Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

Scholarly sources are easy to find in the field of Neuroscience, since it is such a scientific and scholarly field to begin with. It was also easy to find scholarly sources mentioning studies done on mice/rats, since that happens so often in my field.  The sources I found were "Remote Control Minds" and "A new day for an old emotion: studying fear learning using awake mouse functional magnetic resonance imaging". I chose these articles because they each related to different parts of my controversy: whether mind control is something that improves or ruins society in the future, and the ethics of working on mice/animals.

Bartlett, Maggie, "A laboratory mouse in which a gene affecting hair growth has been knocked out (left), is shown next to a normal lab mouse." via genome.gov, permission given by author

"Remote Control Minds" has a main purpose, which is to question the future of mind control after a level of mind control was done on fruit flies. The article was published by Christen Brownlee in 2005 in an issue of Science News. Its intended audience is anyone interested in science and scientific discoveries, and it cites sources such as the researchers and other scientists and their views on the subject. I found this source through Jstor, by searching "mind control".

"A new day for an old emotion..." also has a clear purpose, which is not so much to focus on the controversy of working on mice at all, but the controversy of just how far one can push their subjects, since this study introduced fear and pain. It was published by Marcelo Febo, July 30th, 2015, in the European Journal of Neuroscience. The audience is fellow neuroscientists, psychologists, and scientists in other fields. Sources include all those involved in these studies. I found this article through searching Google Scholar for "mice ethics".