Below are excerpts from UW vivisectors' responses to the publication of the article with links to their entire letters, and Dr. Cohen's response to them. [Source: Cap Times]
From Eric Sandgren
Director of the UW-Madison Research Animal Resources Center
Animal research column misleading
Murry Cohen's misleading and mostly irrelevant opinion piece in Wednesday's Capital Times requires a response. First, it is important to note that Cohen is a longtime fundamental opponent of animal research, has written widely on the topic, and is allied with the main groups that are absolutist on the question. This means he advocates for abolition of all animal research, regardless of benefit. For more, go here - published letter...
From Dr. Douglas A. Kramer
Emeritus Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
I respect people who treat every life as sacred, whether that life be manifested in a mosquito, an elephant, a gorilla, or a human being. Such people would never personally hurt any living being. I am sympathetic to Jared Diamond’s idea that Homo sapiens is mis-categorized, that we belong in the same genus as chimpanzees, and thus cages in old-fashioned zoos for chimpanzees constitute maltreatment. For more, go here - published letter
From Ron Kalil
UW-Madison Neuroscience Professor
Attack on UW shows writer clueless on biomedical research funding
I read each issue of the Capital Times from cover to cover with anticipation and intellectual gratification, but from time to time I am perplexed by what the Cap Times stands for when it publishes articles such as the one in a recent issue by obscure, uninformed writers who believe that their opinions deserve a place at the table with facts. For more, go here - published letter
From Murry J. Cohen, M.D.
The three individuals taking exception to my critique of Ned Kalin’s maternal deprivation monkey experiments have strong ties to the university; two experiment on animals, and the third was trained back when Harlow’s maternal deprivation experiments were being promoted by the university's press office.
Eric Sandgren uses the euphemism of “peer-rearing”, which fools only the ignorant. Peer-rearing is maternal deprivation. Kalin's experimental design supposedly models "poor parenting," but, since these babies have no mothers at all, “poor is an understatement. Sandgren claims that the experiments have a “good chance” of succeeding parallels the claims of everyone funded by others' money about their and their colleagues' research.
Ron Kalil resorts to the ad hominem attacks commonly used by animal experimenters against their scientific critics. My citations speak for themselves. Kalin might be an excellent clinician, but his cruel and ill-conceived “research” is based on a spurious paradigm, which makes it “interesting” to some but exceedingly unlikely to be beneficial to humans.
Douglas Kramer, after trying to establish his love for animals, proceeds to proclaim his veneration of Harlow as being responsible for discovering the importance of mother-infant attachment. But he ignores the large body of evidence showing that it was psychiatrists studying human children who demonstrated this. Harlow's work did not result in the humane treatment of captive nonhuman primates either. The very small improvements in primate care since Harlow's time are the result of the 1986 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act, which were opposed by almost all animal experimenters.
Return to Animal Rights Articles