	
  biology,	
  epigenetics,	
  and	
  computational	
  toxicology	
  
could	
  transform	
  toxicity	
  testing	
  from	
  a	
  system	
  based	
  on	
  whole-­‐animal	
  testing	
  to	
  one	
  founded	
  
primarily	
  on	
  in	
  vitro	
  methods.”	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  supporters	
  of	
  animal	
  testing	
  argue	
  that	
  animals	
  are	
  needed	
  to	
  train	
  surgeons	
  for	
  various	
  
medical	
  procedures	
  so	
  they	
  can	
  better	
  understand	
  the	
  complexities	
  of	
  the	
  body;	
  however,	
  the	
  
American	
  College	
  of	
  Surgeons	
  and	
  95%	
  of	
  the	
  medical	
  facilities	
  offering	
  trauma	
  training	
  in	
  
North	
  America	
  would	
  disagree.	
  Alternate	
  training	
  methods,	
  like	
  high-­‐tech	
  mannequins	
  and	
  
other	
  simulator	
  devices,	
  “are	
  better	
  than	
  animals	
  because	
  they’re	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  human	
  
anatomy”	
  (Bosworth).	
  	
  
	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
“Animal	
  testing	
  is	
  less	
  expensive	
  than	
  alternative	
  methods.”	
  
	
  
This	
  is	
  not	
  only	
  not	
  true	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  pharmaceuticals,	
  as	
  mentioned	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  section	
  
where	
  Hurel’s	
  in	
  vitro	
  liver	
  model	
  is	
  estimated	
  to	
  cut	
  costs	
  of	
  testing	
  pharmaceutical	
  drugs	
  by	
  
1/8,	
  but	
  also	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  cosmetics.	
  In	
  fact,	
  there	
  are	
  numerous	
  cheap	
  but	
  effective	
  cosmetics	
  
already	
  on	
  the	
  market	
  which	
  have	
  been	
  created	
  without	
  animal	
  testing.	
  For	
  example,	
  a	
  new	
  
makeup	
  product	
  known	
  as	
  e.l.f.	
  (eyes	
  lips	
  face)	
  created	
  all	
  of	
  its	
  products	
  without	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  
animal	
  fur	
  and	
  sports	
  PETA’s	
  “Cruelty	
  Free”	
  bunny	
  logo	
  meaning	
  the	
  company	
  does	
  not	
  test	
  its	
  
products	
  on	
  animals.	
  Not	
  only	
  that	
  but	
  this	
  makeup	
  has	
  been	
  sighted	
  in	
  Glamour	
  and	
  Vogue	
  as	
  
a	
  professional	
  makeup	
  with	
  bargain	
  prices,	
  selling	
  numerous	
  products	
  for	
  under	
  $1	
  (e.l.f).	
  	
  
	
  
“Many	
  experiments	
  are	
  not	
  painful	
  to	
  animals.”	
  
	
  
Not	
  only	
  does	
  the	
  Animal	
  Welfare	
  Act	
  allow	
  exceptions	
  for	
  researchers	
  to	
  not	
  use	
  tranquilizers	
  
and	
  aesthetics,	
  the	
  law	
  in	
  no	
  way	
  covers	
  the	
  welfare	
  of	
  rats,	
  mice,	
  birds,	
  and	
  cold-­‐blooded	
  
animals.	
  The	
  bar	
  graph	
  below	
  was	
  created	
  using	
  the	
  USDA’s	
  annual	
  report	
  of	
  animal	
  usage	
  for	
  
2010	
  (Speaking	
  of	
  Research).	
  The	
  total	
  reported	
  animals	
  used	
  were	
  1,136,567.	
  	
  




                                                                                                                                                 	
  
Because	
  the	
  Animal	
  Welfare	
  Act	
  does	
  not	
  include	
  certain	
  species,	
  precise	
  figures	
  for	
  the	
  
number	
  of	
  mice,	
  rats,	
  and	
  birds	
  used	
  do	
  not	
  exist.	
  Estimates,	
  however,	
  are	
  thought	
  to	
  be	
  
around	
  25	
  million,	
  accounting	
  for	
  over	
  95	
  percent	
  of	
  all	
  animals	
  used	
  in	
  research.	
  This	
  means	
  
that	
  only	
  the	
  animals	
  which	
  comprise	
  the	
  small	
  non-­‐blue	
  slice	
  shown	
  in	
  the	
  pie-­‐graph	
  on	
  the	
  
following	
  page	
  are	
  provided	
  the	
  most	
  minimal	
  of	
  protections,	
  while	
  the	
  remaining	
  95	
  percent	
  
are	
  not	
  protected	
  at	
  all,	
  i.e.	
  no	
  painkillers	
  or	
  certain	
  environmental	
  conditions	
  are	
  required	
  
(Speaking	
  of	
  Research).	
  
	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                                         	
  
Furthermore,	
  if	
  someone	
  were	
  to	
  argue	
  that	
  animals	
  are	
  incapable	
  of	
  feeling	
  pain	
  and	
  anxiety	
  
equivalent	
  to	
  that	
  experienced	
  by	
  humans,	
  they	
  would	
  not	
  only	
  be	
  misinformed	
  but	
  delusional.	
  
Animals	
  have	
  an	
  active	
  interest	
  in	
  minimizing	
  pain	
  and	
  most	
  animals	
  avoid	
  it	
  in	
  dramatic	
  fashion	
  
(Hull	
  168).	
  Animals	
  will	
  huddle	
  in	
  the	
  back	
  of	
  a	
  cage,	
  away	
  from	
  humans,	
  when	
  in	
  a	
  laboratory	
  
because	
  they	
  perceive	
  humans	
  as	
  a	
  threat	
  and	
  a	
  source	
  of	
  pain	
  and	
  stress.	
  	
