How are the facts of animal testing processes and procedures translated into anti-animal testing advocacy? Having studied general and advanced sciences for three years I have a certain bias towards advances in the science field. And being an avid skin care and make  --  up junkie, the science behind product composition correlates directly to animal testing. Animal testing is gradually moving out of the science world and being replaced by alternative methods through great efforts backed by large cosmetic companies. The only thing is, a lot of information pertaining to current vivisection standards is being lost, and this exclusion of information is a typical practice for any advocacy movement. Coming from a relatively heavy science background I understand the benefits of animal testing, but even so I still choose to lean towards the cruelty free movement. If the general public is introduced to both positive and negative sides of the animal testing argument instead of just the negative provided by cruelty free organizations, will the public's opinions still be the same? The progress made thus far towards doing away with animal testing is currently so heavily influenced by public pressure that it is incredibly important for people to make informed decisions based on all sides.  

For researching this question it is important to look at both pro animal testing texts and cruelty free advocacy texts. Shany Sun, in her paper "The truth behind animal testing" argues for the benefits of animal testing. At the time the high school student Sun did not have the authority of an expert in the animal testing field. So she relied on the actual experts and formed a well educated opinion for the use of animal testing that resulted in her paper being published in the peer reviewed Young Scientists Journal. Sun claims that through the misunderstanding of animal testing the benefits brought about through these tests are lost. Cruelty free advocacy groups focus primarily on the welfare of the test animals and the push for alternative methods in testing, but they end up ignoring the strict guidelines and regulations for these tests. Also, yes, there are alternative methods, but the reliability of the results is questionable. Sun concludes that stopping animal testing would result in a hinderance of advancements in science. Sun's paper provides the side of the animal testing controversy that is not often publicized. As a result she is providing the public with information that is otherwise forgotten because of the overpowering bias of the cruelty free movement.

A second article written by a member of the be cruelty free movement, provides some insight as to what might not have been translated when trying to advocate for ending animal testing. Arna Cohen wrote "Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made?" to illustrate the progressions the world has made to encourage and enforce cruelty free methods. Cohen is the "online editor and producer for the Companion Animals Division of the Humane Society of the U.S." (The Carolina Rhetoric) and this particular article of hers was published in All Animals published by the humane society. As per her affiliation with the humane movements, Cohen only expresses her bias against animal testing. Cohen explains the progression of countries adopting cruelty free testing on cosmetic products. Backed heavily be the Be Cruelty Free Campaign and Lush cosmetics efforts have been made to educate the general public, protest, and gain celebrity endorsements to pressure governments to enforce policies that ban the use of animal testing as well as ban the sales of animal tested products in a number of countries. By emphasizing the growing adoption of cruelty free methods and hi  --  lighting the profitability and growth of companies founded on these methods Cohen explains how continuing  the archaic process of animal testing will be detrimental to future successes.

Since the cruelty free movements is focused primarily on the welfare of animals used in vivisection, it would be of great use to gain insight on current regulations and programs associated with the welfare of these animals. So, WS Stokes's paper "Animals and the 3Rs in Toxicology research and testing: The way forward" is relevant in getting a base line of information in regards to welfare of test animals. Stokes is associated with government agencies such as the the Unites States Drug Administration, Animal and Planet Inspection and Animals care. He has also published several papers in regards to animal welfare and claims no bias in regards to this paper. Stokes's informs on the current regulations of the 3Rs of animals testing, refining, reducing, replacing. Refining includes the welfare of animals used in tests. Reducing is specific to regulating the number of animals used in testing, and keeping the number low. Replacing is the development of alternative methods. With the increasing pressures to stop animal testing, the development of non animal methods is crucial for the future. Though animal testing is making progress to move out of practice, the used of animals in labs is still abundant. So the regulating the processes is positive in the advancement of the placement of animal testing in the future.     

The selection of information is a common issue in any controversial disagreement. In order to make one opinion seem better the the negatives of the opponent are hi  --  lighted while the positives are ignored. Opposing sides of animal testing share certain common ground. Both want to advance the development of alternative testing methods, and both are concerned for the welfare of the test animals. However the issues then rise in what qualifies as better welfare. Cruelty free advocates choose to rid science testing of all animals, while those for animal testing aim to better physical and psychological conditions, but only pertaining to a certain selection of species. By comparing the two sides its is apparent information is being lost. If the lost information was expressed would it progress the actions of the cruelty free movement. The research question I started with might have to be edited in order to clarify how the lose of information between opposing sides of animal testing affects the progress of the cruelty free movement. 

