I am interested in the topic of animal rights as I feel that many people would be extremely upset if they knew the facts that surrounded what goes on with the issue. The variety and severity of animal abuse is extremely abundant and I think that people unfortunately don't see that. Morally this incorrect and there is no justification for the opposite, the only thing that could happen is some sort of rationalization. For myself, I would never be able to know that this is going on and let people get away with it. Unfortunately I only know a slim percentage of when this goes on. Some of the products I own could use animal testing to ensure their customers safety, which is extremely wrong. I could have friends and neighbors that abuse their pets and I wouldn't have a clue. Personally I don't really have any valuable experience when it comes to animal rights. That is why I am using this topic for research. I am qualified to write about this topic because of the research and readings that I have gone through. 

"Animal Testing" by Bibi Van Der Zeer, is an article that's claim is centered around the idea that Animal Testing has been long forgotten and is now just an afterthought that is seldom thought about. She tries to explain that the boom of attention surrounding animal abuse 10 years ago doesn't compare to how big it should be with how much more is going on today. She is trying to garner attention and create some popularity in this scene. In this article she is trying to value the knowledge of the issue and the understanding of animal testing. She is trying to get everyone interested so that she can make an argument about it. After she can establish a sense of urgency, her argument seems a little bit more relevant.  Although she has an opinion her article is credible because of her political activism and her experience as a journalist. She is also known for writing on sensitive topics just like this one. 

Rachel Hajar article is a more serious and factual piece of writing, which has a goal of informing rather than making an argument. It focuses on the harm it causes the animals and gives scientific proof as to how unsafe it truly is.  The value in this article rests in the information it provides instead of the argument to understand. With providing factual information to back up her writing is gives her article strength. More people will read an article that had facts to back up their points. They will also do more to change the factual information that they see in order to make it better. Rachal Hajar is a very credible source as she has a doctorate degree and can speak about the medical side of animal testing. This gives is some integrity that can back up her writing. 

Ryan Grenoble article is very recent and is relevant. This article centers on the new information that animal abuse is now tracked just as any homicide would. This article has value in the fact that with this new way of tracking it changes how people will approach their actions with animals. Although you wish to change their mindset this at least gives them more to think about before they do anything to harm an animal. This means that people get more scared to hurt animals because they have the threat of a larger reaction. Ryan Grenoble is a news editor for the Huffington Post which is popular website for writing. He also focuses on the political side of the topics. To write for the Huffington Post you have to be well informed and do research before it is submitted on the website. This article also gathered a huge reaction from everyone nationally.

There are many arguments that surround the idea of animal testing. Often it comes down to the safety of humans versus the safety of animals. People argue that we can sacrifice some animal safety to ensure that humans remain safe. Of course this is often shot down by the argument that it is morally incorrect to let the animals suffer through this. All the sources I have found agree on the fact that this is wrong and should be stopped. They all understand that this is something that needs to be addressed. The only thing that they really disagree on is in which way it should be addressed. They all have different views on how they should make people aware of this and how they can stop it. The articles had a variety of different perspectives that provided a lot of value for me. My research question may need to change in order to accompany all the ideas that are included. 
