For as long as I can remember, I have always been passionate about animals.  I was voted "Biggest Animal Lover" in high school and am now an aspiring veterinarian.  Whatever kind of animal it may be, a dog, a bunny, a snake, you name it, chances are I love it.  Which brings me to the topic of animal testing and is it really necessary?  I'm interested in this research question not only out of the love I have for animals but also for the love I have for people suffering from fatal diseases with no known cure.  This questions affects me because I do not believe it is ethical or moral to harm and kill animals in order to invent a new and improved kind of lip balm or window cleaner.  It affects me because I have suffered the loss of loved ones that have passed away because of cancer and if I could trade those lives lost for the lives of rats, I would.  I share a passion for animals as well as a passion for advancement in medicine.  

My first source focuses mainly on the scientific alternatives to animal testing.  Many people argue pro-animal testing by pointing out the many great medical advancements made in the past, this article recognizes that and gives it the credit that it deserves as animal research "has been fundamental in the development of many drugs, including vaccines, anesthetics, and antibiotics" (Johnson).  But since then, not many fundamental advancements have been made and she argues that "the use of animals to better understand human anatomy and human disease is a centuries-old practice" (Johnson).  It makes sense that the conditions animals are held in during research can cause experimental error and alter results.  The article points out several tests researchers use on animals that is widely known to produce false results, including the Draize test.  Johnson argues that in order for change to take place in animal research, those that support animal welfare and those that support science must come together and find something they can both agree on.  The author, Kara Johnson, holds a PhD in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Arizona where her research focused on understanding the role of antioxidants in mitochondria, making her a very credible source.  Her bias seems similar to my own, that animals should no longer be harmed under unnecessary terms and instead we should conduct more research on alternative techniques. However, it is important to realize that under medical means the use of animals in testing can be extremely helpful. 

My second source focuses on some of the most highlighted pros and cons of animal testing.  Some of the pros talked about include that it helps researchers to find drugs and treatments, because researchers have discovered many medical treatments people support the continued use of animal testing.  Animal testing also helps to ensure the safety of drugs as they can cause many harmful side effects, "human harm is reduced and human lives are saved" (Murnaghan). On the other hand, many animals are killed during or after they are being experimented on and many substances tested are never even used.  This kind of testing is absolutely unnecessary as it took the lives of animals and had no benefit on human health. It is also very expensive as animal testing has to account for the "animals being fed, housed, and cared for and then treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance", all of these aspects add up in cost (Murnaghan).  Not to mention, the animals themselves have to be bought as well.  Ian Murnaghan, the author of this piece, is a scientific writer with a Bachelor of Science degree.  He is credible because he likely knows about the science and experimentation that goes on in animal testing.  He addresses both sides of the animal testing issue.

My third article focuses primarily on cosmetic testing on animals.  It argues for a ban on animal testing for cosmetics and points out that advancements have been made so that cosmetic testing is no longer necessary.  These advancements include "methods that use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin or computer models to test the safety of products" (Locke, Moran). These advancements are proven to work as the European Union has placed a ban on all animal testing in the cosmetic industry.  It would be a huge advance for the United States to follow in the European Union's footsteps.  If the United States were to do so, they would not only cut costs but they would also save time because "animal testing is expensive, slow, and animals are not people, not always predictive" (Locke, Moran).  The authors, Jim Moran and Paul A. Locke, are very credible.  Jim Moran represents Virginia's 8th district, and therefore is aware of the policies and laws that the United States has and the ones that are being proposed.  Paul A. Locke is an environmental health scientist and attorney, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Molecular and Translational Toxicology.  He is reliable because he would know of the new and improved advancements in the scientific world that can be used towards cosmetic testing instead of animals.

The question is definitely arguable, as it has been a controversial issue for decades.  My sources touch on the same agreements, that animal testing has benefitted human health in many ways and also that there are ways that certain forms of animal testing can and should be ended.  I would say that the different perspectives of the articles are fairly parallel to my own. However, they have educated me further on the issue and advancements that can be made to minimalize animal testing.  For now, I will keep my research question the way it is because yes I do believe that there are reasons that animal testing could be necessary but I also believe that there are forms of animals testing that I do not consider necessary.  I may be able to narrow it down in the future, but for now I would like to keep the scope where it is at. 

