For many biomedical scientists, using animals for research is necessary, according to a poll by Nature, a weekly science journal, published in February. About 90 percent of 1,000 biomedical scientists reported using animals in research is necessary, according to the survey. But about 16 percent had misgivings about the use of animals in research.

“It’s always a dilemma that researchers deal with in the sense that we’re studying life,” said Joseph Haywood, assistant vice president for regulatory affairs at MSU. “We know what’s at stake here, but many of us have had to look in the mirror and ask the question, ‘How important is human health? How important is animal health? How important is understanding diseases that affect human and animal health? And how important is finding cures for those diseases?’”

The Office of Regulatory Affairs works to ensure research at MSU complies with federal, state and university regulations.

A historical issue
Nationally, about 25 percent of biomedical scientists have been affected by animal rights activists, according to the survey.

During Haywood’s time at MSU, a lack of violence between researchers and animal rights activists have made MSU a “relatively quiet campus”.

In 2008, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals listed Arthur Weber, am MSU professor of physiology human medicine whose glaucoma research involved removing the eyes from live cats, as a “worst animal testing offender,” according to a State News article, which incited discussion about the use of animals in research at MSU.

Last spring, Students Promoting Animal Rights, or SPAR, protested the use of cats in research by Susan Barman, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, by placing markers in Adams field representing the number of cats used in her experiments.

Weber and Barman both declined to comment.

“I wouldn’t say it’s imposed a negative implication for (Barman’s) research,” Haywood said. “From our perspective, people have the right to free speech. (It’s) not uncommon for individuals to express their interests.”

In the past, discord has risen to violence. On Feb. 28, 1992, activist Rodney Coronado and the Animal Liberation Front, an animal rights group, destroyed research and caused more than $125,000 in damage in an attack on an animal science professor’s lab, according to a State News article.

Although Molly McBride, a women’s and gender studies and economics sophomore and member of SPAR, doesn’t believe in violence toward humans or animals, previous incidents of violence still influence faculty and sometimes hinder interactions between researchers and activists, she said.

“That memory still exists at MSU, especially with people in the science (fields),” she said. “Personally, I don’t agree with violence — I don’t think that’s the way to go.”

Whether or not activists are interfering with research, individuals should have the right to voice their opinions, nursing junior Emily Beadle said.

“There’s going to be two sides to every story,” Beadle said. “They should have the chance to speak out. … It might hinder (research,) but it’s not going to stop it 100 percent.”

Research on campus
At MSU, approximately 30,000 animals are used throughout the year for biomedical use, Haywood said. About 10,000 are used for farm and agricultural use, he said.

At MSU, researchers are encouraged to practice “reduction, replacement and refinement,” he said. Refining practices to have a minimal impact on the animal, using the minimum number of animals in research and finding alternatives to animals in research is important in responsible practice, he added.

Last fall, the College of Veterinary Medicine stopped using live animals for surgery education. Alternatives, such as cadavers and models, are now used in the classroom.

Typically, most researchers only use animals in research when necessary, said Janice Swanson, director of animal welfare, interim chair of the Department of Animal Science and professor of animal science.

Caring for the animals is “an incredibly expensive situation,” she said.

Both regulatory agencies and grant agencies have requirements about the care and use of animals, she added.

“It is fraught with a lot of responsibility for the scientist who is going to compose an experiment,” Swanson said. “You have to think long and hard about whether or not you can justify the use of animals.”

Members of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or IACUC, at MSU, including Chairwoman Barman and a community representative, handle concerns about animal welfare on campus.

Before zoology senior Denae Baker was able to handle a chicken when she assisted in research, she was required to take training tutorials on how to handle a chicken properly and the details of the Animal Welfare Act.

Baker helped conduct research on chicken cages and how different types of caging impacted chickens’ aggression, she said.

If the chickens became too aggressive and injured each other, Baker could call a veterinarian to examine them.

The veterinarian would treat the animal, and if their wounds would not heal, euthanise it, she said.

The experiments helped improve the treatment of chickens and gave Baker a more hands-on education, she said.

“(We were) conducting experiments so other animals can have better living,” she said. “As long as you’re abiding by the rules set in place and behaving in an ethical manner, being able to be involved is really helpful.”

Continuing conversation
For Haywood, the discussion on animal rights in research and education has been going on for years, he said.

“I’ve been having this conversation for 25 years with national leaders on both side of this issue,” Haywood said.

“Of course, we always listen carefully and think about what we have to say — that’s what scholarly people have to do.”

SPAR has spoken with IACUC and Haywood in the past about its concerns with the use of animals on campus.

“I think at Michigan State … the vivisectors on campus are not at all willing to engage in an honest dialogue about animals in research,” SPAR President Mitch Goldsmith said.

Although members of SPAR raised suggestions — such as employing library and statistical staff to ensure the least amount of animals are being used and experiments are not being repeated — nothing has been changed, Goldsmith said.

Stubbornness, both among activists and researchers, has presented challenges in discussions, Swanson said.

“I can say fully well for both sides of this issue that people get entrenched in the framework,” she said.

‘“(But) if this is going to be about the animal, then let’s move this forward in a way that we’re actually going to get net improvement in the well-being of that animal, rather than saying, ‘I won and you lost.’”

Keeping an open mind and recognizing the diverse opinions on the use of animals is necessary to move forward, she said.

“I think it’s very difficult when you have people that only see the world in black and white, and they don’t understand that there’s a number of shades of gray in between,” Swanson said.