Vivisection debated in both Fall and Spring

Student members of Oberlin Animal Rights (OAR) protested labs in both Spring and Fall semester Neuroscience 211 laboratories. They protested labs which included the surgical technique called stereotaxic surgery. OAR members refer to the technique as vivisection.

The technique allows researchers to stimulate the brain with different chemicals and electric shocks. In the lab, the rats are anesthetized, and a hole is made in the animal's skull. A wide variety of electrodes and drugs can then be implanted and researchers can study their effects on the rats' behavior.

Students in the class are told at he beginning of the lab that they are not required to perform the lab themselves. They can choose to observe the lab instead, and receive credit for the lab.

At protests in both the fall and spring between ten and fifteen protesters lay down in the hallway in front of the laboratory while students walked into the room. They held signs that said things like "No Blood For Science" and "Death to Vivisection."

In the Spring three students also fasted for extended periods of time; one student, sophomore Josh Raisler-Cohn fasted for more than a week.

OAR also distributed information, demonstrated on Wilder Bowl and hung a banner on King during the year.

Members of the Neuroscience faculty responded to OAR's actions and criticisms by explaining the importance of the surgical technique in Neuroscience. In an essay to the Review Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Dennison Smith wrote, "We include stereotaxic surgery as part of the lab because experimental approaches using this technique are among the most common practices in neuroscience and because there is NO substitute approach available."

A major contention of OAR members is that there are in fact alternative ways to present the material. Raisler-Cohn questions the importance of doing the vivisection lab; he argues that if it is acceptable for students to watch the lab instead of perform it, there is no reason the school cannot simply show a video of the lab for the entire class.

Amanda Brady, a first-year student in the Spring lab, said watching a vivisection on video would not be enough for a student going into neuroscience or to medical school. She said the hands-on experience cannot be duplicated.

Students in the Spring lab responded to the protests by writing a statement to the protesters. Part of the statement read: "We feel that protesting is interrupting the academic environment in which we have chosen to participate. We respect your disagreement with our actions, and we ask you to reciprocate that respect. Therefore we request that you discontinue this protest."

Members of OAR also presented a statement to students in the lab; on some occasions they were allowed to read it to the lab before it started. The protesters' statement expressed the group's absolute opposition to exploitation, involuntary suffering and killing of animals by humans. "Scientific progress must not be made through the sacrifice of any sentient creature's life or freedom, whether that animal is human or non-human," the statement read.

In response to the idea that the animals are anesthetized, and therefor don't feel any pain, OAR members don't believe it. "I tend to doubt that any animal with a hole in its skull would not go through any pain," Aaron Simmons, junior, said.

"It seems to fit in the category of torture and murder," Raisler-Cohn said.

While members of the Neuroscience faculty express their understanding of students' rights to protest, and acknowledge their arguments, some are frustrated by OAR's repeated protest of the lab.

"I am really disappointed to hear they are still going to be protesting," Catherine McCormick, director of the Neuroscience Program, said when she heard of OAR's intention to protest in the Spring.

"We appreciate that they have their right to protest," Smith said. "But we feel we are doing something worthwhile and appropriate."

Students in the course also feel the lab is worthwhile, and wish the protests would stop. Allison Falender, a first-year, and Brady, both members of the class, were part of the group which wrote the student statement. Both said they think the protesters' goal to raise awareness and educate students about why vivisection is important. They do oppose OAR's protest however.

"I think a lay-down protest is inappropriate," Brady said. "People in the class have already had to come to terms with it. There is no need to make it any more difficult."

Falender said she thinks the value of the lab outweighs the loss of an animal. "It's an academic thing," she said. "I believe strongly in animal rights, but since the rat was fully anesthetized I don't think it suffered."

James Quinn, a college junior who participated in the lab last semester, said the lab was useful to him and did not seem to be cruel. He said the only problem he had was with one drug the lab experimented with which made the rats insatiably thirsty. He said that seemed unnecessary to him.

"It is good to understand what is going on even if you won't repeat it in the future. It's good to know what you are reading about when it is in studies," Quinn said.

The lab is different this semester, and changes every semester according to Smith. The primary goal is to teach the technique of vivisection and the ways it can be used for research, so specific experiments might change.

In his essay in the Review Smith wrote, "While it varies from semester to semester, we typically include only one lab in which students perform stereotaxic surgery on rats to allow them to either lesion, record or stimulate the brain. All surgery is con <

Protesting: Members of OAR protested a Neuroscience lab in both Fall and Spring. (photos by Susanna Henighan and Michelle Becker)