  
	
  
“Animal	
  interest	
  and	
  rights	
  are	
  inferior	
  to	
  human	
  interests	
  and	
  rights.”	
  
	
  
In	
  order	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  the	
  counter-­‐argument	
  to	
  this	
  statement,	
  the	
  definition	
  of	
  
“interests”	
  provided	
  by	
  Dr.	
  Hull	
  in	
  his	
  book	
  Infinite	
  Nature	
  is	
  provided.	
  Basic	
  interests	
  include	
  
food,	
  water,	
  and	
  shelter.	
  Serious	
  interests	
  include	
  things	
  a	
  creature	
  can	
  live	
  without	
  but	
  not	
  
without	
  difficulty	
  or	
  cost	
  (i.e.	
  a	
  bird	
  can	
  live	
  without	
  flying	
  and	
  a	
  human	
  can	
  live	
  without	
  being	
  
literate).	
  Peripheral	
  interests	
  include	
  comfort,	
  convenience,	
  status,	
  and	
  other	
  opportunities	
  that	
  
marginally	
  increase	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  (Hull	
  168).	
  Dr.	
  Hull	
  explains	
  that	
  trade-­‐offs	
  within	
  any	
  one	
  
group,	
  like	
  the	
  human	
  race,	
  are	
  obvious.	
  Serious	
  interests	
  should	
  only	
  be	
  pursued,	
  so	
  long	
  as	
  
basic	
  interests	
  are	
  met.	
  Peripheral	
  interests	
  should	
  be	
  pursued	
  so	
  long	
  as	
  serious	
  and	
  basic	
  
interests	
  are	
  met.	
  Any	
  violation	
  of	
  this	
  logical	
  order	
  can	
  easily	
  be	
  denoted	
  as	
  exploitation,	
  
especially	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  sacrificing	
  an	
  individual’s	
  basic	
  or	
  serious	
  interest	
  for	
  the	
  sake	
  of	
  
another’s	
  peripheral	
  interest.	
  Some	
  proponents	
  of	
  animal	
  testing	
  even	
  agree	
  with	
  this	
  trade-­‐off	
  
schematic,	
  but	
  not	
  when	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  non-­‐human	
  animals	
  because	
  animals	
  are	
  “inferior.”	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  counter-­‐point	
  to	
  this	
  inferiority	
  boils	
  down	
  to	
  one	
  question:	
  What	
  makes	
  non-­‐human	
  
animals	
  inferior?	
  
	
  
       A. Psychological	
  capacity:	
  because	
  humans	
  possess	
  a	
  higher	
  degree	
  of	
  intelligence	
  they	
  are	
  
           somehow	
  entitled	
  to	
  use	
  animals	
  (beings	
  with	
  a	
  lesser	
  degree	
  of	
  intelligence)	
  for	
  their	
  
           own	
  ends.	
  This	
  argument	
  ultimately	
  holds	
  no	
  weight	
  when	
  the	
  rights	
  of	
  infants,	
  the	
  
           severely	
  retarded,	
  and	
  demented	
  come	
  into	
  the	
  picture.	
  Though	
  they	
  may	
  have	
  the	
  
           mental	
  capacity	
  below	
  that	
  of	
  a	
  chimpanzee,	
  these	
  human	
  individuals	
  are	
  included	
  in	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
          the	
  circle	
  of	
  those	
  privileged	
  enough	
  to	
  exercise	
  their	
  full	
  rights.	
  Based	
  on	
  this	
  argument	
  
          we	
  “either	
  do	
  not	
  owe	
  any	
  justice	
  to	
  the	
  severely	
  retarded	
  or	
  we	
  do	
  owe	
  it	
  to	
  animals	
  
          with	
  higher	
  capabilities”	
  (Pollan	
  2).	
  	
  
          	
  
       B. Willingness	
  to	
  take	
  on	
  economic	
  and	
  moral	
  responsibility	
  of	
  the	
  human/animal:	
  because	
  
          if	
  you	
  are	
  not	
  willing	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  the	
  animal’s	
  survival	
  than	
  you	
  have	
  no	
  right	
  to	
  decide	
  its	
  
          treatment.	
  This	
  argument	
  also	
  does	
  not	
  hold	
  if	
  viewed	
  from	
  the	
  point	
  of	
  orphans	
  in	
  war-­‐
          torn	
  countries.	
  Simply	
  because	
  no	
  one	
  around	
  them	
  is	
  willing	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  their	
  food	
  and	
  
          provide	
  them	
  shelter	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  that	
  these	
  children	
  no	
  longer	
  have	
  the	
  right	
  for	
  
          these	
  basic	
  interests.	
  
	
  
       C. Physical	
  qualities:	
  humans	
  have	
  opposable	
  thumbs	
  and	
  therefore	
  can	
  manipulate	
  their	
  
          environment	
  to	
  a	
  greater	
  degree	
  than	
  other	
  non-­‐human	
  animals.	
  This	
  argument	
  would	
  
          only	
  be	
  acceptable	
  if	
  the	
  rights	
  provided	
  to	
  humans	
  were	
  also	
  given	
  to	
  all	
  apes	
  (i.e.	
  
          orangutans,	
  chimpanzees,	
  gorillas,	
  etc.).	
  However,	
  apes	
  are	
  constantly	
  tested	
  on	
  even	
  
          though	
  they	
  share	
  physical	
  qualities	
  extraordinarily	
  similar	
  to	
  humans,	
  with	
  the	
  next	
  
          highest	
  level	
  of	
  consciousness	
  after	
  humans.	
  	
