My point is that if 1400 of those animals are rats, using the stat "1500 killed" upfront is a bit misleading to laypeople in my non-professional opinion. The article doesn't say, but from other articles it appears that no monkeys were killed.
There seems to be a lot of goalpost moving in this thread.
> X animals were killed!
>> Yes but most of those weren't animals the vast majority of people consider particularly intelligent / morally questionable to kill for medical research purposes
"In two separate incidents, experimenters used an unapproved adhesive called BioGlue to fill holes in the animals’ skulls, which seeped through to the monkeys’ brains. In one monkey, the use of BioGlue caused bleeding in her brain, and she vomited so much from the resulting side effects that she developed open sores in her esophagus"
Why do you say that? For me, to say they were treated poorly means that they were subjected to unnecessary harm or suffering. Animals can still be harmed as long as it is necessary and appropriate care is taken to minimize the harm.
The quote simply demonstrated that the animal was harmed. It says nothing about the necessity of that harm or care that was taken to minimize it.
Nearly all Labs go to great lengths to minimize harm and ensure the animals are comfortable.
Our current standard of care in surgury is better than this. They didn't need to use bioglue in that way, we have better technology than this, they used it because they were lazy.
Looking at the literature, it appears that bioglue is or at least has been used in human Neurosurgical procedures to seal CSF leaks. Without evidence otherwise, it seems like you are just making things up
Primates being treated "abnormally well" usually means they are left to do what they want without interference in their lives. This is a false descriptor of what they are being put through.
