Criticism of Oberlin Animal Testing was Uninformed

To the Editor:

I’m writing in response to [first-year] Natalie Stamm’s May 4 letter regarding the use of animal experimentation at Oberlin College. I find many of her statements to be ill founded and grossly misleading. Like Stamm, I will also set ethical issues aside, and focus on the usefulness of animals in biological and medical science as a whole and at Oberlin.
Stamm asserts that animals are not valid models for human comparison. At the most fundamental levels, the vast majority of human biological functions evolved millions of years ago, and we share these traits with present-day animals. The use of primates in AIDS research, contrary to Stamm’s claims, is productive. DNA vaccines currently being developed, using a primate model of HIV, have produced compelling results, and offer hope to millions who will otherwise die. Likewise, cancer research, far from being useless, has greatly changed the prognosis for many forms of cancer. New drugs, targeting cellular signaling mechanisms and springing from years of careful research, promise even better results.
Stamm implies that there are numerous other methods that could provide the same information as animal research. This assertion represents a serious misunderstanding; these procedures are complementary, not redundant. The data gained by tissue culture are fundamentally different than those obtained by animal testing. One isolates the system of interest; the other integrates it into the whole organism. There are many effects that appear in a whole animal that are absent in culture experiments. 
The assertion that computer modeling can replace animal research is simply untrue. The first thing one realizes when one tries to model a complex system, let alone an entire organism, is that one must have an incredible knowledge of the system before anything useful can be devised. This requisite knowledge must first be obtained by traditional methods, including animal testing. Likewise, if the computer model is to accurately model a biological system, one must constantly compare the model’s predictions with experimentally obtained data. 

Stamm uses the case of Fen-Phen to imply that testing drug safety on animals is not useful. This is illogical. It is analogous to concluding that since airbags, seat belts and brakes don’t prevent every automobile fatality, they are useless and should be banned. For every drug that makes it through, perhaps hundreds of others are rejected on the basis of animal testing. Without animal testing, these drugs would enter the market, harming or killing thousands before the deleterious effects were discovered. 

Stamm also asserts that animal research serves no purpose “beyond lining the pockets and padding the credentials” of researchers. To the contrary, the financial costs required for animal research cut into hard-won grant money, especially given the strict requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Other techniques are far less expensive than animal use, and are chosen wherever possible. Likewise, it is no easier to “get work published” using an animal experiment compared to in vitro, genetic, human or other useful methods; papers get published because of their scientific significance, not because of the techniques involved.

Because animal studies are an essential component of research in many fields of biology and medicine, asking Oberlin to give up animal research is an academic death warrant. A campus ban on animal use would undermine what is one of the very best liberal arts science programs in the country. The school’s biological science programs would certainly fail to prepare students to become competent researchers. 
Stamm is also shocked by the lack of an official policy “guaranteeing students the right to refrain from vivisection.” In my four years here, I am unaware of any case in which a student was made to take part in any animal procedure they found objectionable; our faculty have always been willing to accommodate the ethical objections students may have. 

–Neil Gray
College senior