For the past 60 years, the NIH has been conducting “maternal deprivation” studies in which researchers kidnap newborn monkeys from their mothers; give them surrogate mothers made of wire and wood; and hold them captive in dark metal boxes called “pits of despair” where they mutilate themselves. Video footage of one experiment shows babies crying and frantically shaking their mothers who have been chemically sedated by the researchers.

If you think that the sadistic and barbaric experiments conducted at Auschwitz by Dr. Josef Mengele are a thing of the past, think again. They are taking place today in labs all over the world – including those funded by taxpayers. Maternal deprivation and other similar studies continue at the NIH with approximately 200 monkeys. And, like the Auschwitz studies, they are being conducted in vain. As early as 1977, the researcher at the NIH who led these studies acknowledged that the findings were irrelevant to humans. Please watch this video obtained help PETA and take action against the NIH.

In an opinion piece criticizing Pamela Anderson for opposing the ALS Association’s ice bucket challenge because the organization funds animal testing, the New York Post made no mention of why Ms. Anderson and “39 percent of Americans say medical testing on animals is morally wrong.” In fact, the Post attempts to discredit her by portraying her opposition as merely philosophical while stating that the benefits of animal testing are real.

The movement to ban animal testing isn’t philosophical; it is based on a frantic desire to stop animals from being tortured in labs. In her statement regarding the ALS ice bucket challenge, Ms. Anderson wrote: “In recent experiments funded by the ALS Association, mice had holes drilled into their skulls, were inflicted with crippling illnesses, and were forced to run on an inclined treadmill until they collapsed from exhaustion. Monkeys had chemicals injected into their brains and backs and were later killed and dissected.”

Some scientists maintain that animal research is necessary; others argue that it’s outdated and irrelevant to humans. Animal rights say it’s unjustifiable. But can all sides agree on one thing — that imprisoning animals in small cages for their entire lives, depriving them of everything that comes naturally to them and conducting painful experiments on them constitute torture? When making a decision about whether or not to support animal testing, shouldn’t people be equipped with that baseline knowledge?

If chimpanzees used in medical experiments had the power to switch places with and conduct tests on their captors, wouldn’t the researchers demand to be released on moral grounds? Wouldn’t they hope and pray that others rescue them?  If so, then they should follow the golden rule: Do unto others, animal cutters!

Humans are an arrogant bunch.  We think we are so superior to every other other species that we can do whatever we want to them, but aren’t we the only species that is destroying the planet?

One statement in the NY Post article (inadvertently) acknowledges the need for the animal rights activists like Pamela Anderson: “It’s fine, maybe even admirable, to strip naked to urge humane treatment of pets, combat cruel factory-farming or oppose unnecessary animal testing (as in the cosmetics industry).” The Post editors and mainstream society will eventually oppose all animal testing; they just don’t know it yet.

According to The Independent, the UK chapter of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an activist group that employs direct action to expose and shut down animal testing company Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), has ended its campaign due to an “onslaught of government repression.” Over the years, dozens of SHAC activists, including the group’s leaders, have been sent to jail. SHAC targeted HLS because undercover videos taken inside the labs, in which millions of animals have died, showed extreme abuse and animal torture. What made SHAC activists unique was not only the sheer boldness of their tactics but also their strategy of targeting institutions that do business with the HLS – their banks, suppliers and contractors. If SHAC could cut off the oxygen, then the company would suffocate.

Social justice movements always grow in strength, and animal rights is no exception. SHAC says it will “reassess our methods, obstacles and opponent’s weaknesses” and will “seek to influence the government into changing the law to prevent animal cruelty.” In 2006, six members of the U.S. chapter of SHAC were imprisoned under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Learn more about animal testing and why – extreme cruelty aside – it’s an antiquated approach.

Primera Management, a company that cannot be traced, is attempting to build a large monkey breeding facility in Central Florida over objections of the State Senator who represents the area. Monkeys from Mauritius, an island off the coast of Africa, will be transported to the facility in Hendry County, where they will be bred and sold to laboratories. Animal Defenders International released footage of monkeys in Mauritius being abused, though Primera insists that their monkeys will come from a different, unnamed source. Citing health, safety and animal care concerns, the Senator is demanding a public hearing with all stakeholders, including the Center for Disease Control.

Who is behind this primate breeding facility? Who is accountable if monkeys escape or disease is transmitted? Given the environmental and land-use issues associated with a 3,000 monkey facility, why is it being constructed without so much as a public hearing? As a starting point, please thank Florida State Senator Dwight Bullard for attempting to stop the construction of this facility until the community has answers. And stay tuned for more information as advocacy groups put together the pieces of the puzzle.

One month after a whistle blower at Princeton sent PETA an internal email describing the callous abuse of a lab monkey, the University issued a statement claiming they found “no evidence to support allegations of animal mistreatment.” The internal email, which was sent by a psychology professor to his lab workers after he learned that they rolled at least one marmoset monkey down the hall in a ferret exercise ball, stated: “The marmosets are not in the lab for your amusement. . . We are forcing them into experimental contexts that they wouldn’t otherwise choose because that is the only way that we can address our scientific questions. To force them into contexts for which there is no scientific justification is reprehensible and, frankly, unethical.”

In its statement, Princeton denied wrongdoing, stating its “investigation determined that a researcher had placed a single marmoset in a ferret exercise ball to explore use of the ball by marmosets during research projects. . . The ball was observed while on a track and on the floor, where it rolled slowly for a short distance.”

Marmoset

While Princeton won’t admit to animal cruelty in this case, it must be acknowledging prior abuse or the potential for abuse by describing steps it has taken in recent years to strengthen its animal care, including “hiring additional professional staff with expertise in laboratory animal medicine” and “creating a new Office of Research Integrity and Assurance.” Of course, no amount of reform will make it acceptable to hold animals captive in lab cages, depriving them of everything that comes naturally to them and experimenting on their bodies. Animal experimentation must and will eventually be banned with the help of organizations like Stop Animal Experimentation Now.