The Alkine Skaggs Building is a second home for many biology majors, not only because most of their classes are in it. Students spend countless hours in the labs housed within the building, studying chemicals, plants and animals in the hope of advancing the human race.
Many scientists applaud animal research for shedding light on numerous human diseases and their respective cures. Animal testing has received credit for helping develop insulin for diabetes patients and antibiotics such as penicillin, both of which have saved countless lives.
Those who advocate animal studies argue that animal tissue and organelles are similar enough to humans to provide accurate information on function and malfunction in many different areas of the body.
Despite the historical benefits of animal testing, ethical and moral questions inevitably arise regarding the controversial process.
Is enough being done to ensure the safety of the animals? Is animal testing really necessary?
The Animal Resources Center at the U is set up to make sure that animals participating in studies get treated humanely. The center is responsible for university facilities where animals used in research are housed and is in charge of making sure that all research is done under the compliance of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
The committee has set up strict guidelines under the Animal Welfare Act. The Act prohibits any “procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals” unless “sedatives, analgesics, or anesthetics” are used. It also ensures that the animals living conditions will be appropriate for their health and comfort.”
Other attentions, such as inspections of the research facilities every six months, seem aimed to ensure the animals’ well-being.
Jason Hardy, a U senior in medical anthropology and president of the Students Organization for Animal Rights, is quite skeptical about the mediation tactics that the center is using.
Hardy believes that, more or less, the center is “siding with animal researchers more than with the animals by allowing confinement of animals, which is in itself a form of animal cruelty.”
Jeremy Beckham, a U freshman majoring in medical laboratory sciences and also a member of the organization, says that animal confinement causes some animals to self-mutilate because of the irregular environment of captivity.
Another problem that Beckham sees with the center is that the Welfare Act does not ensure that all animals are handled correctly. Rats, mice and birds are not covered by the act, which in turn exposes these animals to potential harm without breaking any rules.
Franz Goller, an associate professor of biology at the U, conducts research on birds-specifically pertaining to bird song-and feels very comfortable with what he does.
He believes that “every investigator should question [animal] rights.”
In order to really benefit from animal research, Goller says that “[the researcher] needs to be convinced that the benefits [of the experiment] outweigh the costs to the creature.”
Goller also points to the strict regulations that his lab is subject to, despite the exclusion of birds in the act, and believes that these regulations, if followed, provide enough security for the animal subject.
“The decision should be individual, as long as it’s within regulations,” he says about animal researchers.
The thing that frustrates Hardy and Beckham is that animal research, in their eyes, is not critical, if not damaging, to potential advances in medicine.
Hardy says that “alternatives exist, such as epidemiological studies, clinical trials and autopsies.”
Beckham is critical of genetic research done on animals because “animals are too different from us.” He points out that the genetic make-up of one species does not necessarily transfer over to another.
In addition to Beckham and Hardy’s belief that there are alternative and effective ways to study human diseases, they also believe that much of the animal research conducted on college campuses is “all about money, not science.”
They explain that more grant money given for animal studies equates to more papers published, which in turn provides more money for the researchers.
Goller does not believe that animal research is a waste of time. Even if the research conducted is basic, such as his study on bird song, it may still prove useful in the future when enough basic research is collected to apply it to human beings.
Hardy’s organization’s goal this year, he says, is to “empower the university community with knowledge to form their own decisions.” Another goal that Hardy is striving for is to make U students think about how animal research serves their interest, if it does at all.
Goller supports the animal rights movement, but is oftentimes frustrated with the radicals who are known to release the studied animals from their cages to set them free. Goller says “that’s defeating the purpose [of animal rights activists].”
Goller wonders how far is too far, and hopes that protesting activists avoid hypocrisy by “not wearing leather belts” when protesting animal research.
More information on animal rights can be found at www.soar.uarc.com. Likewise, the rules and regulations imposed on animal researchers can be found at the Animal Resource Center on 201 S. President’s Circle, Room 210.