  
	
  
None	
  of	
  these	
  arguments	
  provide	
  concrete	
  footing	
  for	
  supporters	
  of	
  animal	
  testing;	
  the	
  only	
  
true	
  argument	
  that	
  could	
  be	
  made	
  is	
  that	
  basic	
  and	
  serious	
  interests	
  are	
  inherent	
  in	
  nature,	
  
independent	
  of	
  humans,	
  and	
  should	
  therefore	
  be	
  respected	
  regardless	
  of	
  species.	
  Humans	
  have	
  
no	
  basis	
  to	
  argue	
  the	
  inferiority	
  of	
  animals	
  and	
  therefore	
  all	
  animals	
  should	
  have	
  rights	
  equal	
  to	
  
that	
  of	
  humans	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  their	
  basic	
  and	
  serious	
  interests.	
  If	
  these	
  rights	
  are	
  equal,	
  than	
  any	
  
trade-­‐offs	
  between	
  species	
  are	
  equal	
  and	
  as	
  previously	
  stated,	
  exploiting	
  another	
  species	
  basic	
  
or	
  serious	
  interests	
  for	
  one’s	
  own	
  peripheral	
  interests	
  is	
  morally	
  unsound	
  even	
  if	
  the	
  exploited	
  
species	
  is	
  unable	
  to	
  reciprocate	
  this	
  moral	
  consideration.	
  
	
  
Recreational	
  Hunting	
  
Historically,	
  hunting	
  was	
  the	
  killing	
  of	
  wild	
  animals	
  for	
  food,	
  but	
  as	
  humans	
  have	
  advanced	
  the	
  
definition	
  of	
  hunting	
  has	
  evolved	
  to	
  include	
  the	
  killing	
  of	
  wild	
  animals	
  for	
  sport.	
  In	
  essence,	
  as	
  
the	
  human	
  mindset	
  changed	
  from	
  seeing	
  humans	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  nature	
  to	
  being	
  separate	
  from	
  
nature,	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  life	
  for	
  non-­‐human	
  animals	
  cheapened.	
  	
  
	
  
Many	
  supporters	
  of	
  hunting	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  peripheral	
  interests	
  of	
  humans	
  (convenience,	
  
status,	
  comfort,	
  recreation)	
  are	
  more	
  important	
  than	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  wildlife	
  they	
  kill.	
  However,	
  as	
  
stated	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  section,	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  discrepancy.	
  Humans	
  cannot	
  be	
  proclaimed	
  
as	
  superior	
  due	
  to	
  psychological	
  capacity	
  because	
  some	
  animals	
  have	
  a	
  greater	
  degree	
  of	
  
intelligence	
  than	
  some	
  humans,	
  and	
  yet	
  these	
  humans	
  have	
  more	
  rights	
  than	
  the	
  animals.	
  
Similar	
  counterarguments	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  for	
  those	
  who	
  believe	
  a	
  willingness	
  to	
  take	
  ownership	
  
of	
  a	
  human	
  or	
  non-­‐human	
  or	
  physical	
  qualities	
  allow	
  humans	
  to	
  exploit	
  “lesser”	
  creatures.	
  
Ultimately,	
  humans	
  must	
  realize	
  that	
  the	
  basic	
  and	
  serious	
  interests	
  of	
  organisms	
  in	
  nature	
  are	
  
independent	
  of	
  humans	
  and	
  this	
  independence	
  means	
  that	
  all	
  interests	
  among	
  all	
  animal	
  
species	
  should	
  be	
  equal.	
  	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
Note	
  that	
  this	
  logic	
  in	
  no	
  way	
  bans	
  hunting	
  from	
  human	
  activity.	
  If,	
  to	
  meet	
  their	
  basic	
  interests,	
  
a	
  human	
  must	
  hunt	
  for	
  food,	
  this	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  a	
  lion	
  hunting	
  a	
  zebra	
  for	
  food.	
  Hunting,	
  
in	
  this	
  aspect,	
  is	
  a	
  necessity	
  of	
  life	
  on	
  earth.	
  However,	
  once	
  hunting	
  becomes	
  an	
  activity	
  to	
  
meet	
  a	
  human’s	
  peripheral	
  interests	
  killing	
  wildlife	
  becomes	
  exploitative.	
  “It’s	
  fun”	
  or	
  “It’s	
  a	
  
bonding	
  opportunity”	
  do	
  not	
  justify	
  the	
  taking	
  of	
  an	
  animal’s	
  life.	
  	
  Even	
  worse,	
  unskilled	
  hunters	
  
may	
  not	
  even	
  kill	
  the	
  animal	
  but	
  cause	
  severe	
  injury,	
  leaving	
  the	
  animal	
  to	
  suffer.	
  In	
  a	
  report	
  
provided	
  by	
  the	
  Southeast	
  Association	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Agencies,	
  a	
  study	
  showed	
  that	
  of	
  22	
  
deer	
  shot	
  by	
  archers,	
  11	
  deer	
  (or	
  50%)	
  were	
  shot	
  but	
  not	
  recovered,	
  and	
  3	
  of	
  the	
  22	
  (14%)	
  were	
  
shot	
  and	
  killed	
  but	
  not	
  recovered	
  (Ditchkoff	
  1).	
  	
  
	
  
Still	
  hunters	
  will	
  argue	
  that	
  hunting	
  is	
  necessary.	
  
	
  
“Hunting	
  helps	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  population.”	
  
