"Cat research, after all the drama"/ "USDA finds animal treatment violation in UW-Madison lab"

While reading the two articles assigned for this week, Eric Sandgren’s, “Cat research, after all the drama” and Sam Cusick’s, “USDA finds animal treatment violation in UW-Madison lab”, I kept thinking the same as Kim, they could’ve had no mention of PETA and the investigations and citations by the USDA would have still been issued. So is PETA really accomplishing anything here? Are they really making a difference? The research done by UW-Madison is not a secret; they are up front and straightforward about their intentions, unlike PETA who only attacks the organization once they have gruesome pictures to falsely represent studies done. Sandgren was also very set on a clear purpose for the research done on cats. In the seventh paragraph of his article he explains that research is being done to refine cochlear implants only for the improvement of human children’s life and as long as they are not involving hundreds of thousands of cats I think it is acceptable because UW-Madison claims they are feeling no pain. In the long ongoing debate on animal rights I think that there is a line that should be drawn. This line should be placed somewhere on the verge of when the animal starts to feel pain and then that’s enough. PETA should also have a line drawn; they cannot be intruding where they don’t belong. They don’t belong in medical research; maybe a shop window where fur is being sold, maybe only luxury items that we don’t need animals for but we are still using them anyway, but to sacrifice one cat to improve the lives of hundreds of deaf children should be left alone. I hope that someday PETA realizes how offensive they can sometimes be, and how ineffective their tactics are.