In response to Rob Russell’s recent letter entitled “Stop Ohio State Animal Research” (May 11)
Ethical guidelines for the care and use of animals in scientific research are already clearly established and carefully adhered to all relevant disciplines (biology, medicine, psychology, etc.). Scientists whose practices abuse the letter or spirit of these guidelines are subject to formal censure and penalties. Contrary to the assertions made by many animal rights activists, animal research is used only when alternative methods do not exist or have already been exhausted. The fact that animals cannot voice their consent in the way that humans can is not taken by the scientific community as a carte blanche to do mad science. Rather, it reminds us that we have a heavy responsibility to perform these studies in the most ethical and humane manner possible.
In the Lantern article Russell references, “Social mice can fight the flu” (May 4, 2005), professors Padgett and Sheridan correctly noted that directly drawing human parallels from their animal studies on stress and immune functioning would be premature. This does not undermine the ethical status of their research or its potential in the future. Rather, it demonstrates that they are responsible scientists who are hesitant to make stronger conclusions than what their current data will allow. Non-human animal models can and do lead to advances in knowledge about human health, from asthma, to cancer, to heart disease and beyond. Perhaps most importantly for Russell and his organization, they also lead to greater understanding of how we can best relieve pain, suffering, and disease in “Our Earth’s Treasures,” i.e., the animal species under study.
As for the “accidental” discovery of the social-mouse behavior that led to their current stress-induction protocol, I fail to see Russell’s point. Scientific progress is not preordained or entirely predictable; if it were, we would have no need to perform the research in the first place. To take a famous example, most historical treatments of Alexander Fleming’s 1928 discovery of penicillin characterize it as an accident. Yet Fleming, spurred by his wartime observations of Allied soldiers dying from infected wounds, had been looking specifically for just such an antibacterial agent. I would challenge Russell to ask any noted scientist where his or her career would be without a healthy dose of serendipity.
I encourage people to educate themselves on this subject, but make no mistake: halting animal research will halt scientific progress. In my capacity as a psychology instructor, I have found that many students have a poor understanding of the issues surrounding scientific research using animals. Paradoxically, the advances facilitated by animal research might make my job of teaching the facts even tougher, because for Russell and his ilk, these advances ensure that they will be able to healthily and boisterously spread their misinformation at our universities for many years to come.
Stephen D. LivingstonGraduate Student in Social Psychology
