Animal experimentation and testing has always been an issue that caught my interest. As a little girl growing up with woods in my backyard, I developed a love for wildlife. I then started learning just how many products, medications, and chemicals were tested on animals, but as I grew older I also started to develop an interest in science.  These two interests of mine happen to serve as the two opposing sides when arguing about animal testing. This battle between the ethics of animal testing and the scientific gain from animal testing has become a frequently and highly debatable topic. Based on my values it is hard for me to choose one side of the argument, so instead I have decided to research what can be done to reduce the amount of animals used for experimentation in the United States to ensure that the animals used are absolutely necessary.

The first article found was located through the list of databases provided by the University of South Carolina. This specific article acknowledges the many efforts that have occurred in the past thirty-five years in attempts to limit the use of animal testing, but the author realizes that the extinction of animal testing is not a goal that can be achieved in the near future. He claims that humans must positively impact the well-being of the animals used in experimentation. To do this alternatives must be applied, and efforts must be focused on eradicating pain, minimizing distress, and reducing the number of animals used for testing. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health is charged with support the 3Rs research  --  aimed to replace the use of animals, reduce the number of animals used to a minimum, and refine the way experiments are carried out- and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is charged with developing substitute methods for toxicity testing. Sixty-Three alteternative test methods have been accepted by regulatory authorities as a result of these efforts. The author of this article, WS Stokes, is affiliated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which is what what enforces the Animal Welfare Act), Animal and Plant Health Inspection, and Animal Care, so may have an obvious bias towards protecting the rights of animals. This also makes him credible, since he is very experienced in this topic (Stokes). 

The next article was also located through the resources provided by the University of South Carolina. It discusses the reasons why humans should want to reduce the amount of animals being experimented on. Due to the ethical concerns, the amount of time and money spent, and the scientific limitations of animal testing, the author claims that humans should not rely on animals to study human health. The author supports his claims by backing them up with the statistical data that nine out of ten drugs that show promising results in animals fail to work in clinical trials with humans. The author also provides insight on why animal experimentation can lead to a delay in discover. This article was written by American Anti-Vivisection Society, who's ultimate goal is to end the use of animals in scientific testing, so this article contains some extreme bias, although the evidence in the article is very credible ("Results from Research on Animals Are Not Valid When Applied to Humans". 

The last source that was located was found on Lexis Nexis. The article discusses the debate in animal ethics and that the Three R's  --  replacing, reducing, and refining the use of animals in experimentation - do not provide a way for challenging a researcher's purpose in conducting an experiment that will use animals, even if that experiment is unnecessary. He supports his arguments with providing multiple other things wrong with the Three R's, and suggests that other alternatives exist to many of the tests that cause pain and distress to these animals with tests that do not cause harm. The author of this article, Darian M. Ibrahim, works as an Associate Professor at the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law. This makes the author credible on this topic, because it discusses the multiple policies that are currently in place in the United States and the problems associated with these policies (Ibrahim). 

The practice of animal experimentation and the alternative ways to replace it are highly debatable . Some sources that I have found claim that at this point in time, animal testing is necessary and should not be regulated due to the belief that humans have more rights than animals, when other sources claim that there is no need for animal testing because of the advancements in biotechnology. 

