"USDA Finds Animal Treatment Violation in UW-Madison Lab"/ "Eric Sandgren: Cat Research, After All the Drama"

These two articles give both sides of the argument of an incident at UW-Madison that involved a cat getting burned unintentionally. One side of the argument is written by Sam Cusick backs the side of PETA and gives their side of the argument. Cusick is kind of staying neutral in the article, but does seem to lean towards the side of PETA and the USDA. On the other hand, Sandren's article backs UW-Madison, and totally disregards everything PETA states. In my opinion, Sandgren takes some shots at PETA by saying things like "They claim falsely that the animals were tortured." and "This leads to the crux of the issue, which is the question of why the studies are done." He also goes on to talk about the facilities that they use saying that they are "world-renowned" and conduct advanced research. I felt like I took the side of Eric Sandgren because of the style of writing he used more than the PETA side even though I do not agree with animal testing, to a certain extent. In my opinion animal testing is wrong if there is any harm caused to the animal. Animal testing would be ok to me if there wasn't any pain or harm done, but if there is I'm somewhat against it. The only reason I say "somewhat" is because without animal testing we would of not had the medical advancements that have occurred in the past fifty years. Animals play an important role in our health and it is hard for me to say it is completely wrong, but I find myself feeling bad for the animals being tested in these processes.