Inbox

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

WWeek 2015