

This topic of research interests me because I would like to find out what other alternatives are available, and if it is really feasible to continue testing on animals. In many situations animals are harmed, killed, and treated terribly while being tested on, and I do not feel that is right. I have previously researched animal rights, and looked into animal experimentation briefly while doing so. Since certain groups of people will argue that animal's should have rights against testing, it caused me to look into it and find interest in the topic. However, the concept of animal testing is one of which I do not agree with. I feel it is inhumane and not morally correct. When reading elsewhere I have found several sources stating that alternatives are available such as testing done on human skin cells or even human beings themselves. Consequently, it is obvious that animal testing has proven a key role in research in many aspects of testing products before they are used safely on humans.  I want to know if there are additional alternatives, what they may be, and if possible, would they be a better option. The only personal experience I have with this topic would be the research I had done on it in prior years, and once again now. 

A former animal experimenter, Frances Cheng, has written this first article "Encouraging to see NIH Recognize Futility of Animal Experimentation." However after finishing his work, he now feels that the invasive experiments preformed on animals should come to an end. In addition to this, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has begun to acknowledge these inapplicable experiments and looks forward to greater investment in non-animal technologies. Major interests at stake include the amount of funding provided and where it is mainly focused to achieve the most affective outcome, as well as putting animal's lives at waste due to inapplicable testing. NIH states that many cases do not even provide clear ways to mimic or predict how drugs will affect humans. Due to the author's background as an experimenter there is a certain level of bias depleted due to his experience on both sides of the spectrum. The source has a certain sense of credibility due to being a former experimenter. He is also somewhat credible as the author due to working for PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world. However, we know PETA is a very biased organization. 

The central claim of this next source, "Alternatives to Animal Testing" is alternatives to animal testing. It exhibits a more pro-active approach stating that scientists have began to develop and use methods to replace animals in ways that are relevant to humans. It mentions that they are more sophisticated and are no longer facing issues caused by species differentiations and extended periods of time. Alternative methods listed in this source include in vitro testing, computer modeling, simulators, and even human volunteers. With human volunteers being taken into consideration, we see arguably the most reliable form of testing, putting animal experiments on the back burner. It allows humans to be safely studied down to a single neuron instead of cats or monkeys having their internal organs damaged. PETA, or People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, has produced this source. PETA is a well-known source, although its credibility varies, and the bias of the authors shows that they are for finding new ways to test instead of through animals. 

In this final source, 'Scientists Told to Stop Wasting Animal Lives," Robin McKie speaks of the central claim which is simply giving alternatives to animal testing, and listing benefits of the non-animal testing methods. It mentions ICCVAM's mission "to promote the development, validation, and regulatory acceptance of new, revised, and alternative regulatory safety testing methods" (National Toxicology Program). Alternatives include in vitro test methods on human cell or tissues, computerized databases, stem cell methods, non-invasive imaging, and micro dosing. Scientists have found, developed, and validated other methods, which lead to safer products without the use of animals. Using human tissue is more accurate, reliable, and is more cost-effective. On top of that, no animals are harmed. This source is from the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) and is a credible national organization. The author's may be bias in the sense that they are strongly for alternative methods being funded as opposed to continuing animal testing in any sense. 

Certain groups will continuously argue that animal testing is inhumane and there are better ways to obtain the information wanted, while others will support testing on animals. These groups believe that it is the most logical thing to do, making the concept in entirety arguable. Through my research I have found some agreements that animal testing should be used, but only to a certain degree, and also that animal testing should be depleted even if it is the most affective form. The different perspectives of these sources cause me to continue to stick to my view that there needs to be another way of testing without the use of animals. I may need to revise my research question directing it more towards the effectiveness and against personal feelings towards animal testing alone. 

