This is the question I picked

Is the treatment of commercial animals and lab animals different? Why and how?

This is what my team member has posted. 
This article, “Animal abuse, biotechnology, and species justice,” discusses the lack of ethical limitations humans have in regard to nonhuman animals.  The authors suggest that although commercial animals are bred and killed in horrific ways for food production, lab animals are born into lives that are “not worth living” as they are subject to painful and torturous experiments for their entire lives.  The two groups are very similar in the sense that they are used for human benefit and often euthanized when they are no longer needed, but the article focuses mainly on the abuse of lab animals in medical, weaponry, educational, and chemical research.  Some treatments lab animals have to endure include vivisection, genetic modification, organ transplant, genetic modification to be born with cancer so that it can be studied, drilling holes into the skull with attached metal restraint devices, the insertion of brain electrodes, and many more cruel experiments that the animals are unable to consent to.  Lab animals can be abducted from their natural habitats, also known as wildlife trafficking, or bred for lab use.  Based on this article, while both lab animals and commercial animals are subjected to abuse and mistreatment, lab animals are treated more inhumanely.
This article is peer-reviewed.  I do not think this research is biased.  Although it is obvious to the reader what the authors’ opinions are, all evidence is properly cited from reliable sources and is cohesive with the argument.
Question: Is it possible to ethically do experimental testing on lab animals under the right conditions?

Goyes DR, Sollund R. Animal abuse, biotechnology and species justice. Theoretical Criminology. 2018;22(3):363-383. doi:10.1177/1362480618787179

For Round 2, please read what your team members have posted in the Round 1 discussion area. What is interesting? What requires a follow up? Is there anything about their post that makes you want to know more? You will need to comment on 1 or more previous posts from your discussion team. (Replying I think you found a very interesting article or You had some great insights will get you no points.)

Pick a question or some related questions or some aspect of someone else’s Round 1 post that you found interesting or particularly compelling.
Do some research to find a new article/source that is relevant to this question/topic:

the source should be less than three years old
the source should not have been used in Round One

Compose a new post that addresses this question/topic. (More than one person can address the same question, but their articles need to be different).
Format your post with these subheadings:

The Question/Topic you are addressing (and who raised in their Round 1 post)
A summary of the article you found
The relevance to the topic and question
Any perceived biases in your new source (e.g., is it from a peer-reviewed publication?).
Failing to italicize latinized organism names, like E. coli, will result in a one point deduction.
In-text reference to your article/source in your post and an appropriate citation that someone else could use to find it easily.