Animal research argument weak
The “dueling editorials” concept is excellent because careful consideration of an issue is crucial to formulating an educated opinion.
However, the “Primate Center Saves Human Lives” editorial made the subject of animal research confusing because many of the statements were vague or illogical. For example, the statement that the CNPRC tries to minimize research on primates does not make sense because the institute uses primate research to obtain funding. Furthermore, the editorial claims that “the CNPRC works hard to keep the process humane” but omits information about what concrete actions the CNPRC actually takes to do so.
But most importantly, how do the authors of the editorial and the researchers at the CNPRC define the terms “ethical” and “humane?” If it is inhumane to inflict suffering on human beings for the sake of medical progress, why is it humane to inflict suffering on non-human primates? As much compassion as “one naturally feels” when looking into a monkey’s face, apparently it’s not enough to stop “one” from performing potentially painful experiments on it.
Considering the myriad advancements in medicine today, the editorial does not provide enough evidence to prove that primate research is the BEST option to save human lives.
PHOEBE YAM
Senior, biological sciences
