MSU professor's practices on cats cruel, unnecessary

Go away hippie.

Does anyone know where Alka Chandna mail-ordered her Ph.D from?

I guessed there was some PETA affiliation before I clicked this link..

Sigh.

Do you people think that these eyes are just removed with a rusty spoon while someone holds the cats down? Really? Do any of you complaining about this research know even the beginnings of proper pain management in animals? Proper surgical approaches for enucleation? How to develop a proper post-operative pain management protocol?

Come on people! The author of this blurb has a degree in mathematics as far as I can tell. Not saying that it isn’t a good degree, but should we really be trusting her on matters of animal testing? Seriously, I LOL’d at this.

Does anyone on the ALF or PETA front have the slightest idea what Prof. Weber is actually doing? I suspect not.

Weird… I never sign with my full first name! Now I don’t trust my typing fingers…

Hi Jason, I earned my Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario in 1993 and was the recipient of a scholarship from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) while I was there. After receiving my Ph.D., I accepted a tenured position as an assistant professor at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where I served for 5 years. I’m sorry if this kicks a hole in your preconceived notions of who animal rights activists are.

You might also feel unsettled to read the animal experimentation methods described in Arthur Weber’s papers. A 2008 paper authored by Weber reveals the gruesome details of his experiments: the bones around cats’ eyes were removed, an incision was made in the back of the eye socket, and the cats’ optic nerve was crushed with a clamp. The cats were kept this way for seven days, at which point their eyes were removed and they were killed. It is difficult to believe that these cats did not suffer hideously, but in the absence of meaningful oversight and transparency, we will never know the specifics of that pain, agony, and distress.

We may disagree on what our relationship with other animal species should be, but the failure of taxpayer-funded animal experimentation facilities to allow for a certain measure of transparency is anti-democratic, and the failure of oversight committees to ensure that the minimal provisions outlined by the Animal Welfare Act are respected is a violation of the social contract that laboratories have with the taxpaying public.

“It is difficult to believe that these cats did not suffer hideously, but in the absence of meaningful oversight and transparency, we will never know the specifics of that pain, agony, and distress.”

Actually, if you read the paper, you will find the numerous anesthesias and analgesics used to ensure that the cats asleep and pain-free during the entire procedure. A correction to my statements above: the cats are alive during the eye-removal, but unconscious (notes in brackets are mine):

“...the animals were anesthetized deeply with ketamine HCl (15 mg/kg i.m.) [tranquilizer], followed by an intravenous injection of pentobarbital sodium (35 mg/kg) [you may recognize this as one of the chemicals used in lethal injections]. The eyes then were removed quickly, the animal received an overdose of pentobarbital sodium…” (page 6)

So, the eyes are not removed while the cats are conscious and able to feel pain. In fact, I am guessing that the only reason they are not removed after death is that death would interfere with the experimental value of the eyes. If you read the page and a half before this section, you will see that the cats receive ample consideration so that they do not feel pain:

“anesthesia was initiated in a Plexiglas chamber using 4% isoflurane…in pure oxygen, delivered at 3L/min. Each animal was then intubated, and anesthesia maintained using a 2.5-3.0% isoflurane-oxygen mixture (1L/min.). Analgesia and sedation consisted of an intramuscular injection of glycopyrrolate…and subcutaneous injections of torbugesic…and acepromazine… Heart and respiratory rates were monitored every 15 minutes. Body temperature was maintained at 37 degrees C using a thermostatically-regulated heating pad. The head was stabilized using a vacuum-activated, ‘beanbag-like’, restraining device… and the eyes were treated with a topical anesthetic…” (page 4)

They even made sure that they wouldn’t hit the cat’s nasal passages so that the cats wouldn’t experience a loss of appetite. Even post-operative pain medication was provided. Most importantly,

“All experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Michigan State University, and all were conducted in accordance with the ARVO statement for the Use of Animals in Opthalmic and Vision Research.” (page 4)

I definitely understand the concerns of the non-radical members of PETA, and these concerns are always important to ensuring that ethical standards are held in all experimentation. My suggestion is this: write to the ethical review boards and discuss these matters on a scientific level, not one based on name-calling and witch-hunting. Some of your colleagues are already doing this, in fact – join them! Your word is important in the process of experimenting to find new cures and treatments to diseases, but you must know how to affect the system! Only then can there be agreement and reconciliation on both sides of the debate.

We can not judge the rightness of our actions based solely on their utility.

Take, for example, 19th century surgeon James Marion Sims (“The Father of Modern Gynecology”) who performed painful experimental surgery on the genitals of black slaves up to 30 times each. These women did not consent to participate in these experiments and were not provided with any anesthesia. As a result of the experimental procedures, great advances were made in the field of vaginal surgery and new surgical instruments were developed. However, I don’t think that any of us would condone such exploitive behavior, regardless of how well it was regulated or the potential benefit it could provide to others.

Similarly, there is an incredible double-standard here for the treatment of nonhumans that is quite difficult to reconcile. The procedures which Weber subjects cats to in his laboratory would be classified as felony-level cruelty to animals if they occurred anywhere outside of a laboratory setting, yet, we have people on this board who are perfectly comfortable defending Weber’s brand of violence against cats because it may be useful to them.

To argue that these experiments are “important” and well-regulated is to ignore the fundamental ethical questions that must first be answered. Cats, mice, rats and other animals exploited in laboratories possess all of the characteristics necessary to include them within our moral community (mainly, sentience) and it is unjustifiable to confine, mutilate and kill them for anyone’s benefit.

It is not like without animal research there would be no research. There are so many non-animal testing methods available. The problem is that “researchers” like Weber are not taking the time to find and use these humane methods. Then they’re making the false argument that without animal research humans would suffer. This is false — people would benefit tremendously from non-animal research precisely b/c it is more human-relevant, has less variables that can alter the data, and can be applied more directly to the human situation. So, before everyone flies off the handle and says oh no animal rights activists are ruining the world — please just get a grip and think for a minute. There is nothing wrong with people trying to help animals. There IS something wrong with people who harm and kill animals, especially when alternatives exist. Think about it.

This is the problem with science and secular humanism run amok, they lack morality. The idea is that “for the greater good of humans” people are willing to justify experiments that would make the Nazi doctors blush. Think about it, is the life or the suffering of another really worth the so called benefit of the possible results? If there were really a cure for every disease then we’d be even more overpopulated then we are now. Science and greed breed evil. As a Buddhist I firmly believe that Weber will reap the results of his morally bankrupt actions in this or another life. He and countless others like him that torture to prolong the life of humans will eventually be held accountable. I hope he changes his ways, as it is never too late.

OK, I’ll bite. I’ve thought about it.

“There are so many non-animal testing methods available.”

one – 1
couple – 2
few – 3
some – 4
several(debatable) – 5
many – >5

So we’re looking at 5+ methods here. I challenge anyone to name even half that number of other methods that are equally, if not more, effective than animal research. You’ll find yourself either feeling stupid, or feeling the need to write up some long counter-post. “non-animal research” is more “human-relevant”? What are you suggesting? Experiment on humans? Nothx Adolf.

I’m assuming many of the counter-arguments to animal research are coming from mostly non-life science majors. If you’ve ever been in a lab class that deals with living models you’d soon realize the extreme care that’s taken into account to ensure the comfort of the animal throughout the entire experiment until it is killed (commonly euthanized). Denying people and animals the benefits of research is cruel and inhumane. How many of you would not have a friend or family member with diabetes if it weren’t for the advances made in the field of endocrinology with the use of insulin?

And Justin. “If there were really a cure for every disease then we’d be even more overpopulated then we are now.” Do you suggest people stop searching for cures for diseases? “Science and greed breed evil”? Evil as in what? The devil? Demons? There is no good or evil, only opposing points of view.

What?? Human trials?? If that don’t sound Hitlerish I don’t know what does. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure performing a surgery which requires immediate euthanization (which is the case here) would make people balk at participating. As for cellular research how can you look at a couple cells in a petri dish and understand how the optic nerve in a eye works. That would be compareable to knowing if x+1=2 then x=1 and concluding you are the master of calculus. As for computer models they can not accuretly depict what is going on. How are we to program the computers in the first place if we ourselves don’t know whats going on.

An Kudos to “to Neil” he was right how people could not think of more than 5 methods of how to circumvent nessacary research. Leonidas was only able to come up with 3 lame ass alternatives which might be effictive if studing a single celled ailment with a degree in computer science.

“Hi Jason, I earned my Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario in 1993 and was the recipient of a scholarship from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) while I was there.”

Wonderful. Your mom must be proud. What was the topic of your thesis work?

“After receiving my Ph.D., I accepted a tenured position as an assistant professor at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where I served for 5 years.”

Wait- you went straight from a graduate student to a tenure track? No post doc? Curious fact- you have exactly zero peer reviewed publications in pub med… again- what was your thesis topic? Materials science? Women’s studies?

OK people, yes there are some alternatives to animal use in research and those alternatives can be debated in another forum for the most part. My question is this, do you really think that there is a good alternative model for glaucoma research? How are you gonna run a test on elevated intra-occular pressures with a cell culture?

You whine and cry about all these ‘alternatives’ that you hear about from your propaganda websites sponsored by PeTA or the HSUS, but if any of you actually knew what was involved with research and how alternative models worked, you wouldn’t be making such asinine comments.