I am interested in this topic of animal testing for the purpose of educating others the importance of animal subjects in research of new methods and treatments for medical reasons and to encourage the continuance of the act so that we are not limiting ourselves from future discoveries and advances in science.  I am indifferent about the current testing done on animals, and would encourage the use of fewer animals but not to completely suspend the use of animals in science.  I do not only use "non-animal tested" products nor am I seeking to spend my future as a researcher in labs making revolutionary discoveries.  However, I am an individual who is concerned about the treatment of animals, but would place the life of a human being as priority over the life of an animal especially in the circumstance that the animal's life was taken to save a human. The research done thus far has not changed my values in any sense, but it has changed my interests on scientific advancements.  I find myself to be qualified to write about this issue because although I may be supporting one position, I still believe in the views of the opposing side and continue to encourage the search for a solution.  In the mean time my opinion is influenced by the continuance of the act until we are brought a solution that can preform the same role and therefore replace animals. 


The article claims that animal testing for food, drug and cosmetic experiments is crucial to the development of essential treatments or discoveries. There were two given examples of incidents when products were open to the public without prior animal testing causing death to hundreds or malformations of newborns.  

In the article there are references to philosophers and scientists, who have studied on animals in the past, and lead to breakthroughs in science.  But without the opportunities to test on animals before used on humans our ability to make innovations will become limited and may never progress.

The informative genre convinces the reader with proof that what she is arguing is backed up with proof and historical evidence.  This appeals to logos, and causes the reader to believe in the author due to their historical events and known scientists as evidence.


The article goes in to depth about public support, stem cell reach and how the amount of animals tested on is far lower than what most would suspect. 

This is a scholarly source that is considered to be reliable and conveying information that can be trusted, with that being said I hope to apply what the author provided as statistics and facts when presenting my project. 

This source expresses the importance of animal testing in science, with it being ethical and essential while supporting my claim the article also expresses that scientists have started to place a high significance on trying to lesson the use of animals in research. 


The article is about three modern methods that are used instead for testing in replacement of animals, which actually have saved time and money in addition to being more applicable to humans.  These tests are tests using human cells and tissues, advanced computer models and human volunteers. 

Due to the criticism of animal testing which are expensive, harsh, and irrelevant to humans in some cases.  Due to the differences in animal species it becomes hard and even impossible to apply the results to humans, the newer methods are being promoted for their benefits. 

The article provided video examples of each of the new non-animal research methods, in addition to descriptions of how the techniques are beneficial and even better than animal subjects.  The article came from the PETA website which is an organization that funds the new methods while promoting ethical treatment of animals.

The research question is arguable because each side can poke holes in the opposing sides case, whether it's how most animal testing results are inapplicable to humans or that the scientific progress is interrupted if animals are no longer the subjects of experiments.  Between my sources there have been disagreements about the non-animal methods for testing and whether they are enough to fully remove all animal subjects.  Due to the discovery of the modern methods that can be used to replace animal testing, I would encourage the use of these new methods however in the situations where they do not apply to research that animals previously participated in then I would support the continuous testing on animals in those circumstances.  The end goal is to continue research for treatments and medications for help humans, and in a situation where animals are not needed to use a replacement method but in that is not possible then to continue the participation of animals in an ethical approach.  If I were to revise my research it would be to strength the support of new methods of experiments and stress the important role animals have played in the passed on assisting in the discoveries of medical breakthroughs. 
