 "Photo: Onnie Koski/Photography Editor")
Needless to say, as a research institution, the University conducts plenty of research.
This isn't an issue for most people, but groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said the University's testing of animals for research is problematic.
The University conducts animal research on a wide range of animals, from mice to horses, and in return, uses the research for husbandry and biomedical advances.
University researchers said this research leads to valuable results, but testing on animals is rarely the first choice.
New advances include nervous system re-growth for spinal cord injuries, and the development of better nutrition for horses has led to less bone development problems, said Larry Katz, chair of the department of animal science.
Ben Peterson, a youth activist liaison for PETA, said while advancements were made, animal testing is not the only way to reach conduct such research.
"Certainly some medical developments were discovered through cruel animal tests," Peterson said. "But just because animals were used, doesn't mean they were required."
Instead, PETA lists methods of research that don't require animal testing.
The group's guidelines state, "effective, affordable and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers and patients, as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic and computer-modeling techniques."
Katz said the University uses all of those techniques, in conjunction with research on animals.
Testing on animals is only when "it is the only way to answer the questions we are researching," Katz said.
PETA has geared its anti-animal research campaign toward schools such as Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Johns Hopkins University for what the group believes to be cruel practices in animal research.
In one case, a researcher at Johns Hopkins injected squirrel monkeys and baboons with what he thought was ecstasy, but turned out to be methamphetamine, and two of the primates died while others suffered brain damage.
The University has systems in place to limit the chances something like that can happen here, Katz said.
In 1994, the University adopted an Animal Welfare Policy to comply with Federal regulations, and it created a review board with a subcommittee to monitor the use of animals in research.
Michael J. Fennell, the director of the Animal Care Program at the University, said the committee ensures the rules are followed strictly.
"There are 15 to 16 members on the Animal Care and Facility Committee that go over every possible detail to make sure the animals are treated properly," Fennell said.
The ACFC has supervisors in equine, cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, laboratory animals, deer, farm shop and cropping areas of research.
They have to inspect all of the University's animal facilities at least every six months. They also handle all complaints, which are dealt with confidentially.
The Animal Care program is also affiliated with federal licensing, according to its Web site, "The program works in conjunction with the University Office of Laboratory Animal Services and is registered with the United States Department of Agriculture and adheres to the regulations set forth in the Animal Welfare Act," it reads.
But PETA points out the federal guidelines don't protect rats, mice or birds.
"An amendment to the Farm Bill (H.R. 2646) to permanently exclude rats, mice and birds from the protection of the Animal Welfare Act," according to PETA, "Birds, rats and mice make up 95 percent of the animals used in research."
But Katz said this does not mean the University is abusing the animals not protected by the legislation.
"Not only do we have to follow the Federal AWA guidelines, we follow the public health service policy which includes all vertebrates, rats, mice and birds included," Katz said. "It doesn't hold any water at this University."
If the University is found to have violated the policy, they could lose all federal funds, he said.
Whether or not the University should use animals in testing is an ongoing debate centered on the argument that the costs outweigh the benefits and vice versa.
Katz said the benefits of animal research outweigh the cost.
"It is our obligation to take care of these animals and limit suffering," he said, "[but] animals deserve our protection, not rights."
Peterson said PETA's stance puts more value in the animals, not the results. In a prepared statement, he quoted George Bernard Shaw to explain his position: "You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behavior."
Be the first to comment on this article!