While reading Eric Sandgren´s
article I found myself agreeing with him. I thought it was necessary for UW
Madison to experiment on cats because their research has the ability to drastically
improve the quality of life for many children. I continued agreeing with him,
what’s so wrong with testing cochlear implants on cats if they’re going through
the same procedure as humans – anesthesia, analgesia and all. Why is it that
PETA is acting now? Sandgren condemns PETA for not acting earlier, they had
hundreds of detailed pages of UW Madison’s research and what it all entailed.
Yet they did not act until years later when they finally got their hands on
some pictures. .png)
Sam
Cusick’s article was much more neutral, as it should be. Sandgren’s article was
as biased since he is the director of the Research Animal Resources Center at
UW-Madison. Cusick’s article was effective in that it accurately gave both
sides of the story. UW-Madison did receive two citations in December of 2012,
but that wasn’t PETA’s work, it was just one of their routine investigations
from the USDA. One of the citations was dropped and the other one, with the
accidental burn of a cat still stands. Sandgren did admit that they were at
fault, but since then they have solved the problem with the heating pads.
As I said
before, I did agree with this particular kind of animal testing since it said that
the experiments don’t harm the cats, but after seeing some of the pictures that
my classmates have posted, I feel a little betrayed. How could someone do that
to an animal and make it seem completely normal? Why did PETA take so long to
finally take a stand against this? But on the other hand, what potential
benefits will this type of experiment have on hundreds if not thousands of people? To answer Kim’s question, after reading both articles and seeing some of the pictures, I'm torn and don’t
know where I stand on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment