Introduction People start using animals for various purposes in prehistoric times. The development of humanity gradually led to more sophisticated forms of such use. Eventually animals are used to test numerous substances which are developed for human use. However, the twentieth century was the epoch of rising activism which also touched the sphere of animal testing. To date, there are numerous ongoing debates on issues concerning animal testing. Many people argue that it is inhumane to make animals suffer even if it can lead to breakthrough in medicine or technology. Scientists have developed some alternative ways of testing. Many countries enact various laws to restrict the use of animals in chemical industry and medicine. Nevertheless, animal testing is still widespread. The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing. Debates on animal testing and public opinion Admittedly, animal testing is one of the most controversial topics which involve a lot of ethical issues. For instance, it is estimated that in Britain about three million animals “from fruit flies to mice to non-human primates” are used in testing annually, “and may either be killed or subsequently euthanized” (Swami et al, 2008, p. 269). Such statistics makes the most extreme animal rights activists claim that even “if animal research produced a cure for AIDS” it is not the sufficient excuse to torture animals (Yount, 2008, p. 47). It goes without saying that not all think in the following way. Many people agree that animal testing can be used in science but should be banned in cosmetics. Interestingly, Swami et al. (2008) found that attitudes towards animal testing differ depending on gender, age, nationality and education. Thus, female oppose this kind of testing to greater extent than males do. The researchers point out that “this difference in attitudes may be associated with women being more “tender-minded” than men” (Swami et al., 2008, p. 274). Apart from this Swami et al. (2008) report that junior students tend to be more negative about animal testing than undergraduates. This can be explained by the fact that undergraduates see that animal testing brings certain results which are often helpful for the development of medicine. Therefore, they may accept that animals are sacrificed for the sake of development. Admittedly, many start thinking that making test is essential but it is better to use animals rather than people. Animal testing opponents also claim that there are other ways of testing. For instance, in vitro testing, which involves the use of cell cultures, is believed to become a good alternative to in vivo, i.e. animal testing. Of course, many people argue that there is no need in testing compounds if they contain some dangerous components. Abbott (2005) points out that there are certain regulations which restrict animal testing in many cases. At this point it is important to note that the majority of animal experiments supporters claim that animal testing is feasible when it deals with science. As far as cosmetics industry is concerned people tend to be less positive about animal testing. For instance, not long ago the change to European Union’s Cosmetics Directive was enacted which “phases out over ten years the use of animals in cosmetics testing” (Abbott, 2005, p. 144). It is possible to state that public opinion about animal testing in cosmetics industr