	
  
Proponents	
  of	
  hunting	
  often	
  argue	
  that	
  hunting	
  is	
  required	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  population,	
  
especially	
  because	
  deer	
  cause	
  approximately	
  1.5	
  million	
  car	
  accidents	
  each	
  year	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  
States	
  (Deer	
  Accident	
  Statistics).	
  What	
  theses	
  supporters	
  fail	
  to	
  mention	
  is	
  that	
  studies	
  have	
  
shown	
  that	
  car/deer	
  collisions	
  increase	
  during	
  hunting	
  season	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  deer’s	
  mating	
  
season	
  and	
  the	
  dangerous	
  overpopulation	
  of	
  deer	
  in	
  suburban	
  areas.	
  In	
  fact,	
  the	
  deer	
  
population	
  is	
  so	
  high	
  because	
  state	
  wildlife	
  management	
  agencies	
  intentionally	
  keep	
  the	
  deer	
  
population	
  high	
  for	
  hunters.	
  For	
  example,	
  the	
  Arizona	
  Game	
  and	
  Fish	
  Department’s	
  mission	
  
uses	
  “aggressive	
  protection	
  and	
  management	
  programs.”	
  Agencies	
  even	
  have	
  financial	
  
incentives	
  for	
  pleasing	
  hunters.	
  The	
  Michigan	
  department	
  of	
  Natural	
  Resources	
  “has	
  provided	
  
funds	
  to	
  enforce…	
  rules	
  in	
  the	
  field.	
  Millions	
  of	
  dollars	
  have	
  been	
  contributed	
  for	
  the	
  
acquisition	
  of	
  land	
  and	
  for	
  the	
  improvement	
  of	
  deer	
  habitat	
  on	
  those	
  lands”	
  (Lin,	
  State).	
  
Furthermore,	
  some	
  state	
  wildlife	
  management	
  areas	
  are	
  clear	
  cut	
  to	
  create	
  the	
  “edge	
  habitat”	
  
that	
  is	
  preferred	
  by	
  deer	
  and	
  some	
  states	
  require	
  farmers	
  to	
  plant	
  deer-­‐preferred	
  crops	
  and	
  
leave	
  a	
  certain	
  amount	
  of	
  crops	
  standing	
  to	
  ensure	
  the	
  deer	
  are	
  fed	
  (Lin,	
  State).	
  Hunting	
  does	
  
not	
  help	
  keep	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  low,	
  but	
  in	
  fact	
  increases	
  and	
  ensures	
  high	
  deer	
  populations	
  
as	
  state	
  governments	
  protect	
  the	
  herds	
  for	
  hunting	
  seasons.	
  	
  
	
  
Another	
  important	
  note	
  is	
  that	
  if	
  hunting	
  were	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  an	
  
even	
  ratio	
  of	
  male	
  to	
  female	
  deer	
  should	
  be	
  killed.	
  Instead,	
  many	
  hunters	
  focus	
  on	
  bucks	
  as	
  
opposed	
  to	
  does,	
  not	
  only	
  leaving	
  does	
  to	
  propogate	
  but	
  decreasing	
  the	
  competition	
  for	
  food	
  
for	
  does	
  and	
  fawns	
  (Sorensen).	
  The	
  graph	
  shown	
  on	
  the	
  following	
  page,	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  
Wisconsin	
  DNR,	
  only	
  further	
  highlights	
  the	
  incapability	
  of	
  hunters	
  to	
  effectively	
  control	
  the	
  
populaiton	
  of	
  deer.	
  	
  
	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                                                	
  
“Hunting	
  provides	
  a	
  good	
  control	
  for	
  Lyme	
  disease.”	
  
	
  
Contrary	
  to	
  popular	
  belief,	
  hunting	
  does	
  not	
  address	
  Lyme	
  disease.	
  First,	
  Lyme	
  disease,	
  while	
  
spread	
  to	
  humans	
  by	
  deer	
  tricks,	
  comes	
  from	
  mice.	
  Second,	
  these	
  ticks	
  spread	
  mainly	
  to	
  
humans	
  through	
  mice,	
  not	
  deer.	
  Also,	
  the	
  argument	
  that	
  hunting	
  controls	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  
and	
  therefore	
  the	
  spread	
  of	
  Lyme	
  disease	
  is	
  also	
  false,	
  as	
  mentioned	
  previously.	
  If	
  supporters	
  of	
  
hunting	
  want	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  spread	
  of	
  Lyme	
  disease,	
  they	
  should	
  first	
  turn	
  to	
  the	
  state	
  wildlife	
  
agencies	
  that	
  protect	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  (Lin,	
  Lyme).	
  	
  
	
  
“Hunting	
  is	
  a	
  great	
  recreational	
  activity.”	
  
	
  
If,	
  for	
  a	
  moment,	
  the	
  misguided	
  belief	
  that	
  animal	
  interests	
  are	
  inferior	
  to	
  human	
  interests	
  is	
  
ignored	
  hunting	
  still	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  supported	
  for	
  recreational	
  reasons.	
  Compared	
  to	
  other	
  
recreational	
  activities,	
  hunting	
  injuries	
  are	
  much	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  fatal.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  
International	
  Hunter	
  Education	
  Association	
  (IHEA),	
  every	
  year	
  there	
  are	
  dozens	
  of	
  deaths	
  and	
  
hundreds	
  of	
  injuries	
  due	
  to	
  hunting	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  (IHEA).	
  Realize	
  that	
  in	
  one	
  case	
  in	
  
Georgia	
  this	
  means	
  an	
  18	
  year	
  old	
  in	
  Georgia	
  shot	
  and	
  killed	
  a	
  14	
  year	
  old	
  while	
  hunting	
  deer	
  
because	
  of	
  a	
  failure	
  to	
  check	
  beyond	
  his	
  target.	
  Hunting	
  not	
  only	
  endangers	
  the	
  willing	
  
participants,	
  but	
  the	
  entire	
  community.	
  	
