LAist: Animal Rights Activists Zero-In on UCLA Research

Rick Bogle

Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:55:41 -0800

Henry, It's better to be ignorant than dishonest. I'm please that you are the former. You wrote, "the failure of the IACUC system, that has nothing to do with UCLA. In fact, in order to supplement federal inspections, UCLA has an inspection program (ARC) which enforces all of the regulations set forth in the USDA Animal Welfare Act." This is from UCLA: "About the ARC The Chancellor's Animal Research Committee (ARC) is an independent research review committee mandated by the Animal Welfare Act and the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy)." In other words, the UCLA ARC is the UCLA IACUC. It is precisely an institutional animal care and use committee that is mandated by the AWA and PHS policy. Like it or not, significant 3rd party ivestigation continues to demonstrate that the oversight system is broken, and probably has never worked. This is simply a matter of established fact as shown by repeated OIG reports and the Plous study cited in my earlier post. The key reason that the system doesn't work is that self-policing rarely works anywhere, and in this case, the giant majority of everyone involved in the policing has a compelling economic and personal interest in the status quo. As far as not letting people watch experiments, your explanation seems, well, sort of silly. I know at least three newpaper and TV reporters who have been denied requests to watch an experiment in progress. More telling, and this is just an observation on the entire industry, the University of Wisconsin primate center recently announced that it had destroyed 60 boxes of videotapes of experiments on monkeys after a reporter had tried to get one tape through the open records statutes. This was 60 boxes of videos that other researchers will not ever be able to review, simply and exactly because the university did not want any chance that the public might actually see what is happening in the labs. The system is corrupt. The players are nearly uniformily liars. The suffering is endless and intense. I urge you to investigate and to think critically about what you can learn. Good luck.

FP

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:12:30 -0800

"It's nice to look at things in print, but why not just walk up to a student who has done research and ask him/her whether or not the use and treatment of animals at UCLA is ethical?" I suppose that it all depends on what your/their definition of "ethical" is.

Henry David

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:36:33 -0800

"The author of this article is either an ignoramus or being willfully deceptive" - Rick Bogle Thank you for your response, however I do not appreciate the offensive dichotomy. I won't take this attack personally just to save your intelligent argument from being undermined. In regards to the failure of the IACUC system, that has nothing to do with UCLA. In fact, in order to supplement federal inspections, UCLA has an inspection program (ARC) which enforces all of the regulations set forth in the USDA Animal Welfare Act. The license to use animals in the lab expires after 6 months under the ARC, and therefore must be renewed twice a year. In terms of "try getting permission to watch an experiment," UCLA does not have anything to hide from the public. Not just anyone can be allowed to watch an experiment however. Should the staff be comfortable with anyone strolling in to take notes on their breakthroughs? And of course there's always the risk that you could be letting an activist in, who will free a lab full of mice with gene-knockouts into the population (which has happened and shows the ignorance of these people). Remember, unlike pharmaceutical companies, there are students moving in-and-out of lab hand positions. It's nice to look at things in print, but why not just walk up to a student who has done research and ask him/her whether or not the use and treatment of animals at UCLA is ethical?

Eva

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:55:18 -0800

Even those who don't care about the suffering of animals are often disturbed to learn of the wasteful use of our tax dollars on endless animal experiments, the majority of which provide no medical results applicable to humans. We can cure and prevent cancer in mice, but cannot in humans. Each species has a totally different system so results in one aren't often transferable. I spent over 100 hours researching this topic for my master's thesis, and am amazed at the waste of time and money - to say nothing of animal pain - that goes on labs. Don't be deceived by the PR spin pharmaceutical companies spend mega-millions on to convince you that your tax dollars are usefully spent in animal labs. Cutting-edge scientists are using animal-alternative cultures with much success since these better mimic the human system.

Rick Bogle

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:25:46 -0800

"full transparency to the public...," "animal use at UCLA is conducted in the most humane manner under strict regulations..." What planet was this written from? Not Earth. The UC system is not transparent. They have fought and lost many law suits over their extensive redactions of documents specfic to experiments on animals. Try getting permisssion to watch an experiment. The oversight system is broken. The USDA OIG recently issued yet another blistering report that the federal inspection system does not work. The only peer-reviewed, blinded look at the the keystone of the oversight system, the IACUC system, found that IACUCS are about as reliable as the flip of a coin. See: Plous S, Herzog H. Animal research. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science. 2001 Jul 27;293(5530):608-9. The author of this article is either an ignoramus or being willfully deceptive.

Rob

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:43:43 -0800

Kyle said that "given a choice to save one human life or one animal one, I'd choose the human every time." Animal rights philosophers like Tom Regan and Peter Singer would make the same choice. But that's not the choice we face in real animal research. The real choice is between between doubtful or trivial human benefit and certain suffering and death for the animals. As Henry Spira might have asked: How many mice must be given cancer just to find one more treatment that doesn't work for human patients?

Gayle Dean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:32:27 -0800

There is enormous doubt in the scientific community about the value of animal testing, but you almost never hear about it in the corporate- sponsored media. In fact, Mike Leavitt, Health and Human Services Secretary said in an FDA press release January 12, 2006: "Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies." But there is a simpler argument that testing is either morally or scientifically dubious: The animals must be a great deal like us for the results to be scientifically unproblematic, but very different from us in order to be morally unproblematic. When we want scientifically useful results, the more like us they are, the better. When we want clear consciences over causing disease, suffering, and death to innocent creatures, the more like us the animals are, the worse. We cannot have it both ways?

kyle

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:00:32 -0800

I'm sorry to all the animal activists out there, but I do consider humans to be above other animals. I love animals (I even wanted to be a vet when I was a kid), but given a choice to save one human life or one animal one, I'd choose the human every time. Is that so wrong?

sam

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:52:31 -0800

Now I love animals (and promote the ethical treatment and well being of) but people who fight to elevate animals above humans is ridiculous. Equal, maybe, but not above. They should volunteer for the tests in lieu of the animals... And these people have WAY to much time on their hand and are not the most informed beings on earth, especially if they are protesting at UCLA of all places...Things like this make me understand how people can get so riled up over something stupid like a Dutch cartoon, a soccer game, or Americans.