You say 'animal research,' I say. . .

“Mistreatment of lab animals alleged at a Princeton lab” -- headline in last Friday’s Times of Trenton. But by definition, don’t the words “lab animals” alone mean mistreatment?

Those animals aren’t in labs, at Princeton or anywhere, for fun and games. They’re likely to be in cages, robbed of their freedom and natural lives, and used in experiments – all against their will. If all that is not mistreatment . . . !

The story reported on what an anonymous whistleblower claims has happened in a lab at Princeton University – where, by the way, they call what they’re doing “animal research” as if that would make it less horrible than the vivisection it is.

In his letter to a rep of the USDA division that handles violations of the Animal Welfare Act at Princeton, the executive director of SAEN (Stop Animal Exploitation Now) details a number of violations the whistleblower alleges occurred at the university.

Because they are spelled out in detail on the SAEN website – www.saenonline.org – they won’t be listed here. Besides the alleged mistreatment of lab animals, the SAEN leader also alerted the USDA official to a possible, or likely, leak that allows lab staff to know ahead when “unannounced inspections” will take place.

Citing the “carelessness and negligence” at Princeton that leads to the taking of animals’ lives, he invites an investigation, mentioning the need for punishment and fines. (Not known: if or how the USDA official responds to the executive director’s letter.)

Meanwhile, “animal research” continues at Princeton.
#

Yes, in our backyard

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