Just in time for the Discovery Channel's Shark Week comes news reminding us that sharks are not just predators but also often prey—for humans.

Brazil's Environmental Justice Institute has claimed that one seafood exporter has illegally killed nearly 300,000 sharks—just let that number sink in for a moment—in response to growing demand from an increasingly affluent middle class in China, where shark fin soup is considered a delicacy.

While sharks aren't particularly cuddly, that's beside the point. All animals feel fear and pain, and what kind of justification can there be for the hideous cruelty involved in pulling sharks from the water, cutting off their fins, and then throwing them back into the sea to spin to the bottom while they slowly bleed to death? While sharks' predatory nature may give nightmares to anyone who's watched Jaws, humans beat them by far when it comes to the number of victims each species kills for food. And killing sharks in huge numbers threatens the balance of the marine ecosystem.

To its credit, Discovery devotes resources during Shark Week to raising awareness of finning. In light of Hawaii's recent ban on the possession, sale, trade, and distribution of shark fins, perhaps the tide is turning (geddit?) in their favor, but sharks and other threatened aquatic animals still need help.

Written by Jeff Mackey

A report issued this week by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., blasts 100 "questionable," "mismanaged," and "poorly planned" stimulus-funded projects, including an especially cruel and wasteful experiment that the report aptly calls "Monkeys Getting High for Science." (No, it isn't another Onion story, unfortunately.) The study in question is being conducted at the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, which nabbed $71,623 in stimulus funds (i.e., tax dollars) to feed cocaine to monkeys.

"I think all of [the projects] are waste," McCain told ABC News. "[S]ome are more egregious than others but all of them are terrible."

Hooking monkeys on coke definitely falls into the "more egregious" category. Unfortunately, the idiotic study is just a drop in the proverbial crack pipe. Other mind-bogglingly absurd addiction studies on animals include the following:

• National Institutes of Health–funded experimenter Michael Weed trained monkeys in a basic motor task, infected them with simian immunodeficiency virus, and then checked how they performed the task—while on cocaine. So now we know … what? That you shouldn't hire monkeys with STDs who are high on drugs to mow your lawn?
• Yale professor Marina Picciotto wasted taxpayer money to feed monkeys Kool-Aid laced with huge amounts of liquid nicotine (the equivalent of 17 packs of cigarettes a day in one case!) and addicted rats and mice to cocaine, morphine, and alcohol before decapitating them. Anyone with a head on their shoulders would realize that this is cruel—and pointless.
• Oregon National Primate Research Center experimenter Eliot Spindel impregnates monkeys and injects them with dangerous levels of nicotine. He then kills and dissects their preterm babies after cutting them out of their mothers. Yeah, pregnant women shouldn't smoke—we know that already.
• Another frequent rider of the NIH gravy train, Stephen Suomi, separates baby monkeys from their mothers and gives them access to alcohol to see how stress and maternal deprivation affect their desire to drown their sorrows. Just reading about this makes me want to head to the nearest bar.

Please help prevent more money from being flushed down the laboratory drain by asking the National Institutes of Health to stop funding addiction experiments on animals.

Written by Alisa Mullins

When I was in elementary school, I had a friend named Katie. We slept over at each other's houses, hung out during recess, and wore the same clothes, pretending to be twins. I was so ready to give her the other half of my best-friend necklace—but then I heard her talking smack about me in the lunch room. Backstabber.

bestwestern-sunrise / CC

The CEO of Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California, is a lot like Katie. While the aquarium's mission is supposedly "to instill a sense of wonder, respect, and stewardship for the Pacific Ocean, its inhabitants, and ecosystems," CEO Dr. Jerry Schubel has just launched a new program called "Seafood for the Future"—which encourages people to eat specific kinds of fish in order to qualify for a free ticket to the aquarium.

If Dr. Schubel really knew what was best for fish, he'd know that eating them isn't an option. Fish communicate and develop relationships with one another. They experience fear, show affection by gently rubbing against other fish, and even grieve when their companions die. When they are dragged from the ocean's depths, they undergo excruciating decompression, which often causes their internal organs to rupture.

Encouraging aquarium visitors to eat fish seems a little bit like serving poodle burgers at a dog show. Wouldn't you think the best way for visitors to safeguard and respect the ocean's sea life is to adopt a vegan diet? We've fired off a letter to Dr. Schubel asking him to cancel this program immediately.

Is it obvious yet that aquariums really don't care about the animals they're supposedly protecting?

Written by Liz Graffeo