Sometimes science involves learning things for which an immediate economic benefit is not apparent. It could very well be that a decade or two from now, our kno

Sometimes science involves learning things for which an immediate economic benefit is not apparent. It could very well be that a decade or two from now, our knowledge that animals brains universally react to rhythms is a useful datum in cracking some critical piece of knowledge about how brains work and, potentially, how to fix them. Or, alternately, it could turn out to be practically worthless. But we don't know, and knowing more things is almost always not worse than knowing fewer things. Also, your argument assumes a lot of things: 1.) animal experimentation is being disrupted, 2.) playing music for chimps is clearly detrimental to them, and 3.) the resources that went into this study (these particular chimps, these researchers, and their funding) could have gone into some specific but unidentified better study which did have an pre-observable value. If all of those things are true, which has definitely not been established, than I would grant that science is likely not being conducted in a way that is maximally efficient, but unless there's some hugely valuable experiment that is being overlooked for this, I don't see why you're disturbed.