There are many arguments and protests regarding the stop of testing chemicals that go into cosmetics on animals. Something that is not argued as often is, instead of testing these products on animals, what are other ways certain products can be tested other than on animals. Clearly the reaction animals have to products is an indicator of how humans would react to using the same product. Just because animals are easy to access and test on, does not mean there are no other options available for testing. 

It was not until I came to college that I really started to become interested in this issue. I have always used whatever makeup and cosmetics I wanted and I began doing some research on the brands I was using. I then found out most of the products I used was testing on animals. I starting reading articles on how animals are treated during the process of chemical testing, and it did not sit well with me. The reason this is so interesting to me is because I began wondering why animals have to be used to test certain products. Why can't there be alternate ways to test the way humans will react to the chemicals potentially being put into the products? Animals being used as an experiment of how people's skin will react to chemicals does not affect my morals or beliefs, but I am an animal lover and I hate knowing living creatures are being treated this way when it is not necessary. I cannot wake up in the morning and put on makeup knowing a poor animal was tortured just to be sure it would not burn my skin. Although I am glad my skin was not harmed when I put the makeup on, I do not think an animal should suffer. There is nothing specific that makes me more qualified to write about this issue than any random person, but I am very passionate about it. I am willing to put in time to research ways cosmetics can be tested that do not include animals and I also have stopped purchasing brands that test on animals. I cannot realistically think that I can do much about this issue, but if I bring awareness to people about how the lipstick they are wearing was tested and approved, it might change the way they buy their cosmetics. 

The first article I read was called "Scientific Alternatives for Animal Testing" by Kara Rodgers. Throughout the article she talked about how many animal testing experiments are often inaccurate and produce data that is irrelevant to humans. One example she uses is the Draize test, a test that puts a chemical agent into an animal's, usually a rabbit, eyes or skin, and watches for a reaction. The flaw in this test is that the rabbit's eyes or skin show a reaction but there is no way to know for sure if the human skin will react the same way. The author is interested in getting people to understand that there are possible ways for cosmetic brands to stop testing their products on animals. The problem with finding a different method for testing is that it takes a while. An alternate test for the Draize test has taken nearly ten years and still is not perfected. The author of this article, Kara Rodgers, is a Life Science editor for Britannica, she has also written for many other publications and has a Ph.D. in pharmacy and toxicology. I find her to be a credible and reliable source to use because of her Ph.D. in toxicology. She clearly knows what she is talking about when referring to the reasons animals react to certain chemicals in a way that humans would not because of her extensive research in mitochondria and antioxidants. 

Another article I read was called "Human Skin for Testing Cosmetics is Grown in the Lab" by Fiona MacRae. The article mentioned that the cosmetic company L'Oreal created a new way to test their cosmetics. Skin is collected from donors during cosmetic surgery and kept for alternate testing methods. Episkin is grown from the cells that live on the top layer of one's skin. Instead of using rabbit skin to test chemicals on, the Episkin will produce more accurate results. Even though this will not completely end animal testing, it gives companies a different and more accurate route to choose when testing their products. The writer of this article wants her audience to be aware of this new method of testing. She wants people to understand the reasons it works and why this is such a huge advancement in the cosmetics industry. The author definitely has some bias in her writing this article. She is informing her audience about this new advancement in the cosmetic testing industry, but she is emphasizing the benefits. I am sure there are drawbacks to this method but they are not mentioned. I do not know if she is completely credible because it does not give any information on her background in this field of study. She seems to know what she is talking about with the way she describes this testing method. 

The last article I used for my research was "E.U. Bans Cosmetics With Animal-Tested Ingredient" by James Kanter. This article gave information on the banning of animal tested cosmetics in Europe. In 2013 an official and final ban was put into action in Europe on all ingredients tested on animals. Any products that had been tested on animals were taken off of the shelves in every store. This article was not meant to persuade any audience, it was simply written to inform the reader of why Europe banned these products. This was published in the New York Times, so I find this to be an extremely credible source. If the author has any bias towards this issue, he is not making it known in the writing. He kept it strictly factual and did not put much of his own opinion into the article. 

I think this research question is arguable because many people are going to try to say that any alternate testing option is too expensive or too difficult to perform. There are many sides to this question because there are drawbacks to any kind of testing and experimenting. Whether it is an animal suffering, or donated human skin in a petri dish, someone will argue both sides. I strongly agree with the sources that animal testing should be banned, like in Europe. If there are these alternate ways to test ingredients in products, and it is more accurate, then we just need to put a ban on testing on animals all together. The articles I read were pretty skewed towards my side of the argument, so there was nothing for me to disagree with. Throughout this research process I have revised my question many times and will probably change again. With the more research I do, the more clear it becomes that this animal testing issue is more complex than just freeing the animals being tested on. There are other ways to test the products, we just have to get everyone on board with it. As I continue to research this I will think about how I can revise my question in a way that will tackle all sides of the issue and have the question answered by the end of my research. 
