NEAVS President Theodora Capaldo, EdD's Boston Globe letter to the editor:
Nathaniel P. Morris shared his ambivalent feelings about animal research in his July 25 op-ed. There are more like him who want to end animal use and replace it with more effective, humane science.
While the public accepts animal use only if it is necessary, scientists attest to how unnecessary and flawed it is as a route to human health. The discussion includes those who feel that compassion must be part of every decision and physicians and researchers looking for a better way than this “necessary evil.”
Only one faction of shareholders will never join honest debate: those from industries that profit from breeding and selling animals and equipment. From economic self-interest, they distort facts under the guise of names that sound as if their sole mission is to benefit human health. I could at least consider them honest, if not still wrong, if they showed integrity by renaming their lobbying organizations something like the “Foundation for Profits from Animal Research.” It would give those who are against animal use, or who question it, a level playing field to oppose their influence.
We might then move rapidly to the day when more humane and better science is the law of the land and neither animals nor caring scientists are hurt.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society
Read the original letter here.