This research question caught my attention because of the cosmetics produced at Lush, a company that focuses on only making cruelty-free products with the most natural ingredients. They pride themselves on making effective, natural, and preservative-free beauty products. My research question affects me because I'm an avid consumer of cosmetic products- I buy makeup, moisturizers, perfume, nail polish, shampoo, sunscreen, and hand sanitizer. I've always been someone who has been aware of controversial issues and the issue of animal testing has seemed to come up a lot in the last decade. When I was in 5th grade, I did a report on PETA. Although the work of a 10 year old, the information I learned impacted me for years to come. Going to the zoo wasn't the same as it had been years earlier because the thought of animals living in a cage their entire life shadowed the 'entertainment' aspect of the trip. Viral videos of rabbits being covered in creams or having mascara buried in their eyes have always flooded my Facebook feed. I'm qualified to write about this topic because I have the skills to write an effective research paper and find reliable sources to back up my paper. 

Animals and Product Testing: In the article "Animals and Product Testing" from the magazine "A New Perspective", the author goes into the details of the exact legislation that affects animal testing and the actual tests that animals go through. Since the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 'required animal testing for pharmaceutical drugs and other chemical compounds that change the structure and function of the human body, it does not specifically require animal testing on cosmetics. However, it does require that manufacturers of cosmetics substantiate the safety of their products.' This means that animals still have to go through grueling tests to verify a company's product. For example, in the Draize eye and skin irritancy tests, animals have product directly applied to the eye and internal skin (after several layers have been ripped off by special tape). Burning, itching, and pain often accompany these tests. The article has been featured in the magazine "A New Perspective", which is published by The National Anti-vivisection Society, a community of scientists who aim to advance science without harming animals. They are obviously against animal testing, but have a good reputation in the science world that makes this article valid.

In the article titled "Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing", the Humane Society of the United States provides readers with common questions about animal testing. One major claim is there aren't enough laws to prevent complete safety for animals in the cosmetic industry. Besides the animal's' welfare, testing isn't even fully accurate because of the chemical and physical differences between animals and humans. The intent of the article is to educate the public, which is achieved through simple & effective answers to common questions. Since the Humane Society focuses on stopping animal cruelty, the article is biased. They offset most of this by providing ways to get active in putting an end and providing effective alternatives to animal experimentation. As far as the credibility goes, the Humane Society is one of the most reputable organizations in the world of animal safety.

As the abstract in the research paper "Comparative innovative business strategies of major players in cosmetic industry" states, "the cosmetic industry is a very lucrative, innovative, and fast paced industry where product innovation is the key to success. The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed analytical (qualitative) study of cosmetic industry in the global marketplace with a focus on the four market leaders in this industry relative to their business and innovation strategies." The author delves into the issues of animal testing by four specific companies and how they choose to disclose their methods. The article is written by Sameer Kumar, Cindy Massie, and Michelle D. Dumonceaux, now former students of the University of St. Thomas located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They have no bias, seeing as they wrote the paper for research for their business class. They got their paper published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited, so they must be credible. 

This research question is arguable because some people think that animals are at the dispense of humans since we are the superior race and that they don't feel the pain that we think they do. Some may argue that we need animals to test our products because it wouldn't be fair to humans. But from the research I've completed, there are many pros and cons to this argument. The different perspectives of the sources affect my own perspective by giving me a full view of how animal testing is perceived; I'm exposed to both sides of the argument, and ultimately am given topics to feature in my rebuttal. If I had to change anything about my research question, I would probably make it more specific to my topic. 

