Truth is many-sided; to see it fully, we must look from many angles.

Jain Epistemology (anekāntavāda)

Dear Ms. Daby:

I read your recent interview in l’Express online on Tuesday (May 13) with both care and respect.

As a fellow Mauritian, a lifelong animal lover, and a physician scientist who has worked in biomedical research for over two decades, I write to engage your concerns in the spirit of humility, moral discipline, and shared purpose. While we may differ on certain conclusions, I found in your words a deep conscience, ethical clarity, and a courageous commitment to the voiceless. For that, I thank you.

You have made your position forcefully clear: that Mauritius, in becoming a global supplier of macaques, has compromised its image as a paradise; that this trade, conducted with too little transparency and oversight, diminishes our collective dignity; that multinational companies have exploited our natural resources with little regard for cultural or moral sensibilities; and that the suffering of animals, hidden from public view, must no longer be tolerated.

These are serious claims. They deserve scrutiny and dialogue.

One can respectfully question some of your assertions. I know several Mauritians engaged in the non-human primate export sector. Some I count as personal friends. They are not the shadowy figures your interview implies. Most of these professionals operate within legal and regulatory frameworks, and those I know personally, unfailingly act with integrity. Their mission, to supply a critical resource for scientific discovery and medical progress, is, in my view, both valid and commendable. These people are heroes in my book.

I agree that no animal should suffer needlessly, and that transparency, compassion, and accountability must be foundational in the life sciences. I agree that bad actors, whether in commerce, activism, or government, erode trust and discredit the entire system. Most deeply, I believe Mauritius must never build its scientific future on cruelty or moral compromise.

If ever those lines were crossed, I would be the first to stand beside you.

Where we may differ, Ms. Daby, is in the space between absolute rejection and ethical regulation. I wrote about this tension in my recent article in l’Express, The Bleating of My Nani’s Condemned Goat. There, I reflected on the chasm between the Jain monk’s uncompromising ahimsa, refusing even to step on an insect, and my grandmother’s quiet rituals, who practiced what she believed was a respectful, necessary use of animals.

This space between extremes, between nonviolence as an ideal and compassion within constraint, is where I try, often imperfectly, to stand.

You argue that no use of animals in research can ever be justified. We believe that some use, under the strictest and most humane conditions, can, and at times must, be permitted if we are to bring relief to those who suffer from devastating diseases.

This belief does not arise from economic ambition. It emerges from the stories that unfold all around us, the quiet heroism of those living with diseases that erode memory, movement, and meaning. We have friends, neighbors, and loved ones who rely each day on medicines that would not exist without the foundational contributions of animal research. Their lives, their stability, and their dignity remind us why the question is not whether we care, but how we act with care.

This is why some among us cannot fully embrace absolutism, even as we walk as closely as we can to the edge of compassion.

Mauritius stands today at a crossroads, scientific, ethical, and civic.

We can build a life sciences sector that is not only world-class in capability, but exemplary in conscience. Through thoughtful amendment of the 2017 Mauritius Animal Welfare Act (MAWAA) to have terminal provisions, we can anchor our laws in the highest international standards. We can insist on independent oversight through the creation of an Independent Life Sciences Authority (ILSA), humane endpoints, and the absolute minimization of animal use. We can require that multinationals invest not just in laboratories, but in public education, scientific literacy, and the communities that sustain their work.

And we can, with purpose and persistence, begin the transition toward a future where the tools of science no longer rely on the sacrifice of sentient life.

While the elimination of terminal studies is a worthy goal, and one we should all aspire to, it will not arrive next week, or this September, as some have suggested. It will take time. And it will require scientific rigor, not just moral will.

Some statements in your interview imply that the science has already arrived, that we no longer need animal models to advance medicine. But nothing could be further from the truth. We must not confuse the horizon with the road. I invite you, even as a non-scientist, to read the interview with Dr. Lorna Ewart, a specialist in organ-on-chip technologies, published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery on May 15.

The people we serve, patients, families, neighbors, are not abstractions. Their needs are not future tense. They live with pain and uncertainty now. And so, we walk with them, not ahead of them. Until the day we can fully replace animals in research, we must commit to minimizing their use, maximizing their welfare, and never taking their sacrifice lightly.

I respect your moral clarity and welcome your voice in this urgent conversation. But I must express concern about a recurring tone, present at times in you and your organization's messaging, that paints those who support ethically conducted animal research as morally compromised or complicit in cruelty. That framing does not open dialogue; it hardens it. It does not persuade; it polarizes.

We cannot move forward by vilifying those who, in good faith and under strict ethical safeguards, continue to believe that some animal research remains necessary in the effort to ease human suffering.

You have said that Mauritius needs a plan to exit the monkey trade. I agree. And we must begin, not with a blanket ban, but with a roadmap rooted in ethics, economics, and empathy.

In my article “The Bleating of My Nani’s Condemned Goat,” I suggested that the national debate is shaped by five groups: animal lovers, the curious and unsure, scientists, principled opponents of animal testing, and the unscrupulous. You and I, I believe, stand somewhere among the first four, because each of these arises from love, reason, or duty. Only the fifth, the corrupt, the demagogues, and the opportunists, should be excluded from shaping our future.

I believe Mauritius can become the Switzerland of life sciences in Africa. But we will never earn that role unless we lead with integrity.

That is why I support amendments to the MAWAA with terminal provisions, not to weaken its protections, but to strengthen them through public disclosure and independent oversight.

And that is why I believe the Mauritian public deserves, at last, the full truth, clearly stated, transparently enforced, and morally grounded.

And so I write to you, not to persuade, but to invite.

Let us make space, even briefly, for a conversation where truth can be plural and ethics shared in good faith.

You may not agree with everything we stand for. But I hope you will see that we stand with humility, with conviction, and with a resolve rooted in care.

And, I see you.

Yours in conscience,

Shivraj

(Dr. Shivraj Sohur, originally from Espérance Trébuchet, is a leader in the global life sciences industry, a practicing neurologist at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospitals in Boston, and part-time faculty at Harvard Medical School).

****** 

Animal Welfare : The Bleating of My Nani’s Condemned Goat