Animal Labs at Oberlin College

To the Editors:

We have a responsibility as an academic community to consider the implications of our research and to continually maintain criticism of our practices. One particular area of research that warrants strictest criticism is the use of animals as tools for laboratory activities. In response to the letter in last week’s Review by Natalie Stamm and Chris Holbein, I support their arguments against vivisection at Oberlin and agree that this represents disregard for life and suffering.
It is irresponsible to conduct unnecessary and redundant tests on animals. The operant conditioning lab, which was undertaken this week in the neuroscience department, is an example of this irresponsibility. Students who wish to become involved in medical professions ought to be taught compassion and respect for all animals.
By allowing experimentation with rats, the Oberlin College community ignores the rats’ interests to be unconfined and possessed of life — all for the small gains of possibly learning how to make incisions and treat animals with disrespect (although that certainly can not be considered a gain). Animals are not ours to experiment on. They have rights independent of human needs, and this should be taken into consideration before cruel tests are performed upon them. This is irrespective of human gains in science. We may have good goals, like learning how to perform operations, but we must ask if our means for reaching such goals are ethical. This is especially so when alternatives to dissection and vivisection labs exist, such as computer simulations and observations of necessary surgeries at hospitals and veterinary clinics. I urge the Oberlin College community to re-evaluate its traditional use of animal labs.

–Lauren Goshen
College junior