Animal testing is a standard procedure which is done to be to test new cosmetic products and medications, so it’s not harmful to humans when released to the public, but is that the right thing to do? Animal testing has been around for hundreds of years and has been the primary way of testing new items that are going to interact with the human body. Animal testing has been a frequent procedure done to be able to check many narcotics and cosmetics which are used on a day to day basis by humans.Andrew Lindsey, a Stafford graduate, wrote about animal testing and all the pros and cons that she sees in it. She loses a lot of credibilities because she has never worked with animal testing other than for this one web page found. The source talks about how animal testing benefits the human race but is also very controversial because of foundations like PETA. The cause is an organization, not a company which makes it more reliable. This article is excellent because it has lots of information about animal testing and every aspect of it, The Green and Growing organizations are biased when it comes to animal testing because they are all about nature and equality. Therefore they believe animals have the same right as humans.Experimentation with animals was only extended and standardized in the modern biomedical community during the 30s and 40s of the last century. For ethical reasons, they are intended to avoid clinical trials that threaten human beings with a risk of damage that is too high, while at the same time preventing the clinical use of treatments that have not been duly tested. Given the state of scientific knowledge, he believed that the similarities between nonhuman and human organisms, in spite of their differences, were sufficient. Thus, it was thought that it was possible to predict the effect in human patients, for example, a drug, from its impact observed in clinical trials with other animals. Under this assumption, legal systems usually require tests with human resources before making them on humans, and as a requirement for researchers to receive public aid. These are some of the factors that explain the real predominance of this model. However, there are strong reasons, based on evidence from those that are not available in the past, to question the scientific value of animal experimentation, particularly in comparison to other methods. We know that the similarities between nonhuman and human organisms are much smaller. However, the fact is that the bodies of human beings do not react like those of other animals to various medications. Some slight genetic differences between individuals that appear to be significant differences in how to process them.The People, editor. “16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation” “16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation”.16-integral-pros-and-cons-of-animal- experimentation. Accessed 19 Nov. 2017. This source is excellent since it has heaps of data about the topic, it has the sixteen most necessary inquiries regarding animal testing, and they are altogether replied by an expert researcher who had worked with animal testing since the first occasion when it at any point turned out. This source has an excellent editor because of how organized the website is; The source does lose some credibility due to it not having the name of the author. This source has no real form of bias because it comes from both sides from the argument since it shows the pros and cons it doesn’t give a hand which the source is all for.BBC, editor. “Experimenting on Animals” “Experimenting on Animals”. BBC, edited by BBC. This source is about the animal testing in a different country to be able to get a global perspective on this subject. The UK has had animal testing for around the same time as The United States and has had the same problem over the course of years over and over again. These animals go through very harsh treatment as stated in the source, from getting chained up and even killed. To test something small like a Lip gloss or a powder for an individual’s face, some people may find this unreasonable than to test it some other way.In reality, there is no other alternative.Monkeys and chimpanzees, to be exact, are ninety-nine percent similar to humans and mice, also known as lab rats, are ninety-eight percent similar to humans. These are two species which are abundant, so no real harm is being done to the species itself. BBC is a very trusted source which has won many awards for having an honest writing community. This source loses lots of credibility due to it not having an author. This source has lots of information about animal testing and how it has developed over the years. “Animal testing is the easiest way to be able to get the most accurate results because of how much alike we are to animals.This source is extremely biased because it is an organization that its primary purpose is to make animal testing look extremely bad and shame it. This group has been around for a very long time and has always been against animal testing which makes it less credible since it does not give both sides of the argument. This shows very graphic pictures of domestic abuse on animals to appeal to the emotion of the reader and make them feel bad so they can donate and help fight against animal testing. The write Joanne Mcarthur has been a writer for PETA and has had this position for years now. She is a photojournalist who graduated from university and has been working as one for years. Ms. Mcarthur has a definite bias because she gets paid to write for pets which are entirely against animal testing, this means she can lie and edit a couple of things to make it appeal more to the audience and make them look like they are. She explains how animals are being tested in groups of hundreds. She describes how there is a lot of different ways to not test on animals. New tests using the cells and tissue of humans with a particular program on the computer, it can also be done on human volunteers who want to be tested on or wouldn’t mind being experimented on.Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine” “Animal Testing and Medicine”, edited by Rachel Hajar, Rachel Hajar, 12 Jan 2011. Accessed 19 Nov. 2017. This source is written by a specialist in this field gives it a lot more credibility, Rachel Hajar is a graduate from Harvard University, and she had first hand seen many animal testings take place because she was a scientist there. This source has no bias because she states she is “neutral” on the topic which makes it very credible and right to rely on. The source itself is a government ran a website which means government officials are monitoring it 24/7 making sure nothing happens where the information can be tampered or edited in any way shape or form. This source speaks about how without animal testing life for humans would be so much harder because without these tests most cosmetics and medications wouldn’t have been around now. These animals sometimes have to go through strict criteria to be able to give us the outcome which is all of these goods.All these cases have in common that the benefit that human beings can receive thanks to these practices is irrelevant or non-existent. Despite this, a large number of non-human animals are subjected to severe damage. Now, reasoning ethically requires rejecting all forms of discrimination based on the characteristics of individuals that have nothing to do with their ability to be harmed or benefited. Not taking into account the damage that animals suffer in these experiments, or giving them minor importance, merely because they do not belong to the human species, is a type of arbitrary discrimination, speciesism. Just as not respecting someone for their skin color or gender is unjustified, so is not respecting him for his species. From an impartial point of view, the suffering and death of these animals outweigh the little benefit obtained by human beings. Experimentation with animals for environmental, cosmetic or military purposes should, therefore, be rejected. Fortunately, part of these practices is already being banned in some legal systems, as is the case of experimentation for cosmetic products in the European Union or India. Second, a minority of experiments with animals does have a biomedical character. This is compatible, however, with not all of them seeking to alleviate or cure serious ailments. Given the damage suffered by the animals with which it is experienced, neither would be justified practices. It must be admitted, however, that a part of biomedical research does have the purpose of eliminating severe ailments and increasing the quality and duration of human life. In these cases, we must compare the suffering and death that is caused to non-human animals with the significant benefits that some human beings would obtain in case of success in the investigation. The fact that the benefits to humans are not trivial can lead one to believe that in these cases, unlike the previous ones, animal experimentation is justified. This would be, however, an error.All in all, This theme is immensely dubious, yet I concur that animal testing ought to be lawful because without animal testing no new solution will be discovered unless tried on people which prompts people taking a chance with their lives, at last, people are the most critical race. Numerous other dubious points are brought upon when discussing animal testing like “should people be tried on rather” which is colossally disputable and will cause another establishment like PETA to go in and begin walks and a wide range of challenges to stop it. Might want to do additionally examine into this theme as innovation enhances to check whether some hereditarily changed species can be tried on rather than animals so there is no genuine debate in the point any longer and it can merely continue taking a shot at finding new cures and discharging new things to general society. I would like to do a lot more research on this topic because of how much information there is and how much it can develop. Scientists all around the world like in places like the US, UK, and China are working on making some type of skin sample where no one is being harmed and the same results are happening, this would be beneficial for not only animals but for humans too since know it is a direct test which is one hundred percent alike to the humans. I would recommend this to my friends because of how interesting this topic is and how controversial it is to talk about, at the end of the day the human race is the main race we have to care about.