  
	
  
Conclusion	
  
Animals	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  exploited	
  and	
  hunted	
  simply	
  because	
  humans	
  believe	
  their	
  interests	
  and	
  
desires	
  are	
  superior	
  to	
  those	
  of	
  non-­‐human	
  animals.	
  Basic	
  and	
  serious	
  interests	
  are	
  inherent	
  in	
  
all	
  life	
  and	
  humans	
  have	
  no	
  basis	
  to	
  argue	
  that	
  their	
  peripheral	
  interests	
  outweigh	
  these	
  
interests.	
  	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  animal	
  testing,	
  humans	
  have	
  made	
  and	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  make	
  medical	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
advancements	
  more	
  accurately	
  and	
  efficiently	
  by	
  using	
  new	
  alternatives,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  vitro	
  
experiments.	
  Animal	
  testing	
  is	
  inaccurate,	
  outdated,	
  and	
  barbaric	
  and	
  should	
  no	
  longer	
  be	
  
practiced.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  hunting,	
  if	
  a	
  community	
  wants	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  they	
  should	
  
instead	
  turn	
  to	
  the	
  state	
  wildlife	
  agencies	
  which	
  intentionally	
  keep	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  high.	
  
Hunting,	
  which	
  originally	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  meet	
  human	
  basic	
  interests,	
  has	
  evolved	
  into	
  a	
  sick	
  
activity	
  which	
  abuses	
  and	
  cheapens	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  life.	
  
	
  
	
  If	
  this	
  report	
  has	
  not	
  completely	
  invalidated	
  an	
  argument	
  supporting	
  animal	
  treatment	
  or	
  
hunting,	
  remember	
  one	
  thing:	
  “All	
  the	
  creatures	
  that	
  evolution	
  has	
  fashioned	
  are	
  remarkable	
  in	
  
their	
  own	
  right.	
  All	
  have	
  hit	
  upon	
  unique	
  ways	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  living	
  against	
  all	
  probability.	
  And	
  that	
  
is	
  something	
  to	
  respect,	
  and	
  to	
  treasure”	
  -­‐	
  Stephen	
  Budianky	
  (Hull	
  177).	
  	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
                                                                  Annotated	
  Bibliography	
  
	
  
1.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Alternatives	
  to	
  Animal	
  Testing."	
  People	
  for	
  the	
  Ethical	
  Treatment	
  of	
  Animals.	
  
PETA,	
  2012.	
  Web.	
  20	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-­‐used-­‐for-­‐
experimentation/alternatives-­‐to-­‐animal-­‐testing.aspx>.	
  

       •     Main	
  points:	
  There	
  are	
  feasible	
  alternatives	
  to	
  animal	
  testing	
  which	
  are	
  extremely	
  effective	
  and	
  
             safe	
  to	
  humans.	
  Advanced	
  human-­‐based	
  brain-­‐imaging	
  techniques	
  can	
  study	
  brain	
  function	
  in	
  
             humans	
  to	
  the	
  extremely	
  small	
  level	
  of	
  single	
  neurons.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  PETA	
  conducts	
  many	
  undercover	
  investigations	
  to	
  gather	
  information	
  which	
  the	
  
             industry	
  often	
  attempts	
  to	
  hide.	
  They	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  outspoken	
  animal	
  rights	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  US,	
  
             making	
  them	
  a	
  slightly	
  biased	
  source.	
  

2.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Animal	
  Testing."	
  Dictionary.com.	
  Dictionary.com.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal%20testing>.	
  

       •     Main	
  Points:	
  “The	
  use	
  of	
  non-­‐human	
  animals	
  in	
  research	
  and	
  development	
  projects,	
  esp.	
  for	
  
             purposes	
  of	
  determining	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  substances	
  such	
  as	
  foods	
  or	
  drugs”	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  The	
  website	
  is	
  used	
  by	
  numerous	
  organizations	
  and	
  can	
  be	
  verified	
  by	
  other	
  
             dictionary	
  references.	
  

3.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Animal	
  Testing	
  Is	
  Bad	
  Science."	
  PETA.	
  PETA.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-­‐used-­‐for-­‐experimentation/animal-­‐testing-­‐bad-­‐science.aspx>.	
  

       •     Main	
  points:	
  This	
  law	
  “allows	
  animals	
  to	
  be	
  burned,	
  shocked,	
  poisoned,	
  isolated,	
  starved,	
  
             forcibly	
  restrained,	
  addicted	
  to	
  drugs,	
  and	
  brain-­‐damaged”	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  PETA	
  conducts	
  many	
  undercover	
  investigations	
  to	
  gather	
  information	
  which	
  the	
  
             industry	
  often	
  attempts	
  to	
  hide.	
  They	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  outspoken	
  animal	
  rights	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  US,	
  
             making	
  them	
  a	
  slightly	
  biased	
  source.	
  

4.	
  Bosworth,	
  Brandon.	
  “Cutting	
  Up	
  Live	
  Pigs	
  to	
  Train	
  Doctors	
  in	
  Pittsburgh.”	
  Web.	
  	
  4	
  Apr	
  2012.	
  
<http://news.change.org/stories/cutting-­‐up-­‐live-­‐pigs-­‐to-­‐train-­‐doctors-­‐in-­‐pittsburgh>.	
  

       •     Main	
  Points:	
  That	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  pigs	
  and	
  other	
  animals	
  to	
  train	
  surgeons	
  is	
  outdated	
  and	
  violates	
  
             the	
  Animal	
  Welfare	
  Act.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  used	
  is	
  cited	
  and	
  can	
  be	
  cross-­‐referenced	
  to	
  the	
  original	
  
             authors	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  provided	
  within	
  the	
  article.	
  

