Abbott, Alison. “More than a Cosmetic Change.” Nature, vol. 144, no. 6, 2005. ProQuest, doi: 438.7065. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
This article focuses on the changes that are being made to minimize the use of animals in toxicology testing. The main problem scientist are facing is the replication of the physical tests. They are not able to come up with a way an exact to replicate the cell make up, which will make it harder for them to see how these chemicals react. It also breaks down the different parts of each law that are being changed. This article gives me the make up of many laws and how they are changing, making it so that I can explain the major differences being made and how they are affecting animals. It is also a scholarly article, with multiple references making it creditable to use.
Abbott, Alison. “Toxicity Testing Gets a Makeover: Europe Aims to make Chemical-Exposure Studies More Predictive while using Fewer Animals.” Macmillan Journals Ltd., Vol. 461, 2009. Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.
In this scholarly article, Abbott talks about how Europe is planning to provide more thorough chemical testing without using animals. After having legislation that conflicted, saying that they must have safer testing, but that they also need to reduce the use of animals within them. Due to this cosmetic companies will have to contribute extra money to their testing compared to what they had before. This will cause problems with testing the long term effects of chemicals and diseases. In the year of this article, 2009, the US was also taking steps to advance similar testing. With 22 million dollars, they were and still are developing ways to recreate stem cells and organs.
Personally I think it is very interesting that this conflict hadn’t come up sooner when voting on these laws in the legislature. It had never occurred to me how different it would be for companies to test major diseases without a physical body to test on; But many major diseases can be shown without needed a body to provide it. The amount of money being put into this is low compared to many other projects being done currently, and if it can replicate cells, I feel it could be very useful not only for the stop of animal testing, but also from many other studies.
Adler, Sarah. “Alternative (Non-Animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects–2010.” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 85, no.5, 2011. ProQuest, doi: 367- 485. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
This article talks about the European Cosmetics Directive and how they named a new amendment stating that after 2013 the use of animals in testing would be illegal. They did allow a slight time stretch for companies to discover new ways of testing. Alder also breaks down five different types of toxicology testing within this article. With this information I will be able to break down how each area used animals and what resources and steps they had to take to change their processes. I will also be able to talk about how different scientists feel about the changes they were forced to make. This scholar article withholds scientific information that is creditable and will give me another view point on animal testing.
Sun, Shany. “The Truth Behind Animal Testing.” Young Scientists Journal vol. 5, no. 12, 2012. ProQuest, doi: 10.4103/0974-6102.105076. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
The main point of this article is to talk about the effects of taking animals out of toxicology testing. Though the effects are negative on the animals it is almost impossible to recreate cell models that can fully simulate real life cells. It also will cause a changes in how easily scientist will be able to run these test and distribute new products. I will be able to use this article to show the view points as to why testing should not be looked down on. It also gives the scientific basis as to how cells are trying to be created and the major setbacks that are being faced by trying to remove animals from testing. This is a creditable scholarly article that will let me discuss the opposite view.
