A. Books -- General Animal Rights Background and Introduction to Vivisection

1. Adams, Carol. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum, 1994. Adams takes the following as her givens: oppression is a reality; species is a social construction the same as gender and race; environmental exploitation takes place through social domination of the bodies of some people by other people; feminism does not solely address men/women relationships, but also how gender becomes a marker of the oppression of animals. Her goal is to "equip us to recognize what we as humans do to other animals, especially through the institution of corpse eating." Her starting point is not that of animal rights theory, but on "exposing the ideology that ontologizes animals as usable" by exploring the result of a "human-animal dualism that is embedded within a racist patriarchy."
   
   
2. Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. Regan seeks to "articulate and defend, at greater length and in greater depth than others....what it means to ascribe rights to animals, why we should recognize their rights, and what are some of the principal implications of doing so." In some sense, while making the case for animal rights, Regan also makes the case for the rights of human beings. To be "for animals" is not to be "against humanity." Against the background of animal rights, that is, that animals have "inherent value," not value as having utility to others, Regan argues that one of the implications of this view is vegetarianism. One of the other main implications is "the total elimination of the harmful use of animals in research" (i.e. toxicity tests). For most, this volume has replaced Singer's Animal Liberation as the "Bible" of the animal rights movement.
   
   
3. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books, 1975; revised edition, 1990. The start of the animal rights movement, this book "is about the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals." Singer states that animals should be treated as ends, not means to human ends. The basic moral principle of equal consideration of interests should not be restricted to members of our own species. Singer coins the word "speciesism." This principle should also be demanded by reason, not emotion. Singer recounts numerous examples of the abuses of animals at the hands of scientific researchers (vivisection) and calls for an end to these practices, as well as vegetarianism.

1. Allan, Jonathan. "Baboons, Safety in Xenotransplantation," ProMED-mail post (1998). Allan writes about the recent U.S. Public Health Service meeting in which newly revised guidelines for xenotransplantation were presented. Allan points out, however, that these guidelines have not dealt with the issue of species differences in regard to infectious disease risks, i.e. baboons and pigs are treated the same and that based on current technologies it is virtually impossible to provide "clean animals" for use in humans.
   
   
2. Bach, F.H.; Fishman, J.A.; et al. "Uncertainty in Xenotransplantation: Individual Benefit versus Collective Risk," Nature Medicine 4 (1998) 141-4. The authors address the dramatic tradeoff of individual benefit against societal risk involved in clinical xenotransplantation. The article discusses the ethical considerations which guide the paper and the risks associated with xenotransplantation. A three-tiered approach to policy development and decisions is explored, which includes the societal level, the level of institutions performing the xenografts and lastly at the level of individual patient immunization.
   
   
3. Callahan, Rick. "Hog Intestines Used to Rebuild Knees," Associated Press Wire (March 9, 1998). The author describes the repair of 38 year old James McDonald's knee, where the anterior cruciate ligament (the web of fibrous tissue that binds the knee together) was replaced with refined hog intestines. The man is the first person to receive an implant of small-intestinal submucosa, or SIS, a paper-thin material derived from hogs' small intestines that has shown promise in regenerating damaged tissues. SIS, however, contains no individual hog cells, all but eliminating the threat that human patients could be infected with hog-borne diseases.
   
   
4. Collins, Huntly. "Animal-to-human Procedure Discussed at Science Conference," Philadelphia Inquirer Feb. 18, 1998. The American Association for the Advancement of Science met and speakers included California AIDS activist Jeff Getty, who received bone marrow from a baboon and the surgeon who oversaw the controversial experiment. They are trying to head off a proposed movement by some scientists to temporarily halt animal-to-human transplants. The two major hurdles to xenotransplants include rejection of the animal organ by the patient's immune system and that an animal virus might be introduced into the patient and then be spread to others.
   
   
5. Drawbaugh, Kevin. "Animal to Human Transplants Raise Concerns," Reuters March 6, 1996. This article deals with the fears of xenotransplantation allowing dangerous animal diseases to cross species and spread through human populations. It tells why there is interest in xenotransplants, mainly the lack of available human donor organs. The article quotes pharmaceuticals analyst Peter Laing, who predicts pig-to-human kidney transplants by the year 2000 and that they will be more common than human-to-human procedures by 2002.
   
   
6. Francione, Gary L. "Xenografts and Animal Rights," Transplantation Proceedings 22 (1990) 1044-6. Francione touches on the moral status of the nonhuman animals involved in xenografts. He believes that xenografts crystallize the basic moral issue in a rather dramatic way. He states one can arguably trace a direct benefit that results from the exploitation of the nonhuman animal. He feels there are three reasons why the animal rights community will intensify resistance to such procedures. First, more people are rejecting the "balancing" approach as an appropriate way to resolve moral issues. Second, the concept of animal rights is becoming increasingly accepted as the morally appropriate alternative to the balancing approach. Third, various groups, including, but not limited to the animal rights movement, have begun to question the "objectivity" of science and see it as a "political" activity.
   
   
7. Henderson, C.W. "Xenotransplantation: Cows, Pigs may Offer Transplant Hope," Cancer Weekly Feb. 12, 1998. This article deals with genetically engineered animals whose organs appear human to the immune system. Cells are encased in a plastic net that keeps out anti-bodies and are filtered out of the blood. A device known as cellular replacement by immunoisolatory biocapsule (CRIB) encases the cell in a porous membrane that lets in nutrients like oxygen, but filters out antibodies.
   
