Have you ever visited a pet store? If so, imagine one of those cute little bunnies. Now imagine that bunny being captured and used for animal testing. Liquid is dripped into its eyes causing redness, swelling, hemorrhaging, and possibly blindness. Personally, I have always been a big animal lover. Back at home, I have two adorable cats named Carly and Tori. I couldn't imagine one of my pets being used to test medicines and chemicals. Prior to doing research, I knew very little about animal testing. I thought it was something done with rats to conduct medical trials in the old days. I quickly realized I was wrong. A variety of animals are used every day to test products including cosmetics, household products, vaccinations, and medications. I had no idea that the makeup products I used daily were tested on animals. Although I do not have any personal experience pertaining to this topic, I have had medications and vaccinations that were previously tested on animals. The sources and organizations I quote and paraphrase make me credible. I am no expert on this subject so I will be using a lot of statistics, facts, and quotes to back up my argument.

The first article discussed all the medical progress that has been made in the past fifty years as a result of animal experimentation. The article was split into five sections, each about a specific category of disease. It claimed that animal testing resulted in the lengthening and improvement of human life. The major value at stake in the article was animal rights. The claim goes against animal rights activists like PETA. Some of these organizations believe that animal rights are just as important as humans. Thus, if they are of equal value then this articles' claim is not valid. The article pulls data from credible sources like the National Cancer Institute, the American Stroke Association, and Michael J. Fox's Foundation for Parkinson's Research. I found the article on USC's library database. It appears to be credible but bias because it only talks about the positive attributes of animal testing.

The second article discussed the need for humans to find replacements for primates in human research. It claims that primates should be phased out of experimentation for ethical, scientific, and economic reasons. The article recognized that progress would be slow but animal testing should at least be reduced. The major value at stake is animal rights, especially for larger primates like chimpanzees. These primates have more cognitive and emotional abilities. The author seemed to be more open to experimentation on mice but would prefer not to use any primates. This article gathered information from myriad sources like The Humane Society, the Institute of Medicine, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Again, this article was found on USC's library database. It seems to be credible but bias. It is obvious that the author is advocating against animal experimentation.

The third article talked about how animal testing is cruel and unnecessary for making medical advances. The article focuses on three major points: animal experiments don't improve human health, individuals are unaware of what their taxes are used for, and many animals aren't protected by law. Again, the major value at stake is animal rights. However, unlike the first two articles, this one brings up the fact that some animals are unregulated by laws. These animals include rats and mice. This implies that some animals hold greater value than others. This article gets its information from scholarly journals and some of the same sources as the other articles. It was found on the USC library database and is credible. It is a persuasive article so it is bias. 

This research question is highly debated. On the one hand, animal testing harms living organisms and results aren't always accurate. However, animal testing could lead to big scientific and medical advances. In addition, with the exception of human cells, animals are the only living organisms available for testing other than humans. Most sources agree that medical advancements have been made as a result of animal testing. Nevertheless, sources disagree on whether animal testing is ethical. Some individuals think any animal testing is okay if it improves humans' quality of life while others are completely appalled. The different perspectives make it difficult to decide which side to argue; both sides are pretty equal. I previously revised my research question to a narrower topic, animal experimentation and medicine. All my sources are argumentative; in the future, I need to find some informative articles that include statistics and facts. 

