Evaluation of General Sources

Science can be a controversial area for many people, be it because of religious, moral, or ethical reasons. In the field of Biology, one such controversial issue is that of animal testing and whether or not the benefits outweigh the negatives of such research. In this post I will be evaluating two sources on the topic of animal testing.

Article #1

Paulick, Karsten "Mastomys Mice Rodents Cute Close Society Nager"
via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The first article is called "PETA study finds 'dramatic' rise in use of lab animals in the United States" and was written by "Science Magazine" writer Jocelyn Kaiser on February 25th 2015. This fairly recent upload date leads me to believe that the work is still relevant. The author has a history of reporting on biological issues as well as a degree in Chemical Engineering and Journalism. She seems to be a reputed source of information based on her past articles on similar topics of science.

In addition this site is a .org, and as such the source should be credible. There is only one link in the article, however it is still in use and leads to a relevant and recently updated science journal. There is one graphic on the page of a mouse, and the picture seems to be trying to simply illustrate the animal research happening, but not in a biased way. For example, it is not a bloody emaciated mouse in a filthy cage, but an apparently healthy one.

The article is actually remarkably unbiased in my opinion, and seems to be showing the sides of both PETA and the National Association for Biomedical Research. She talks about PETA's claim for the apparent rise of animals used in research and also justifications for this apparent rise without discrediting either side. In addition, after each quote, the author gives more detail on the organization and additional information on the topic of animal testing.Within the article Kaiser seems to do a very good job of simply informing the reader of the controversy without taking a stance on it, which in my mind gives it a lot of credibility.

Article #2

Huijbens, Yvonne "Cow Animal Nature Mammal Countryside"
via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The second article I will be evaluating is called "Outrage Over Government's Experiments Leads to USDA Review" and was published by Allison Aubrey on February 6th 2015. Upon some stalking, I found that Allison Aubrey is more of a food activist than an animal activist. And while this draws her credibility into question a bit, when I read the article I found it may have actually decreased any bias. Really its my fault since the website itself is food centered, but the article still seems to be complete and well researched.

The URL is again a .org, and therefore is more likely to be credible. The publish date is recent (actually very close to the last article) and as a result it it more likely to be relevant. In addition there are a LOT of links leading me to info about basically all of the people and organizations she references in the article.

The graphics on the page are once again fairly unbiased, showing a slightly ruffled but very healthy looking cow. While slightly leading toward the animal activist side, Aubrey still made sure to include quotes from both ends of the spectrum. She does however focus a bit more on the horror stories of animal testing than the beneficial side. I believe that she tried very hard to smother her bias on the topic, just without quite as much success as the author in article one. However even with the slight disdain leaking out, I believe that this article did a decent job at covering the story and making the reader aware of the stories encapsulated within the animal testing debate.