   
8. Hoke, Franklin. "As Cross-Species Transplantations Forge Ahead, Some Scientists Call for Caution and Restraint," The Scientist 9 (1995) 1. The author discusses a brief history of xenotransplantations and the reasons to proceed with the procedure. He discusses the disease risks and the appropriate safeguard systems which could be put into place, which would include a centralized resource which provides oversight.
   
   
9. MacPherson, Kitta and Silverman, Edward. "Weighing Risks of Pig Transplants," New Jersey Online Mar. 15, 1998. This article covers a wide range of the various aspects of xenotransplantation, including minimizing risks and the involvement of corporations in the technological aspect of xenotransplants being involved in the ethical decision making process. Particular technology includes freeze-dried arteries which mean they are virus-free. This article also covers why pigs are the best choice for transplants, as they are "easy to raise, mature quickly, produce large litters and have organs comparable in size to humans."
   
   
10. Marketletter Feb. 23, 1998. The article discusses the U.S. FDA rejection of calls for a moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation "until ethical issues associated with the transfer of organs from animals to humans are resolved." The FDA decided to proceed cautiously with strictly controlled and supervised studies.
    
    
11. Recer, Paul. "Patient: Animal Organs not Accepted," Associated Press, Feb. 14, 1998. This article discusses Jeff Getty, an AIDS patient, who said his health improved markedly after he received an experimental transplant of baboon bone marrow, but that the public was horrified at the idea. The transplant was an attempt to place within his body a partial immune system that is resistant to the virus.
    
    
12. Trew, Andrew. "Xenotransplantation: Anglo-American Update," Cleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics Contemporary Issues 1997. Trew notes the novel medical, legal and ethical issues raised by xenotransplantation. The medical concerns center on organ rejection and the risk of infection. The ethical concerns include: potential risks to the general public, risks of cross-over infections from animals to patients, how informed consent is possible with indeterminate risks, issues of justice and availability of procedures, animal welfare issues and other psychological and social issues. Legal issues include: debate about ownership of transgenic animals and long-term effects of introducing artificially created species into the natural world.

Carol Adams, Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals:

1. L. Vance, Choice 32 (1995) 1636, states that previously Adams had introduced the idea that the "eating of meat and the oppression of women are intimately connected." This volume continues this idea with the feeling that the patriarchal mind sees both women and animals only in terms of usefulness. Vance notes that Adams argues that by "eating meat women are complicit in their own oppression." Vance feels this collection of essays is welcome, since most were previously inaccessible. Vance describes Adams' thinking as "brilliant and original," and that though geared toward an academic audience, general readers with animal rights interests will be intrigued.
2. Carolyn Craft, Library Journal 120 (1995) 107, feels Adams "continues her ecofeminist analysis of the relationship between objectification, experimentation and consumption." Adams provides a radical critique of "Christian humanocentric theology" which supports both human/animal dualism as well as man/woman dualism. Adams advocates activism and Craft recommends the book for informed lay readers.

1. Library Journal 109 (1984) 428, states that Regan makes a strong case for the concept "that an animal life, like a human life, has inherent value" and that this means animals have certain rights. Regan avoids hysterical treatment of the subject and should be read, even if one disagrees with his premise, if only as a further reflection on individual human rights.
2. Leslie Armour, Library Journal 108 (1903) 1879, notes this book is a heavier argument in support of vegetarianism. Animals have fundamental rights which are independent of utilitarian considerations. Armour notes the book's strength lies "in the detail of the arguments for and against" and "that no sensible person should venture into the animal rights issue without consulting this book."
3. Choice 21 (1984) 992, sees Regan's book as "unquestionably the best work yet to appear in its field in originality, thoroughness and rigor." The three sections of the book include: the argument that animals are conscious/enjoy a mental life, the defense of a general ethical theory - the rights view, and the obligations of humans toward animals. Regan argues against meat eating, hunting, trapping and the "many uses of animals in science." The book is recommended without qualification for use at all levels.

1. Timothy Daum, Library Journal 100 (1975) 2231-2, mentions that Singer notes that while humans have started to overcome racism and sexism, they still ignore the problem of speciesism or the domination of one group over another. Singer "mounts a blistering indictment of the so-called humane use of animals in scientific research." Singer examines the historical, social and philosophical bases which permit destruction of over one and a half million animals each year in the U.S. The book is "thoroughly documented, well balanced, and unfortunately often revolting." It is the study of humans as the ultimate repressors.
2. Library Journal 101 (1976) 667, notes that Singer presents "strong arguments against the use of animals in science and attacks procedures followed in laboratories and academic institutions of subjecting animals to "painful, injurious and ultimately lethal" experiments that frequently result in "findings inapplicable to human beings." The presentation is controversial, not hysterical.
3. Sharon Russell and Charles S. Nicholl, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 211 (1996) 109-138, not that the book is frequently referred to as the "bible" of the animal rights movement. Russell and Nicholl accuse Singer of "mischaracterizing the various studies" and quotes "selectively and out of context." They feel he distorts and trivializes research projects, and that his utilitarian arguments are not convincing.