Verifying access...
Entry #93
AES Student Submission form
Submitted: 2025-05-09 01:33:56
Form Fields
Duplicate
Admin Only
ID: 39
Faculty and/or Staff Mentor(s)
- All student submissions for presentations at AES must have the approval of a WOU faculty or staff mentor. To learn more about this requirement please visit http://wou.edu/pure/academicexcellenceshowcase/students/. The identified and approving mentor(s) will be automatically notified upon completion of this form.
- If you do not have a mentor's approval, please discuss your presentation ideas and proposal abstract with a faculty or staff member and ask them for their approval and sponsorship before completing this form.
- You must have approval BEFORE submitting or your presentation may not be included in AES.
Mentor Email
ID: 30
Mentor Name
ID: 29
First: Melissa
Last: Kelley
Do you have more than one mentor who should be listed for this submission?
ID: 32
No
Has your faculty or staff mentor reviewed your proposal and approved it for submission?
ID: 3
Yes: Yes
Presenters
ID: 4
| WOU Email | First Name | Last Name | vNumber | Major | Year (Senior, Junior, etc.) | Home Town |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hharperlarson23@mail.wou.edu | Harley | Harper-Larson | V00401229 | Biology | Freshman | Yamhill, Oregon |
What type of session are you participating in?
ID: 6
Poster
Select the session topic(s) that best match your poster
ID: 13
- First Year Seminar Student Showcase
Title of your presentation/poster/performance
ID: 7
The controversy behind animal testing
Are there any accompanists or composers that should be recognized in the program?
ID: 14
No
Did your project involve Human Subjects?
ID: 15
No
Abstract or image files
ID: 17
I will add an abstract now
Abstract
ID: 21
The research I am conducting explores the ethical and scientific controversies surrounding animal testing, particularly its role in modern biomedical research. I investigated this topic by analyzing both primary and secondary scholarly sources, including a peer-reviewed study by Ferdowsian and Beck (2011) that evaluates the ethical justifications and scientific validity of animal experiments, and a review article by Doke and Dhawale (2015) that surveys current alternatives to animal testing. the primary article revealed that animal models frequently fail to accurately predict outcomes in humans, and raise significant moral concerns, while the secondary article emphasized the growing reliability of alternative methods such as in vitro testing and computer modeling. These findings suggest that although animal testing has historically contributed to medical advances, its continued use is increasingly challenged by ethical considerations and the availability of more humane and scientifically relevant alternatives. This research is important because it highlights the evolving tension between scientific progress and animal welfare, encouraging greater investment in alternative methods and stricter ethical oversight in research.
Abstract Approved
Hidden
ID: 37
Yes
Do you give us permission to publish your work online in partnership with Hamersly Library?
ID: 16
Yes
Would you be interested in submitting your work to PURE Insights?
ID: 24
Yes
Model release statement
ID: 18
Yes
Are you willing to allow WOU to make a video recording of your session?
ID: 23
No
I am interested in participating in a session to learn about preparing:
ID: 25
Posters: Posters
Name
Hidden
ID: 33
First: Harley
Last: Harper-Larson
vNumber
Hidden
ID: 34
V00401229
Email
Hidden
ID: 35
hharperlarson23@wou.edu