5.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Elf	
  Makeup	
  &	
  Cosmetics	
  –	
  Top	
  Rated	
  Premium	
  Cosmetic	
  &	
  Makeup	
  for	
  Less.”	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.eyeslipsface.com/>.	
  

       •     Main	
  points:	
  	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  a	
  cosmetics	
  company	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  test	
  on	
  animals.	
  It	
  has	
  
             been	
  cited	
  in	
  Vogue	
  and	
  Glamour	
  magazine	
  as	
  a	
  professional	
  makeup	
  with	
  bargain	
  prices.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  Shows	
  that	
  100%	
  cruelty-­‐free	
  cosmetic	
  are	
  attainable	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  successful	
  in	
  
             showing	
  the	
  world	
  this	
  fact,	
  as	
  they	
  sell	
  to	
  17	
  countries	
  and	
  stores.	
  This	
  brand	
  has	
  been	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
              reviewed	
  by	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  top	
  fashion/cosmetics	
  magazines	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  praised	
  for	
  the	
  
              dedication	
  to	
  animals.	
  	
  

6.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Deer	
  Accident,	
  Crash	
  Statistics:	
  Stats	
  Auto,	
  Traffic,	
  Car.”	
  Car	
  Accident,	
  Auto	
  Accidents,	
  Accident,	
  
Car	
  Crash,	
  Lawyers,	
  Attorneys,	
  Wrecks,	
  Articles,Traffic,	
  News,	
  Collisions,	
  Crashed.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.car-­‐accidents.com/pages/deer-­‐accident-­‐statistics.html>.	
  

       •      Main	
  points:	
  There	
  are	
  greater	
  amounts	
  of	
  deer	
  related	
  car	
  accidents	
  during	
  hunting	
  season	
  
              because	
  hunters	
  scare	
  the	
  deer	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  woods.	
  The	
  increased	
  deer	
  populations	
  are	
  also	
  the	
  
              results	
  of	
  hunting,	
  as	
  wildlife	
  management	
  intentionally	
  keeps	
  the	
  deer	
  population	
  high	
  in	
  order	
  
              to	
  have	
  enough	
  to	
  hunt.	
  
       •      Credibility:	
  Data	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  National	
  Attorney	
  and	
  Lawyer	
  Network.	
  	
  

7.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Ditchkoff,	
  Stephen	
  S.,	
  Edgar	
  R.	
  Welch,	
  Robert	
  L.	
  Lochmiller,	
  Ronald	
  E.	
  Masters,	
  William	
  R.	
  Starry,	
  
and	
  William	
  C.	
  Dinkines.	
  "Wounding	
  Rates	
  of	
  White-­‐tailed	
  Deer	
  with	
  Traditional	
  Archery	
  Equipment."	
  
Southeastern	
  Association	
  of	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Agencies,	
  1998.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://76.74.242.170/~anima810/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/07/deer-­‐wounding-­‐rates-­‐deer-­‐and-­‐bow-­‐
hunting1998.pdf>.	
  

       •      Main	
  Points:	
  This	
  study	
  shows	
  evidence	
  that	
  people	
  do	
  not	
  hunt	
  out	
  of	
  necessity	
  for	
  food	
  or	
  
              even	
  eat	
  what	
  they	
  kill.	
  It	
  aims	
  to	
  reveal	
  that	
  hunting	
  promotes	
  a	
  devaluation	
  of	
  life.	
  
       •      Credibility:	
  Six	
  men	
  from	
  the	
  Zoology,	
  Forestry,	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Conservation	
  Departments	
  of	
  
              Oklahoma	
  University	
  conducted	
  this	
  study.	
  They	
  list	
  an	
  extensive	
  collection	
  of	
  cited	
  literature	
  in	
  
              their	
  Works	
  Cited.	
  The	
  organization	
  that	
  published	
  this	
  study	
  “is	
  an	
  organization	
  whose	
  
              members	
  are	
  the	
  state	
  agencies	
  with	
  primary	
  responsibility	
  for	
  management	
  and	
  protection	
  of	
  
              the	
  fish	
  and	
  wildlife	
  resources	
  in	
  15	
  states,	
  Puerto	
  Rico	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  Virgin	
  Islands.	
  
              Member	
  states	
  are	
  Alabama,	
  Arkansas,	
  Florida,	
  Georgia,	
  Kentucky,	
  Louisiana,	
  Mississippi,	
  
              Missouri,	
  North	
  Carolina,	
  Oklahoma,	
  South	
  Carolina,	
  Tennessee,	
  Texas,	
  Virginia,	
  and	
  West	
  
              Virginia.”[i]	
  

8.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Hull,	
  R.	
  Bruce.	
  Infinite	
  Nature.	
  Chicago:	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  2006	
  

       •      Main	
  Points:	
  The	
  definition	
  of	
  interests	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  bio-­‐rights	
  and	
  how	
  animals	
  feel	
  pain	
  are	
  just	
  a	
  
              few	
  of	
  the	
  important	
  facts	
  taken	
  from	
  this	
  source.	
  
       •      Credibility:	
  It	
  is	
  the	
  course	
  textbook	
  of	
  Nature	
  and	
  American	
  Values.	
  
	
  
9.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Hunter	
  Incident	
  Clearinghouse."	
  IHEA,	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2008.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.ihea.com/_assets/documents/Incidents/HIC2007Mar08.pdf>.	
  

       •      Main	
  points:	
  There	
  are	
  dozens	
  of	
  hunting	
  related	
  deaths	
  each	
  year	
  and	
  hundreds	
  of	
  injuries.	
  
