Vivisectors vs. Vivisectors in a New Lawsuit
Published September 17, 2009 @ 07:02AM PT

Wrap your mind around this one: InVivo Therapeutics Corp. is suing Oregon Health and Science University (notorious for its torturous animal experiments), but not as a group opposed to animal research -- rather as a business that hired OHSU to perform animal research. InVivo alleges that OHSU provided improper, substandard care to the monkeys in the study, but of course, InVivo is the company that happily ordered the monkeys paralyzed through the severing of their spinal cords in the first place, so there is no good guy in this lawsuit.
And really, let's be honest -- this isn't about the welfare of the animals for InVivo. It's about money lost. It's about business. The monkeys were and are merely tools, resources: "The firm alleged in a recent lawsuit that it was forced to abandon its medical study earlier this year because more than a third of the monkeys provided by an Oregon research facility suffered illnesses or injuries early in the research period." And those animals and the research on them had already cost InVivo a pretty penny. The Boston Globe article begins,
Some of the rhesus monkeys that served as laboratory animals for InVivo Therapeutics Corp.’s research into spinal cord injuries have to suffer in the name of medical science.
But the Cambridge company was not expecting the monkeys to suffer more than necessary.
This sort of language always makes me angry. The monkeys (who are a "who," not a "that," by the way) did not have to suffer -- because they did not have to be experimented on in the first place -- and none of their suffering was "necessary," not even the planned suffering. And it may make for good PR to pretend that this lawsuit is about InVivo's concern for animal suffering, but it isn't. InVivo is in the business of animal suffering. It paid OHSU for the express purpose of creating animal suffering. This is about money.
But whatever the primary motivations of InVivo, what does it say about OHSU that even fellow animal-research-happy institutions can convincingly argue that it's a cruel hellhole for animals?
You can read the details at the Boston Globe article here. While there, feel free to roll your eyes at all the talk of the Animal Welfare Act and what it requires and what the punishments are for violations -- what little it requires is a joke, what little it requires is almost never really provided, and the absence of what little it requires is hardly ever or substantially punished.
Please don't support the cruel and unnecessary institution of animal research; do support the alternatives.
And if the strong ethical arguments in cases such as these don't convince you, also consider the science, including, with relation to this specific story, for example, the following: "Spinal Cord Injury Research Hampered by Animal Models, Says New Study: Scientists Say Difficulty Lies in Extrapolating Animal Data to Humans."
---
Photo courtesy the Empty Cages Gallery and Animals Voice
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Creating and Celebrating Primate Obesity and Diabetes
-
All Chimpanzees Deserve Sanctuary
-
Do They Look Like They're "Enjoying" Life to You?
Comments (8)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















"Some of the rhesus monkeys that served as laboratory animals for InVivo Therapeutics Corp.’s research into spinal cord injuries have to suffer in the name of medical science."
"But the Cambridge company was not expecting the monkeys to suffer more than necessary."
Is this a joke? How can this be acceptable? Animals SHOULDN'T have to suffer for anything, especially "in the name of medical science." There are other alternatives as Stephanie states in this article.
And I think it's very sad that the only reason for this lawsuit is merely for business purposes, and has nothing at all to do with the welfare of these precious animals.
Again, as I always say, why must it be this way? :-(
Posted by Kathy Jackson on 09/17/2009 @ 07:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
where can i put my name to this so it all stops at all the whackos who actually do this
Posted by micaela brennan on 09/18/2009 @ 02:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Healing can never come through torture.
OHSU demo this July in Portland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULkSdwYw6W0
Posted by dawnofanewera * on 09/18/2009 @ 01:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually, we are a long way from all these wonderful alternatives being touted here. Animal research is still a vital tool of medical research no matter how hard you try to wish it away. And calling monkeys a who and not a what does not make them morally equal to a human being.
Posted by Thomas Berg on 09/18/2009 @ 07:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is not a question of morality (though if it were, the primates would be winning as they are not conducting horrific experiments on humans...), it is a question of whether these animals are capable of suffering - this should be the determining factor as to whether any potentially damaging experiments are conducted on them.
No one is attempting to "wish away" vivisection, we are logically determining that it is an inaccurate, unsafe science that causes unecessary suffering for both humans and animals.
Posted by dawnofanewera * on 09/19/2009 @ 11:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Re: "Animal research is a vital tool" -- for what?? Humans are always the first real guinea pigs because animals provide no useable data.
I dare you to name one cure that has been found for any disease by testing chemicals/drugs on animals. Name one pharmaceutical drug that doesn't have a negative side effect or is actually beneficial to health.
The truth is that there is a cure for everything to be found in the rainforest; that plant-based cures were found decades, sometimes centuries ago. These drugs are just poor synthetic and toxic chemicals copied from plant compounds.
If you're waiting for big pharma and vivisection to find a cure for anything, you're going to die holding your breath; it's not to their benefit to find a "cure" nor is it possible.
As for a monkey not being "morally equal to a human being" -- you are actually correct. Animals are morally *superior* to human beings as they are all born innocent and cannot commit sin.
Posted by Andrea Hayes on 09/21/2009 @ 10:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's hard to say which is the most evil, InVivo or OHSU. OHSU is by no means the only university that's guilty of these cruel experiments though. I wonder if all of them do it to some degree. I know Ohio State University does it. I'm sure there's others we never hear about. I wish we could shut them all down. I don't even care if the 'research' done on these animals can actually result in medical advances benefitting humans....it's wrong and should be stopped.
Posted by Charlie Lammers on 09/18/2009 @ 11:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We will never be a civilized country until researching on animals is stopped. I have done my homework, animal research is ruthless, and unneccesary.....
Posted by Wanda Perry on 11/20/2009 @ 02:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.