UW-Madison Cat Research Articles

I think the order in which I read this articles affected the way I viewed the issue, and I think that is an important thing to recognize. I read the Eric Sandgren article first, so I was persuaded that the testing being done was ethical and that no claims had been substantiated. Then I read through the Cusick version of the story and was alerted to the fact that the University had received a citation, a citation that was given in December of 2012. The date only matters to me because that means that when the Sandgren article was written, it had already occurred and he just chose to omit it from his article, probably for good reason. When I first read the Sandgren article I just assumed that he was credible because he was published in the Wisconsin State Journal, not that he is not credible, but my assumption of his credibility led to me believing that nothing wrong had been done by the University. Personally, I believe that compared to a lot of allegations against other places doing animal testing, this burn citation, which is said to have been an accident, is very minor. However, it matters. The proper precautions need to be taken so that these “accidents” don’t occur. I think that if I had read the Cusick article prior to the Sandgren article, I would have been more inclined to call BS on the information in the Sandgren article, simply because my first impression of the issue was taken from the first article I read. Both of these sources are credible and neither of them are “lying” so to speak. I just think that Sandgren chooses to omit the citation to avoid giving the University a bad name, even though the last line of his article is, “I just wish they would take the time to learn the whole story”, which seems rather contradictory.