              There	
  was	
  a	
  case	
  in	
  Georgia	
  where	
  a	
  14	
  year	
  old	
  boy	
  was	
  killed	
  while	
  hunting	
  deer	
  because	
  of	
  a	
  
              failure	
  to	
  check	
  behind	
  the	
  target.	
  
       •      Credibility:	
  The	
  study	
  was	
  conducted	
  by	
  the	
  International	
  Hunter	
  Education	
  Association	
  in	
  
              association	
  with	
  the	
  US	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Service	
  and	
  various	
  other	
  neutral	
  governmental	
  
              agencies.	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
	
  
10.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  "Hurel	
  Corporation."	
  Cornell's	
  Research	
  Serves	
  the	
  Region	
  and	
  Beyond.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.research.cornell.edu/VPR/SBD/companies/company.cfm?fileName=hrel-­‐corporation>.	
  

       •    Main	
  Points:	
  Hurel	
  Corporation	
  has	
  identified	
  a	
  new	
  way	
  (3D	
  surrogate	
  human	
  liver)	
  to	
  test	
  
            drugs	
  without	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  an	
  animal.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  researched	
  based	
  webpage	
  from	
  a	
  university.	
  

11.	
  	
  Lin,	
  Doris.	
  “Does	
  Hunting	
  Reduce	
  Lyme	
  Disease?”	
  About.com	
  Animal	
  Rights.	
  
The	
  New	
  York	
  Times	
  Company.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  <http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/f/Does-­‐
Hunting-­‐Reduce-­‐Lyme-­‐Disease.htm>.	
  

       •    Main	
  points:	
  Hunting	
  does	
  not	
  address	
  Lyme	
  Disease,	
  despite	
  popular	
  belief	
  that	
  it	
  does.	
  
            Hunting	
  also	
  does	
  not	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  population,	
  as	
  management	
  services	
  intentionally	
  
            encourage	
  a	
  large	
  population	
  because	
  of	
  hunting.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  The	
  New	
  York	
  Times,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  credible	
  source,	
  runs	
  this	
  source	
  and	
  the	
  author	
  has	
  
            written	
  other	
  articles	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  in	
  the	
  past.	
  She	
  also	
  includes	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  additional	
  related	
  
            articles	
  for	
  the	
  reader.	
  

12.	
  	
  Lin,	
  Doris.	
  “How	
  Are	
  Deer	
  Managed	
  by	
  State	
  Wildlife	
  Agencies?”	
  About.com.	
  
The	
  New	
  York	
  Times	
  Company.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/DeerManagement.htm>.	
  

       •    Main	
  points:	
  Creating	
  ideal	
  deer	
  habitats	
  for	
  hunting	
  is	
  expensive	
  and	
  consumes	
  millions	
  of	
  
            dollars	
  from	
  the	
  state	
  budget.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  The	
  New	
  York	
  Times,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  credible	
  source,	
  runs	
  this	
  source	
  and	
  the	
  author	
  has	
  
            written	
  other	
  articles	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  in	
  the	
  past.	
  She	
  also	
  includes	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  additional	
  related	
  
            articles	
  for	
  the	
  reader.	
  

13.	
  	
  "Make	
  Better	
  Decisions	
  Earlier	
  in	
  Discovery	
  with	
  CeeTox	
  in	
  Vitro	
  Models	
  to	
  Predict	
  Toxicity."	
  CeeTox.	
  
Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  <http://www.ceetox.com/>.	
  

       •    Main	
  Points:	
  CeeTox	
  has	
  found	
  an	
  alternative	
  to	
  animal	
  testing	
  through	
  human	
  cell-­‐based	
  in	
  
            vitro	
  models	
  	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  This	
  source	
  is	
  credible	
  because	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  researched	
  based	
  webpage	
  run	
  by	
  the	
  
            company.	
  

14.	
  	
  "Medicine:	
  The	
  Thalidomide	
  Disaster."	
  Time	
  Magazine	
  U.S.	
  Time	
  Magazine	
  U.S.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873697,00.html>.	
  

       •    Main	
  Points:	
  	
  A	
  drug	
  was	
  test	
  for	
  three	
  years	
  on	
  an	
  animal	
  and	
  then	
  said	
  to	
  be	
  safe	
  for	
  human	
  
            use.	
  Though,	
  the	
  test	
  did	
  not	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  drug	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  serve	
  birth	
  defects.	
  Almost	
  8,000	
  
            babies	
  were	
  born	
  deformed,	
  including	
  missing	
  or	
  severely	
  misshapen	
  limbs.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  Time	
  Magazine,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  credible	
  source,	
  runs	
  this	
  web	
  article.	
  	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
	
  
15.	
  	
  "News	
  &	
  Events."	
  FDA	
  Issues	
  Advice	
  to	
  Make	
  Earliest	
  Stages	
  Of	
  Clinical	
  Drug	
  Development	
  More	
  
Efficient.	
  FDA,	
  12	
  Jan.	
  2006.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108576.htm>.	
  

       •    Main	
  Points:	
  This	
  article	
  states	
  that	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  good	
  way	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  efficiency	
  
            of	
  a	
  drug	
  because	
  nine	
  times	
  out	
  of	
  ten	
  they	
  fail.	
  This	
  is	
  because	
  humans	
  and	
  animals	
  react	
  
            differently	
  to	
  drugs.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  The	
  site	
  is	
  run	
  by	
  a	
  federal	
  agency.	
  

16.	
  	
  Pollan,	
  Michael.	
  "An	
  Animal's	
  Place."	
  The	
  New	
  York	
  Times.	
  The	
  New	
  York	
  Times,	
  10	
  Nov.	
  2002.	
  Web.	
  
