I am researching this issue because I enjoy animals and as a criminal justice major I am always interested in the law behind issues. I am interested in the process of experimenting cosmetics on animals and the effects on the test subject. I want to know which companies test on animals and what they do to the animals to test out their products. I also want to know if there is an alternative way of testing without harming animals or humans. This research affects me because I believe animals should be protected and treated fairly. Testing products on animals is not treating them fairly, it is abuse. I have my own personal experience regarding animals. I have grown up with a dog and I live on a farm back home. I grew up to love and respect animals because they are a living breathing being. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have done extensive research on testing cosmetics on animals and have a background of working with animals. 

My first article list the pros and cons of testing on animals. It also includes varying types of providing information. The information listed starts with regulations of animal testing and a public poll opinion (as recent as 2013) of animal testing. Next the article transitions to early testing preformed on animals and is compared to a modern debate. The focus is presented completely on the topic giving the reader two different sides of using animals to test products, it presents the reasons it is helpful and the reasons it is hurtful to both animals and science. This informative article provides facts and opinions for testing animals and not testing them. I am not being persuaded to on one side of the topic. There is bias from both sides of this topic because this is a debate website but one side is not over the other. It is an equal balance of information because both sides were equally considered. (Animal Testing ProCon.org)

This second source was written by PETA. PETA is a company that is for equality of animals rights. Their article directly reveals how cruel it is to test on animals. The article provides healthy alternatives for testing out products and includes a video at the end. The video uses pathos to make you emotional by showing innocent animals being tested on in laboratories. They are bleeding, crying and screaming in pain. The article is extremely bias towards the fact of not using animals for testing. This company values animal's life and they are the largest animal's right group in the world. This makes them extremely creditable. This company works only to raise money and save animals so with this article they have the animal best interest at stake and they are relying on the reader to feel emotional for the animal's lives. (Testing Cosmetics and Household Products on Animals)

My final source is a couple of pages taken out of a book. The pages briefly over view Europe's decision to control the chemicals allowed for cosmetics. By only allowing chemicals already deemed safe there is no need to test new ones on animals. Now Europe will not even allow a product that is tested on animals to be sold. This forces companies to take another approach at testing their products. Scientist are developing alternate methods of testing with humans or animals but it could take up to 9 years to develop. The pages then go into detail of acute toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation, dermal absorbtion, genotoxicity, Carcinogenicity, toxicokinetic studies and phototoxicity. They describe how each of these are preformed and how they affect the animals. This book is against animal testing. It uses reliable information and is upfront about how vivo studies cannot test for everything like when using animals. It is very specific and uses over 50 sources to gather the information. It is a credible source because the author has a doctorate in pharmacy and is certified in health. She has written over 140 articles and several books. This book was written in 2013 so the information and research gathered could date back to early 1990's but I believe all of the information is still relevant and helpful. ( Vinardell)

My research question is arguable because while some believe animals have rights and should not be tested on, others believe that they want test on animals for varies reasons. Some agreements among my sources are that there are alternatives to testing on animals but it can't test for everything dangerous to humans. Disagreements are if animals should have rights or not, and if they do what rights should they have. My sources also disagree about whether or not animals should be used as test subjects. Different perspectives of these sources have lead me to see that some animal testing may be necessary for safety of using new products but there are ways around that. Only use chemicals that have already been tested before and have proven to be safe for future products or pay humans to test them. People who have rights and have a say that don't mind signing them away for the better of science. I may need to revise my question and change it from a legally question too morally if I cannot find enough evidence on the legal side of testing animals.

