http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/facts/alternatives_animal_tests.html

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/sya/sya-iccvam/#a11419

I am not very familiar with many alternatives to animal testing so I wanted to look into what is currently available as well as how these are being enforced and developed. The first article is a brief overview from the Humane Society of the United States and the second article looks specifically at the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods to get a better idea of how these methods are being evaluated and enforced. In short, this agency is responsible for analyzing alternatives as they are developed and notifying other Federal agencies on the tests limitations and benefits. Personally, I feel like a future without animal testing should be possible due to the constant evolution of technology. However, at the same time, there may always be resistance to the validity of these tests simply because it is not a living source. Are there limits to science? (see: “Why are animals still used for safety testing?” about ICCVAM). 

 http://caat.jhsph.edu/bin/u/n/To_3R_Is_Human_J-A_20041.pdf

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/209666_f260.jpg

 The first link is a really interesting article that looks at several perspectives on the three R's of animal research: replacement, reduction, refinement. The author describes our society's "toxic ignorance" and notes that many of the chemicals in use today are not thoroughly tested or well understood, generating a need for more animal testing. This of course clashes with the ideals of many animal advocate groups who wish to see an end or reduction in animal testing. In some countries, the use of alternatives to animal testing has increased significantly, but in the U.S. there is still a tendency to rely on animal tests over alternatives because they are seen as more reliable. However, there is hope that as animal welfare issues become more mainstream the use of animal testing will decline and instead be replaced with reliable, cheaper, and more effective alternatives.

The comic is just here because it made me laugh...

 This is an article from the South African Journal of Education detailing the experiences of prospective biology students with dissection, which is not experimentation yet is still widely used in education and involves research animals.  I chose something of this nature because I was shocked in reading Orlans to see that animal suffering through experimentation in schools is such a problem and so unregulated.  I don't believe I've ever heard of students in my school (specifically high school) doing something really invasive or extreme (like starving an animal) for experimentation in or out of the classroom.  However, I had limited involvement with the biology and other scientific classes at my school, but even I, after some reflection, remember dissecting a starfish with a partner while the advanced biology class got fetal pigs.  It seems to strike me very differently now than it did then, especially since there was so much prestige associated with the advanced classes.  

Anyways this article looks at gender, cultural, and religious differences, and even though it's dealing with university students in a different country it provides interesting insight into how students may react differently to using animals for research because of their backgrounds.  The article also shows that many students found the dissection to be an important cognitive practice.  Providing some insight into what they may feel towards experimentation, students also mentioned preferring to use preserved rather than fresh animals, preferring to use non-mammals, and so on.  I believe that this is an important starting point for thinking about how future educators and therefore future researchers feel about using animals in scientific contexts.  If we were to ever successfully phase out animal testing, it would have to begin in the schools, and whether or not dissection would continue is an interesting question.   

http://support.mspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advo_Cruelty_Free_Labeling

This article from the MSPCA clarifies some truths behind ‘cruelty-free’ labeling. Just like ‘cage-free’ or ‘free-range’ eggs, frustrating and misleading labels extend into the research/cosmetics world. While a strong debate exists regarding animal experimentation for research purposes, many people are beginning to regard animal testing for cosmetics as an obsolete practice. Meanwhile, animals are still widely used as the most reliable method to determine safety in many personal care products. Interestingly, an outcry in the 80s has lowered animal testing in cosmetics by over 90%... yet, because there are no government standards for cruelty, companies are left to their own devices to determine what ‘cruelty free’ means. Also, the label is even more subjective because it may only apply to one stage of production. The article suggests implement government updates on workable alternative tests for companies. It's interesting to me to see that this article only focuses on personal care products and that no such labels exist for medicinal products, even for those that have been on the market for a long time. 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/280557/-Be-proud-of-drug-tests-on-animals-

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/neurology/virtual-touch-tested-in-monkeys/5037127.article

I was interested in looking at the pro side of things. When most people think of animal experimentation they think of unnecessary testing, like of cosmetic product. According to Robert Winston in the first article medical experimentation is necessary to protect humans from harmful side effects of drugs. What I found interesting is his accusation of the general public that is so strongly against animal experimentation but, in his words, still wears leather shoes. He says that people are ashamed of animal  experimentation despite the other cruelties we practice everyday. I think in some ways he is right, people are hypocritical. In a race between life and death most people would chose the drug that saves their life no matter what has been done to animals, but this does not necessarily make the practice right....

The second article is something I am very interested in--work with movement and touch in amputees and those who have been paralyzed. It seems like such a great discovery, realizing that a robotic arm can be controlled by electrodes in the brain. Obviously, these experiments are being tested on monkeys, which the article does not make a big deal of at all. What I was trying to get at with this article is showing that sometimes the simple things like pain are overlooked by big discoveries. I do not know if this is the case here, but they never directly talk about their experiments and I am curious to know. Experimentation in general is an interesting draw, animals or humans??

 http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx