SN edit overlooks critical animal rights information
Students Promoting Animal Rights was very happy to see The State News editorial Treatment of animals shouldn’t be secretive (SN 4/16), encouraging transparency with animal treatment. Unfortunately, the editorial board made numerous factual errors.
Though it’s true SPAR accuses Royal Hanneford Circus of animal abuse, the circus does not deny being cited more than 20 times for USDA violations, nor does it deny employing elephant trainer Tim Frisco. Frisco was caught on tape beating elephants and instructing other would-be trainers to “hurt ‘em!”
The article also asserted that “using animals for experimentation won’t go away” despite multiple recent reports to the contrary. A February article in USA Today reported that a coalition of the Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health all signed an agreement to seek alternatives to animal testing. A panel in Europe has approved 34 alternative methods with another 170 “in its pipeline,” as opposed to a mere four by a similar U.S. panel, according to an April 12 article in The Washington Post.
The animal rights community is ecstatic to see debate on the issue of animal treatment, but the public cannot properly enforce its power with misleading information. Whether animals may be used for entertainment or testing is a welcomed debate, but Tim Frisco’s abuse, Royal Hanneford’s USDA violations and 34 alternatives to animal testing are facts, not “farfetched accusations.”
Sean Cook
psychology junior and vice president of Students Promoting Animal Rights
Published on Thursday, April 17, 2008
Comments
Mike Saelim
04/17/08 @ 11:17pm
“A February article in USA Today reported that a coalition of the Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health all signed an agreement to seek alternatives to animal testing.”
I think the general consensus among the signers of the agreement is that while we should seek alternatives, we should continue to use animal testing if it is our last viable option. Just like we’ve been doing.
So, actually, with regards to the importance of seeking alternatives to animal testing, I believe that most scientists agree with you!
Good point
04/18/08 @ 12:01am
Mike brings up a good point. When doing animal trials, you only use animals if there are no other ways to test what you are going for. If you do use animals, you use the absolute lowest number you can to still ensure your study is accurate.
I wonder if SPAR and other groups would recommend drug trials be conducted on humans from the beginning, and likely the poor who need the money – as once happened. There is a reason that animals are used when trying to find vaccines and treatments to things like Ebola or developing a new blood pressure medicine.
Fredrik
04/18/08 @ 3:29am
Yes, the reason animals are used when trying to find medicine and treatments for HYPERTENSION, HEART DISEASE and DIABETES is because animals are insentient, irrational beasts! Animals can feel, but they can’t think! It’s important to be able to think, because then you have rights. It is insufficient to be able to feel pain and discomfort alone, you must also be able to understand it! If a being cannot understand pain, rather only experience it, then there’s no reason to respect its suffering. Humans are superior in more ways than one to animals so we must outwit, outplay, and outlast these beasts to ensure those who can afford the benefits of slaughtering animals can continue to live comfortably. I want my taste buds satisfied at the expense of life bred to serve my desires. And then I want more bloodshed over finding treatment for my omnivoric-diet induced diabetes and hypertension. It’s only natural to use animals for human ends because they have no right to live, let alone coexist, in OUR world.
Tim
04/18/08 @ 8:43am
Maybe Mike or some others who are familiar with laboratory work can help me out with this question. Is it cheaper to run these experiments on animals or the various alternatives that exist? It seems to me that running experiments on animals would be much more expensive than numerous other alternatives. My point being that animal experimentation would be a last resort as opposed to the primary choice of some sadistic mad scientist.
Jack
04/18/08 @ 9:16am
Fredrik, It is only natural to use animals for human ends. It’s called the food chain.
Tape Worms are unethical
04/18/08 @ 10:04am
Tape worms are unethical. They use another animal for their own betterment at the host animal’s detriment.
In other words, Jack is right. People are animals. Animals use other animals for their own betterment. It is the natural way.
Agent5
04/18/08 @ 10:20am
“And then I want more bloodshed over finding treatment for my omnivoric-diet induced diabetes and hypertension.”
That is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever heard on these forums. If you had done one iota of research you would know that both of those conditions are caused by much more than an omnivoric diet. Perhaps you’d care to lecture a 3-year-old with juvenile diabetes about the genetic issues that result in his body destroying its own pancreas?
You also completely ignore the other diseases where animal research could provide cures to human diseases. Would you tell a dying HIV patient that we can no longer study how cats infected with FIV (the feline version of HIV) tolerate the virus so much better than humans tolerate theirs? Could you comfrotably sign off on a human death over a feline one?
Crystal
04/18/08 @ 10:20am
I have worked in basic science research for 11 years. While some tests on immune cells can be performed with cell cultures, testing a body’s immune response has to be done with a “body”. The cells in your body have NUMEROUS signal pathways that get turned off and on in response to NUMEROUS precursers (in our research, shock). Some animals are genetically altered to have some of these signals removed, therefore, eliminating certain signal pathways. While doing research on animals is not always pretty, I know the strict guidelines that our lab HAS to follow (we don’t even use expired saline solution on them) and all aspects of their pain management is followed to the tee. Our feeling is that is the least we can do for their “sacrifice” to saving us after a car accident or after developing septic shock.
Mike Saelim
04/18/08 @ 10:36am
Mm hm. I think that between the accusations and demonizing that some (a minority of) animal-rights activists do, they forget that scientists and researchers are people just like them.
There are some bad eggs, but that’s what ethical review boards are for. When abuse is found, the system has many ways to stop it, including terminating funding and bringing criminal charges – both of which are the death-knell to any researcher’s career.
But, more importantly, most researchers care about animals just the same as everyone else. They know that this is the last resort, and that with our current technology, this is necessary for humanity’s research into cures for diseases. Each one of them must grapple with the moral and ethical ramifications of each and every step of every experiment, just like any good doctor or surgeon cares about each step of a procedure on a human.
That is why good researchers like Dr. Weber and his team take such extensive measures to make the process as painless and humane as possible.
article
04/18/08 @ 1:16pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103733.html
article2
04/18/08 @ 2:38pm
Here is another article that involves animal testing (and those oh-so-trendy water bottles): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24200402
Pat
04/18/08 @ 2:47pm
Cock fight!
Debbie
04/18/08 @ 4:46pm
This is so ridiculous. Many scientific experiments cannot be done with alternative models. We don’t know enough about how the human body works to have a computer generate accurate responses. Tissue culture only works for certain types of experiments and is always used when possible. No scientist wants to inflict pain and terror on animal subjects, which by the way are tremendously expensive to use. As biologists, most of us understand the sanctity of animal life. And while I don’t agree on using animals for testing cosmetics or Botox or other crap that does nothing to save lives, I do reluctantly agree than in the case of life-saving research animals are our best solution for now. I hope that in the future, we won’t have to use them.
I also think that there is a lot of hullaballoo over this because Weber’s lab uses cats and the circus uses elephants and bears – all animals we tend to be fond of. However, similar experiments (and possibly worse experiments) are being done around the country on less pretty or cuddly animals. Would we have this uproar if the research was on pigs or lampreys or zebrafish or even mice (who I think are quite cute)? For example, I kill billions of organisms everyday. No one is protesting me or my work. It just so happens that I work on organisms to small to see. Are they less important than cats? Don’t know.
Mike is right though, none of biologists want any organism to suffer and we do everything we can to ensure they don’t.
Sean Cook
04/18/08 @ 11:15pm
Hey again everybody,
Just like to make a few points.
Firstly, the purpose of my article was solely to respond to the editorial which trivialized both sides of this important discussion, as Dr. Breedlove also pointed out in his online response to it. So, I’m not here to stop the discussion, just here to defend my article, I guess. I was just really upset about how SPAR and animal rights in general was just seen as one side of a slap-fight. If you don’t agree with SPAR’s stance on a topic, by all means, please disagree. But understand that when we say that the Royal Hanneford has been repeatedly cited by the USDA, that this is not “alleged” citations, that are written by an agency of the government.
Lastly, to respond to Debbie. To address the issue of cuteness, first I would direct you to thebiggreen.net as there will be an article appearing soon about just that topic. Secondly though, I would like to tell you that SPAR’s stance on animal testing does go for all animals. Mice are just as much animals as cats, and the PETA poll that lists Dr. Weber as being worse than others is solely a PETA stance. However, I can sympathize with their plight, as it is easier to get people to care about what you’re trying to say when you can relate it to them, and not many people have ever felt emotion about a mouse, save for “eeek!”. Although, the world of testing on microscopic organisms is one of a much more complex philosophical argument, if they are even considered animals at all. So, I wouldn’t worry about PETA knocking down your door soon.
Lastly, like Debbie said, I also hope that we won’t have to use animals some day. And although I hope to see that day sooner that you might, I think we can all agree that the editorial’s comment that “using animals for experimentation won’t go away” is a much more defeatist and ignorant stance than we should have about the topic.
Thanks for reading,
Sean
So...
04/19/08 @ 3:28am
Debbie: Resarch biologist, speaking from experience.
Sean: Psych major, regurgitating facts.
So...
04/19/08 @ 3:31am
Sorry, what I meant to write was:
Debbie: Resarch biologist, speaking from “experience”.
Sean: Psych major, regurgitating “facts”.