Letters to the Editor

Editorial misses point of protests

I am writing to express my extreme disgust that the editors of
the Daily Bruin would use their forum to support animal
experimentation on campus (“Animal testing necessary for some
research,” Viewpoint, April 28). The editorial charges the
protesters with resorting to slogans instead of rational discourse,
but it misses the point on two accounts.

First off, such protest occurs because the on-campus forums for
broader debate on these issues are often empty or unavailable.
Inflammatory protest is a valid attempt to catalyze the type of
academic dialogue you suggest the protesters denied by their
actions. Clearly, such protest has successfully forced The Bruin
into a position statement.

Secondly, to react calmly, with reasons for why the torture and
murder of persons is unacceptable behavior, strikes those informed
on the issue as not only cruel but inhuman. I must question your
framing the argument of research upon primates as utilitarian when
it is not. To speak thus of a greater good, provided only by
necessary murder, smacks of the many acts of political atrocity
committed in modern times ““ some of which are occurring right
now in the name of freedom.

Richard Kahn

Graduate student

Animal testing not “˜necessary
evil’

While the Daily Bruin’s editorial “Animal testing
necessary for some research” (April 28) seems reasonable
enough, the board completely missed the point of the protest. It
never suffices to say, “This is the best we can do, so just
let things be.” It may, as the editorial mentioned, be a
necessary evil of the time. However, if you accept the basic
principle that we have an obligation to try and do better, then
there must be a constant campaign to end animal testing. Otherwise,
things will never change. Scientists will not have the motivation
to find alternatives on their own.

The other glaring error in the editorial is its presentation of
a somewhat idealized view of animal testing. In reality, a
less-than-significant portion of the research is useful in relation
to humans. And, most importantly, there is not even a smidgen of
cruelty standards being enforced.

Accordingly, I think the editorial is simplistic and somewhat
circular: just because something is currently
“necessary” does not mean it should still be around in
20 years. The board fails to realize that animal research will
never end without the protesting and campaigns of courageous
activists, who endure scorn and discomfort to fight for what we
will all one day take for granted

Christina Johnson

Third-year law student