Ethical Issues Faced by Field Primatologists: Asking the Relevant questions

Atkins-Sayre, Wendy (2010). “Articulating Identity: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal/Human Divide.” Western Journal of Communication 74(3): 309-328. Print.

The article “Articulating Identity: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal/Human Divide” is relevant the study of why I would discourage people from donating their time and money to PETA. In fact, this publication shows how the organization uses television advertisements and other media to describe factory farming.

The article was published on May 2010.

The fact that the article has been published in the Western Journal of Communication is a clear indication of research study’s credibility.

The article is broad and extensive in coverage and comprised of 19 pages.

Artkins-Sayre, the author of this article does not use any religious or political biases, therefore indicating the fairness and neutrality of the research study.

In this article, alternative opinions are not only presented, but addressed. In addition, opposing opinions are fairly dealt with. For instance, in the introduction the author points out both the public views as well as those of the organization.

The author does not show signs of bias as all arguments deal with both similar and opposing views fairly.

PETA’s advertisement and campaigns create the opportunities where the nonprofit organizations distort the distinction amid animals and humans, thus causing humans reconsider their identities and consequently their views of the animal rights.

In this article, the author uses sufficient evidence to support his claims. Especially, the author provides several examples when the PETA’s behavior is not typical to non-profit organization fighting for animal rights.

Despite the fact that this article does not use statistics in its analysis, it systematically reviews other studies that form the basis of the findings.

In my opinion, the author does not apply any assumptions that might raise questions to the outcomes of the study.

Linda, Marie Fedigan. (2010). “Ethical Issues Faced by Field Primatologists: Asking the Relevant questions.” American Journal of Primatology: 754-771. Print.

In fact, the discussion is relevant to the study that is based on my argument on why I would not advise people to donate their time and money to PETA. In particular, the article “Ethical Issues Faced by Field Primatologists: Asking the Relevant Questions” raises the questions connected with ethical peculiarities of charity organizations.

The journal was published on October 2010.

The article was published in issue 71 of the American Journal of Primatology, which demonstrated the credibility of a conducted research,

It is extensive in coverage and has a total of 18 pages.

The author of this article does not have religious or political biases that might not affect the objectivity of delivering the findings.

True to say is that the author of this publication is associated with a special interest group, which operates in the field of primatologists. As such, his connection with an interested stakeholder  might have led to the analysis of one side of the issue.

Alternative views are presented in this research study. However, the manner in which they are dealt with is relatively impartial.

Preconception has been shown in this article. For instance, the author believes that the activities of primatologists should not be evaluated by ethic committee, they should be assessed by the animal care committee. In fact, the findings of this evaluation are biased and subjective. In addition, he believes that they should have studied the people as opposed to animals.

The author fundamental claim is that the dynamics of ethics in the field of primatologists are strange and unusual compared to other research fields.

The author supports the claims with relevant and sufficient information from various studies and interviews.

The author briefly explains where his statistics are derived from and uses the data in a fair manner. Therefore, there is no degree of the statistics distortion.

Yes, for instance, the assumption that primatologists should study the behavior of people rather than the animals needs to be scrutinized and reconsidered.