Inbox

4 Comments

Tags:

The Monkey Business Of Science

“This Monkey Died for You” [WW, March 31, 2010] was an excellent article and interview, clearly showing how deep the denial is among these scientists and those that support them. They wouldn’t experiment on their cats or dogs because they are “different” and aren’t bred for experimentation? Wow, that’s some scientific argument there. The amount of evidence showing the inefficacy of vivisection for producing reliable, effective treatments is massive, not sparse, which they even admit to in this interview, their experiments having resulted in no cures (but always there is the next vaccine, etc., that they claim will be a true “breakthrough”).

Most importantly, however, is that the underlying issue—these animals are sentient beings that suffer emotionally and physically, and therefore have the right not to be enslaved and tortured—is never responded to with any valid justification (because there is none, just as there is no valid justification for the animal-product industry). We don’t need to eat animals to be healthy and we don’t need to experiment on them to produce effective medicines. Facts, which I know many people still deny. But again, the “debate” over these facts is actually irrelevant! When this topic is viewed through the lens of ethics one logically finds there is no valid justification for our exploitation/slavery/torturing of animals. Most supporters of animal experimentation talk about the supposed “successes” of that violent exploitation, ignoring the issue of animal rights; an immoral absurdity like those who ignored human rights, arguing how successful slavery was for the slave-owners, as if that justified the slavery! It’s just a matter of time before more of the public realizes this barbaric practice is based on lies and unethical/unprincipled presumptions, and these sickening experiments are abolished. It’s sad that ignorance and denial is making that outcome more delayed than it needs to be.
Colin Donoghue
Portland

04.07.2010 at 08:33 Reply

Flora Engelmann

Upon reviewing previous issues of WW online, I was surprised to find it is your standard practice to only print one Letter to the Editor per issue. Since you often times have controversial topics, in the interest of fair and equal coverage, you may want to reconsider this policy.

Below is the letter I submitted to the editor:

It is difficult to see the image of an adorable baby monkey being used in research and not have a knee jerk reaction to it. Animal research is not without moral dilemma, and it does not escape those that are involved in it. In the two years that I have worked in Ilhem Messaoudi’s lab I have seen an emotional expression of it from virtually every researcher that I’ve come into contact with. Whether it’s as simple as a quietly murmured “poor monkey” to the more complex coping mechanism of compartmentalizing purpose-bred animals from pets.

So why do I support animal research including nonhuman primates? I support it because 33.4 million people are infected with HIV, 2.2 million of which are children (UNAIDS). At the end of 2007 nearly a half million Americans were living with AIDS, 889 of which were children (CDC). And then there is cancer: an estimated 192,370 cases of breast cancer alone for 2009 with over 40,000 estimated deaths (American Cancer Society). And stroke: 137,119 deaths in 2006 and the leading cause of disability in the United States (American Heart Association). The list goes on. No, there still is no cure, but progress has been made because of animal research. Yes, the photo of Goober on the cover of last week’s issue tugs at the heart strings, but so does the photo at the following website: www.worldpress.org/Africa/2445.cfm. Photos like this one and the heart-wrenching article that accompanies it, are what drive researchers to not give up trying.

04.07.2010 at 02:37 Reply

Jim Newman

Here's another letter which was submitted for publication.

Dear Editor:

Thank you for giving representatives from the OHSU Oregon National Primate Research Center an opportunity to talk about the crucial role animals play in health research in your recent article �This Monkey Died for You.� Perhaps a more fitting title for the story would be �This Monkey LIVES for You.� Here�s a more recent picture of Goober (monkey ID # 27809). http://tiny.cc/93y8p

Sincerely,

Nancy L. Haigwood, Ph.D.

Director, Oregon National Primate Research Center Senior Scientist, Pathobiology and Immunology Division Vaccine & Gene Therapy Institute Adjunct Professor, Molecular Microbiology and Immunology Oregon Health & Science University

Portland Police Advise iPhone Users Not To Stare, Zombielike, At Their Devices

Oswego Lake Access Issue Heads to Federal Court

Lawsuit says the city has a responsibility to “protect and preserve the public’s right of access to and use of the Lake.”

Oregonian's Sister Paper To Cease Daily Publication; Updated

Oregon Senators Back Bill Aimed At Citizens United

Inbox

The Monkey Business Of Science