Animal testing is an experimental method that has been used for many years.  Innocent animals are being harmed and even killed by researchers and scientists all in the name of beauty products and medical drugs.  I am interested in this topic because I am a firm believer in the rights of animals.  I believe that they should be treated with respect and should not be used in experimentation.  Also, this topic interests me because there are so many different methods that researchers could use for their products, so I am unsure why animal testing is increasing.  Although this is not an issue in European countries, it is very prominent in the United States.  This affects my values because I do not think animal testing should be legal.  In addition, I do not believe companies should be allowed to sell products if they have been tested on animals.  Instead of using these animals in harmful experiments, researchers should use alternative methods using new technology and approaches.  As a consumer of products like these, I am qualified to write about this topic and voice my opinion on it.

The first article, "Animal Testing 101", talks about the animals that are being used in animal testing.  They are being contained in barren cages in different laboratories all across the United States.  They are living in fear because of the scientists and researchers that are taking them from these cages and bringing them into experimentation.  As a result of this, animals can develop neurotic behaviors and spiked blood pressure.  More than 100 million animals die every year in these tests.  The major values invested in this article include the ethical treatment of animals and the proper methods that should be used when conducting an experiment.  This article could really affect people who care that animals are being mistreated for the sake of cosmetics and drugs.  This article was written by PETA, and is therefore a credible source.  PETA has much experience with animal testing and has worked hard to bring about change since its founding in 1980.  However, since this company works for the ethical treatment of animals, it is biased in the sense that they believe all animal testing is wrong.  The facts and statistics given in this article are most likely to be accurate, which helps make it reliable.  

The second article, "Animal Testing: Is It Worth It?", discusses alternatives to using animals in product-testing experiments.  These alternatives include more research and developing new technology that could negate the need for animals.  The author also questions why researchers and scientists have continued to use animals in their tests, when non-animal techniques are more appropriate in this day and age.  The major values and interests, such as alternative techniques, allow for readers to also wonder why animal testing is still so prominent today.  It is also evident that the author values the desirable goal of completely replacing animals in these tests, without clearly taking a stance.  The author, Geoff Watts, writes from the British Medical Journal.  Watts is a freelance science and medical writer and broadcaster who chairs and addresses educational meetings in the medical field.  This source was also found on JSTOR, a very credible and well-known database.  Therefore, the facts given in this article are credible and seem to be unbiased.  

In the third article, "Minds of Their Own", the author writes that animals may be smarter than humans seem to believe.  Therefore, they feel pain and experience unease when they are being used in medical and scientific testing.  Animals also have a good memory and sense of self-awareness.  As in the other two sources, the values discussed here include the rights of animals and their proper treatment.  In addition, the feelings and thoughts of animals are also of importance in this article.  If more people believed that animals experience this severe pain and fear, maybe there would be more debate about animal testing.  This article comes from National Geographic, which is famous for its research and observations of animals and the environment.  It was written by bestselling author, Virginia Morell, who covers evolutionary biology, conservation, and animal behavior.  With this being said, it serves as a credible source, having enough background information to support the claims.  

The research question is arguable because it gives the opportunity to question alternative methods of animal testing, or if it is actually needed.  Likewise, this topic is in a bit of a grey area when considering the ethical dilemmas that come from the medical testing and cosmetic productions.  Some people feel very strongly that all animal testing is wrong, which can lead to debate.  Others, however, feel that animals should be used in this research work so that it can be determined if the products harm humans.  Out of the three sources I found, all of them question if animal testing is acceptable and whether or not it should continue to be legal.  However, the sources do not have the same level of bias.  For example, PETA feels very strongly that animal testing is cruel and abusive.  These sources support my feelings that there are alternative methods to animal testing, and that it should not be as prominent as it currently is.  I could revise my research question by making it more broad.  I could do this by including specific experiments that have been done, and also finding opinion pieces on the topic.  This would allow for more sources to be available to me, and could also make it more of an arguable topic.  

