The first part of this was a news conference with an animal technician and a scientist, fine. The second part was visiting an animal testing facility, not so fine. I decided to go because I wanted to push myself out of my comfort zone. Plus how can I write a balanced piece if I have not witnessed it for myself?

The facilities were clean, clinical. The animals seemed happy enough, they had reasonably big cages, were given plenty to eat and were petted and looked after by the technicians. But then I had a closer look, the marmosets were trembling, their movements slightly jerky. Not surprising really, they had been given a dose of Parkinson’s disease.

I came out of the labs feeling a sense of guilt that I was walking out of there, while the animals would not. Is this fair? That is the long running debate which has occupied both sides of the argument for years.

While animal testing does go on in the UK I am glad it is heavily regulated and the animals are cared for by the technicians. Or so I thought. Then we had a presentation from the other side of the argument and saw what we had not seen at the facilities, the experiments being carried out. I watched with some degree of discomfort.

I cannot make out which parts of this are reality and which are carefully considered ploys to get us to believe one side of the argument or the other. Images such as the one I have used here are designed to pull at our consciences. But is it reality?

So now I have to write a news feature and I’m struggling to write with the images of the animals in my head. But I guess this is what I signed up to, unlike the animals.