The very expression, “lab animals,” is repugnant. As is “food animals,” seen just yesterday in a newspaper. And of course there’s also “service animals.” And “domestic animals,” a sad contrast to “wild animals.”
One expression not used is “free animals” – thanks to human assumptions that all animals are ours to capture, tame, train, eat, experiment on. . . .
Which brings me back to “lab animals” and the local scene. Princeton University can claim all it wants that its animal “research” is good for the world (of humans). Maybe the school’s animal experiments have helped some people. So what? They were done on the backs of innocent animals.
Merely reading through the 15 pages of USDA inspections reports (2008-2011) for the university’s animal research program should be enough to make an anti-vivisectionist of anyone. References to “NHP” for non-human (of course!) primate; to water-provision schedules, to pain killers administered “as needed” and to how many surgeries an NHP may have . . . all suggest images of mad scientists with their clipboards and schedules, playing with the lives of other sentient beings.
What gives them this right?
#
The story at this link includes the website for obtaining USDA inspection reports as well as the site for Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN).
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/sides-of-vivisection-issue-princeton-university-and-animal-research-watchdog-group
No comments:
Post a Comment