30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-­‐animal-­‐s-­‐
place.html?pagewanted=1>	
  

       •    Main	
  points:	
  Psychological	
  capacity	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  strong	
  case	
  for	
  testing	
  on	
  animals	
  because	
  if	
  this	
  
            were	
  the	
  case,	
  people	
  would	
  have	
  no	
  problem	
  testing	
  on	
  the	
  mentally	
  retarded.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  This	
  article	
  is	
  published	
  in	
  the	
  New	
  York	
  Times,	
  a	
  credible	
  source,	
  and	
  Michael	
  Pollan	
  
            is	
  well	
  educated	
  on	
  the	
  topic.	
  He	
  was	
  written	
  numerous	
  books	
  and	
  articles	
  about	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  
            animals	
  in	
  today’s	
  society.	
  

17.	
  	
  Spun,	
  Brandon.	
  "Is	
  Animal	
  Research	
  Really	
  Necessary?	
  Why	
  Some	
  Activists	
  Argue	
  That	
  Instead	
  of	
  
Improving	
  the	
  Human	
  Condition,	
  Experiments	
  on	
  Animals	
  Often	
  Lead	
  to	
  Erroneous	
  Conclusions	
  with	
  
Potentially	
  Harmful	
  Results."	
  CBS	
  Interactive.	
  CBS	
  Interactive	
  Business	
  Network,	
  24	
  June	
  2002.	
  Web.	
  30	
  
Mar.	
  2012.	
  <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_18/ai_87917221/>.	
  

       •    Main	
  Points:	
  This	
  source	
  gives	
  statistics	
  on	
  whether	
  animal	
  testing	
  is	
  actually	
  benefitial	
  and	
  
            efficient.	
  For	
  instance	
  the	
  article	
  states	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  11,000	
  anticancer	
  chemicals	
  developed	
  in	
  
            mice,	
  none	
  help	
  humans.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  The	
  article	
  is	
  well	
  referenced	
  and	
  the	
  sources	
  it	
  cites	
  are	
  credible.	
  	
  

18.	
  Sorenson,	
  Eric.	
  "Myths:	
  Hunting	
  Increases	
  Car	
  vs.	
  Deer	
  Accidents;	
  Controls	
  Deer	
  Population."	
  Myths:	
  
Hunting	
  Increases	
  Car	
  vs.	
  Deer	
  Accidents;	
  Controls	
  Deer	
  Population.	
  13	
  News,	
  Nov.-­‐Dec.	
  2011.	
  Web.	
  04	
  
Apr.	
  2012.	
  <http://addins.wrex.com/blogs/weather/2011/11/myths-­‐hunting-­‐increases-­‐car-­‐vs-­‐deer-­‐
accidents-­‐controls-­‐deer-­‐population>.	
  

       •    Main	
  points:	
  Hunting	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  control	
  the	
  deer	
  populations.	
  We	
  must	
  control	
  the	
  
            habitat	
  of	
  this	
  animal	
  or	
  stop	
  moving	
  into	
  their	
  space	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  effectively	
  control	
  the	
  
            population.	
  
       •    Credibility:	
  This	
  source	
  comes	
  from	
  the	
  Wisconsin	
  Department	
  of	
  Natural	
  Resources	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  
            government	
  run	
  agency	
  that	
  manages	
  the	
  environment.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Debate	
  5B-­‐	
  Pro-­‐Animal	
  Rights	
  
	
  
19.	
  	
  "Statistics."	
  Speaking	
  of	
  Research.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/>.	
  

       •     Main	
  points:	
  Statistical	
  information	
  and	
  graphs	
  on	
  animal	
  usage	
  in	
  the	
  US.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  The	
  site	
  references	
  the	
  AWA	
  Report,	
  The	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Journal	
  and	
  National	
  Statistics	
  
             created	
  by	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  government.	
  

20.	
  	
  "TOXICITY	
  TESTING	
  IN	
  THE	
  21ST	
  CENTURY."	
  The	
  National	
  Academic	
  Press.	
  The	
  National	
  Research	
  
Council	
  of	
  the	
  National	
  Academics.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970>.	
  

       •     Main	
  Points:	
  This	
  source	
  states	
  that	
  a	
  system	
  based	
  on	
  whole-­‐animal	
  testing	
  can	
  be	
  switched	
  to	
  
             one	
  founded	
  primarily	
  on	
  in	
  vitro	
  methods.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  This	
  site	
  is	
  an	
  education	
  based	
  url.	
  

21.	
  	
  "U.S.C.	
  Title	
  7	
  -­‐	
  AGRICULTURE."	
  U.S.	
  Government	
  Printing	
  Office	
  Home	
  Page.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  2012.	
  
<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-­‐2009-­‐title7/html/USCODE-­‐2009-­‐title7-­‐chap54.htm>.	
  

       •     Main	
  Points:	
  The	
  act	
  states	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  requirement	
  of	
  an	
  experiment	
  that	
  uses	
  anesthetics	
  
             but	
  exceptions	
  may	
  be	
  made	
  if	
  a	
  written	
  explanation	
  is	
  provided.	
  
       •     Credibility:	
  The	
  site	
  is	
  a	
  government	
  run	
  webpage.	
  

	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                       	
  

	
  
[i]	
  "Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Agencies:	
  Southeastern	
  Association."	
  Southeastern	
  Association	
  of	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  Agencies.	
  Web.	
  30	
  Mar.	
  
2012.	
  <http://www.seafwa.org/index.php>.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  source	
  that	
  was	
  consulted	
  to	
  gain	
  more	
  information	
  about	
  the	
  
organization	
  that	
  conducted	
  the	
  study	
  but	
  the	
  information	
  from	
  this	
  source	
  was	
  not	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  actual	
  paper.	
  

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:5/14/2012
language:English
pages:13