The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.

Richards: Animal Experimentation Concern at the U

Barbary Macaque Monkeys

In 2009, a cat named Robert from the Davis County animal shelter was purchased for $15 by researchers at the University of Utah. Robert was taken to a research lab at the U where he was experimented on in unusual ways, including having a hole drilled in his skull and electrodes attached to his brain. Pictures taken during an undercover investigation by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, show the orange tabby with a large oval node sticking out the middle of his head.

PETA’s undercover investigation revealed a number of other shocking insights into the U’s animal research. For example, the animal rights group claims the U purchased another cat from the Davis County shelter that gave birth to eight kittens. When the kittens were a week old, a “chemical was injected into their brains to cause fluid to build up,” according to PETA. Soon after, they all died.

Other things revealed in the investigation, according to PETA, include that “mice and rats were caused to develop enormous tumors and painful, deadly illnesses,” and “rats and monkeys had holes drilled into their skulls in invasive brain experiments.” Undercover investigators allege researchers intentionally withheld water from monkeys to coerce them into participating in experiments.

As a result of PETA’s investigation and subsequent legal suit, Robert was removed from the U’s laboratory and placed for adoption. In March 2010, Davis County animal shelters announced they would no longer sell animals to research laboratories.

While PETA’s 2009 investigation created a stir at the time, it hardly put an end to questionable practices by U researchers. In November, 2017, the Ohio-based animal rights group Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! filed a complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture accusing the U of a “long-term pattern of negligence that deserves a meaningful penalty,” according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

The lawsuit was filed after the animal rights group discovered three animals had been killed during experiments at the university, including a rabbit, a marmoset and a macaque. The rabbit’s death was particularly shocking, as it was placed under anesthesia and, as a result of miscommunication, was left without oxygen for four minutes.

Just a month later, PETA filed another lawsuit against the U with the Department of Agriculture, this one alleging a lamb was killed inhumanely in April, 2017, and two rabbits suffered “prolonged” euthanasia, the Deseret News reported.

While the U didn’t respond to specific allegations, manager of science communication Julie Kiefer told the Deseret News the school “is committed to carrying out exceptional research to advance veterinary and human medicine, health and well-being. We recognize that high-quality science and humane animal care are inseparable, and we are devoted to ensuring the human care and use of laboratory animals in our research programs.”

What is to be made of animal experimentation in university research labs? Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer is well-known for his 1975 book “Animal Liberation,” which is said to have started the animal rights movement. In the book, Singer argued because animals are sentient beings that feel pain just like humans, they ought to be given moral consideration. He also criticized product-testing research that exploited and tortured animals for no reason other than to sell makeup.

While Singer has clearly stated he is against animals being used for cosmetic testing, his position on animals being used in potentially groundbreaking medical research is less clear. In 2006, commenting on Parkinson’s disease research that was said to have helped 40,000 people at the expense of the 100 monkeys used in experimentation, Singer said, “I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.”

When he received backlash for his comments, Singer defended his position in The Sunday Times in a straightforward manner.

“If an experiment on a small number of animals can cure a disease that affects tens of thousands, it could be justifiable,” the ethicist wrote. “Since I judge actions by their consequences, I have never said that no experiment on an animal can never be justified. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count among those consequences, and that we cannot justify giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we give to the similar interests of human beings.”

Whether or not animal experimentation at the U is justified largely depends on the medical and societal value of the research it is producing. At any rate, there is never a justification for neglecting animals or experimenting on animals in cruel and unusual ways. The investigations of animals rights groups reveal U research facilities have a number of practices that need to be looked into or that need to be ended.

[email protected]



View Comments (7)

Comments (7)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy here.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • H

    https://ashsjj8it4bi1.tumblr.comSep 7, 2018 at 5:03 pm

    Grrr, I’ve a blog on my website and it sucks. I actually
    removed it, but may need to bring it back again. You gave me inspiration!
    Keep on writing!

  • P

    Private Investigator in TorontoJul 29, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    Excellent article, I need to truly enhance the content I have.

    I have attemptedto blog on third part systems, it just did
    not transpire the true way I wanted it to. But your website has
    giving me a desire to do this. I am bookmarking your website
    and checking it out from time to time. Many thanks!

  • A

    AMDApr 13, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    Animals should never needlessly suffer and the University of Utah has been particularly careless and unfeeling when it comes to this. Animals should never be used in experimentation; it’s time that we found a new, more appropriate way of testing these theories and drugs.

  • K

    KimMarieApr 13, 2018 at 9:04 am

    It’s 2018: There is no reason to inflict pain, suffering, and trauma on animals in experiments when superior, humane technology exists that can generate more reliable results that can actually be applied to humans. Let’s follow progressive scientists’ lead by leaving animals alone.

  • J

    Jennofur OConnorApr 13, 2018 at 8:35 am

    It’s 2018! We know better. We can do better. This madness must end now.

  • C

    Craig ShapiroApr 13, 2018 at 8:31 am

    There is no justification for experimenting on animals. There are a host of cutting-edge options available that will yield meaningful results. That should be the University’s focus.

  • L

    Lucy PostApr 13, 2018 at 8:26 am

    Neglect, suffering, and outright abuse are alarmingly common in situations where living beings are used as a means to an end. Not only is experimenting on animals cruel, the results it produces are often misleading and inaccurate. Other species feel pain and suffer just as humans do, but their physiology differs in important ways. That’s why 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal trials fail in human trials. Advanced, superior, non-animal methods are available and already in use by progressive scientists. It’s time for the U to adopt these as well.