Escaped monkeys upend animal rights movement

Cooperation between each other Maga Animal rights influencers and activists have drawn the most confrontational trends within each camp. This summer, Loomer and White Coat West took on an unusual target: Nicole Kleinstroyer, a toxicologist who is leading the National Institutes of Health’s effort to accelerate the replacement of animals in testing and regulatory research. Under Kleinstroyer’s leadership, the agency launched a new office to develop and validate alternatives to animal studies, such as computer simulations and “organs-on-a-chip” technologies. Kleinstroer said she wants to “make a lasting difference for animal-free science.” But because it echoed the scientific consensus — namely, that, in the meantime, some animals remain essential — White Coat Waste branded it an enemy of progress and a Fauci-loving “animal testing czar.” “Kleinstroer, who subsequently received harassing messages and death threats online, requested security protection.

White Coat West’s criticism of Kleinstroyer set her apart from the broader animal rights movement. (“Have they lost their damn minds?” Lisa Jones Engel, L Beta However, it is not the only group promoting the claim that an immediate end to animal research would not only be morally justifiable, but also scientifically sound. This absolutist framing ignores the fact that although non-animal approaches are highly effective in certain areas—such as skin allergies and eye irritation—they cannot replicate the complexity of working organisms, especially in efforts to understand whole-body interactions, neurochemistry, and progressive disease. Monkeys remain crucial, especially for vaccine development and the study of reproductive health. As one National Institutes of Health official wrote in a letter to White Coat Waste board members, “Real progress in this field cannot happen overnight—it takes time, and to pretend otherwise is misleading, counterproductive, and dangerous.”

But pretending otherwise has greater emotional appeal. “People want the idea that we no longer need animals to be true because they love animals,” said Heather Sidener, former chief of clinical medicine at the Oregon National Primate Research Center. “They haven’t really had the difficult conversation with themselves about, ‘What if it’s my husband? What if it’s my child?’ Am I really going to say to them, ‘I think you should die because I don’t think we should use animals to find out if this new drug is safe?'” Cindy Buckmaster, a scientist and former president of Americans for Medical Progress, an advocacy group for animal research, told me that when we no longer need lab animals, it will be “the happiest day of my life” — but until then, researchers must make sure every animal They test it He does is used to calculate. “The way we look at animals has changed a lot in the last 20 years, and we have to acknowledge our shortcomings,” she said.

Disillusioned, Gluck, a primate researcher, retrained as an ethicist. In this role, he often finds himself lecturing about the ethical dilemmas posed by his previous career. Although his fans sometimes look to him for prescriptions, he tends to avoid them Ted– Talk bromides and ten-point plans, focusing instead on his epistemological humility. There’s still a lot we don’t know about monkeys, but what we do know, he stresses, should make scientists worry that captivity conditions are harming their research. “The key question we should be concerned with is: How can we do this differently?” He told me recently. “Who are these animals? What are their lives like? How can you create a less abusive environment?” Acknowledging that animals are complex creatures, with complex needs, may not only reduce their suffering, but also lead to better scientific results.

A few weeks after my trip to Yemassee, the remaining macaques were captured after hunters noticed their footprints in some freshly fallen snow. Westergaard announces that the monkeys are healthy and safe and is celebrating their reunion. Beta He had his doubts. Someone in the town told activists that a monkey had been hit by a car, and the group is now demanding that Alpha Genesis provide “proof of life.” On Facebook, Westergaard thanked Yemassee residents for their support during the restoration mission. “As for Beta“They can go to hell themselves,” he added.

Throughout the year, Westergaard did not respond to my texts, calls, voicemails, or emails; When I visited his office to request an interview, security escorted me out of the building. Neither he nor his company responded to questions about the animal welfare violations and neglect allegations. Meanwhile, he continued to fight with Beta connected. At one point, he denounced documents the company released from Strickland as part of a “disinformation campaign” that sought to “undermine public confidence in important research institutions.” This seemed odd, given that Vestergaard had spent much of the spring and summer cozying up to an administration that routinely attacked such institutions. In May, after Alpha Genesis passed its latest USDA inspection without any citations, Westergaard announced his company’s unwavering support for Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative. “We believe that cutting-edge science and compassionate care go hand in hand,” he said, adding that the latest inspection results reflect the organization’s “proactive and professional approach to research and animal husbandry.” One of his press releases included an AI-generated illustration of three smiling macaques Maha Baseball caps. Another euphemistically described the administration’s ax to the scientific establishment as “programmatic changes in research priorities.” It was not mentioned that these “programmatic changes” threaten not only animal research, but also one of its most important achievements – reducing childhood morbidity and mortality through vaccination.