COMMENTARY

E S S A Y S:

It is imperative . . .
Neuroscience faculty . . .

Related Story

It is imperative for individuals not to make value judgements

No, this isn't going to be a piece about supporting animal rights. No, this isn't going to be a diatribe about moral superiority. What this is is a discourse on differing points of view and student response.

I am a member of Oberlin Animal Rights, and separately, I was also a supporter of the demonstration at Mudd on Tuesday. But before you brand me as being whatever, I ask you to listen to what I have to say. It might be worthwhile to you. I recognize the unquestionable medical and educational value of animal testing. Certainly animal testing has greatly benefited human society-to not recognize that would be ridiculously close-minded. So, you may ask, how can I be in favor of animal rights. By nature, I am a very empathetic person-I can sympathize with the pain of others. However, it has not been definitively proven that an animal feels pain the way I do. But as a human, I have no other way of equating animal responses than to compare them with my own. It is entirely possible that animals do not feel pain, but I do not know that, just as I do not know that they do. The Animal Rights Movement is entirely based on the assumption that animals do feel pain like humans, which is a very precariously position on which to be perched. It is kind of like religion-no one can definitively prove the existence of God, but we as humans, make assumptions based on our own interaction with the world. Therefore none of us, regardless of which we support, can know what an animal does or does not feel, and how we justify our beliefs is an individual choice. Any moral position can only be relative and not concretely "right" or "wrong." To label any position as such would be to claim that you know for certain something that which you can not. To quote Sarah McLachlan, "It may not be right for you, but it's right for me." Thus, to say that my point of view is "right" simply because I support it, is to say that everyone else's point of view is "right" as well.

Now, in regards to Tuesday's protest, I was there in support of it. It got people talking, not only to each other but also to us (supporters). First off, I would like to clarify a few things about the protest which I feel may have been misunderstood. 1) This protest was not an OAR protest; it was a completely independent action by two students and those of us who chose to support them. 2) It was not a protest against the library (we are fully aware that animal experimentation is not performed in the library); the library was chosen because it was a central location. 3) The two students did not remain up there for attention, nor did the hammocks they were seated in have any meaning. The students were there to ensure that the sign remained up (because if they left, it would have been taken down) and to act as weight to keep to from being blown about by the wind too much. 4) Lastly, the protest was in no way an end, nor did we realistically expect the college to concede to the demands made. It was for effect; to remind students, administrators, professors, etc. that we are still around and are still interested in representing ourselves. The sign definitely achieved it's desired effect- it got people talking. However, I found myself extremely frustrated with a certain party who decided to engage in a discussion with us. He asserted his ideas that our action was "stupid," that it would cause us to anger many students and incur a loss of support, and that he disagreed with our position. I had no problem with these statements. What I did have a problem with, however, was the fact that he resorted to name calling (he said we were "stupid nimrods) and after subsequent berating, accused us of not listening to him. That was what upset me. I stood and listened to him ridicule me; I fully listened to his point of view, and then he had the gall to tell me I wasn't listening, when many people who tried to listen to him had already gotten too fed up with his tactics and walked away. So I followed suit and left the conversation. But his extreme defensiveness bothered me more than the insults. Many other students expressed some degree of defensiveness at the protest also, which is something I think impedes rational and beneficial discussion on this campus.

In assuming any position of moral value, it is imperative for individuals not to make value judgments. I cannot speak on behalf on anyone else in OAR, but I do not see my position as being morally superior in any way. Nor do I assume any position of conflicting interest to be morally inferior. This permeates through my life. For example, I am vegan. But I do not allow that to limit me as to who I can be friends with. I have friends who eat meat and dairy products, wear leather jackets, and fully support animal experimentation. I do not hold the belief that simply because I have a certain viewpoint that I should force it upon anyone else. In issues such as the Animal Rights movement, I do not believe that there can be any sense of right or wrong. There cannot be if compromises are ever to be reached and changes implemented. Let's face it, who wants to listen to someone who is actively telling you that you are wrong or inferior? I can understand any sense of offense that the students might have felt based on that reason, and for that I apologize. (And if people were offended because something was shown to them that they did not want to deal with, sorry- life isn't about the world adjusting itself for you.)

So where do we go now? If you picked up a pamphlet from us, I thank you for taking the time to inform yourself on that point of view. If you saw the sign and totally disagreed with it, I hope you voiced your opinions and talked until you felt resolved. If you thought it was dumb and couldn't have cared less, I can understand. Oberlin has so many factions and special interest groups constantly bombarding us that it is nearly impossible not to turn a blind (or fed up) eye in the direction of some issues. As for Oberlin Animal Rights, you will be seeing a lot more of us this year, and we will probably piss off a lot more people too.

But what I hope to have accomplished by this letter is to make people aware that not everyone believes in the moral superiority of his/her beliefs. I love talking to people with differing points of views- I would think the world to be a very stagnant place if everyone agreed with me. And so to everyone who talked with us yesterday, I thank you for giving me something else to think about.

-Nicki Atkinson, college sophomore

Neuroscience faculty, students will be open to answer questions

As occurs with most protests, the group trying to bring about change is vocal while those being attacked believe that the reasons for their actions are common knowledge and therefore remain silent. Recently we have seen this occurring with respect to the question of animal use in Oberlin College laboratories. Those that believe it is unnecessary have been very vocal while those involved with the laboratories have remained silent. After having had discussions with students who are taking the neuroscience laboratory, students who have no contact with the sciences, and students who propose to eliminate animal experimentation, I've come to the conclusion that the rationale behind the use of animals in various laboratory sessions is in fact not common knowledge. There seems to be a lack of information and even misinformation circulating within our community.

This article solely addresses the 'why' and 'what' of neuroscience laboratories at Oberlin. Hopefully this will allow the community at large to be better informed and thus better able to express an intelligent opinion on the subject. This letter is not intended to address the broader ideological issue of whether, in the pursuit of eliminating animal and human suffering and in exploring our own humanness, humans have the right to use live non-human subjects. For those interested in this particular issue I would like to call your attention to the forum on the Ethics of Animal Use in Research which is to take place in early spring.

Why use animals? As stated in the current Course Catalog (1997-1998), "The Neuroscience major is designed to meet the needs of students interested in graduate study and professional work in fields such as neuroscience, pharmacology .... as well as medicine and other biomedical fields." Whether one believes that using animals for teaching/research purposes is right or wrong, most of the research being done in the above mentioned fields does involve animals at some level. Thus, we would be remiss in our education of students taking neuroscience laboratories if we did not, when appropriate and with proper preparation, introduce the techniques for animal experimentation. Statements made by current and former students support the claim that the laboratory sessions which use animals are an invaluable learning experience.

One point of contention within the above argument has been that students in the Introductory Neuroscience laboratory may never use these techniques again and therefore, using these learning tools (animal experiments) can be eliminated in this course. While it is true that some may never use these techniques again the experience with animals in the Introductory Neuroscience course is still important. The experience is important because it 1) helps students, in a way that discussion could not, to decide if a biological science is in fact the field of study they wish to pursue, 2) provides the best means for understanding how live subjects are employed in the furthering of our knowledge about ourselves, the world we live in and our place in that world, 3) demonstrates first-hand the difficulties in designing and analyzing the results of such studies, and 4) allows for a true understanding of techniques used to address particular questions in neuroscience. I would like to emphasize that even if a student never uses a particular technique again, their having done so will make them better able to understand the arguments that are made based on experiments that have used that technique. This skill is useful not only to the neuroscientist but also to the non-scientist..

What is happening in the laboratories where animals are used? We in the Neuroscience Program are certainly concerned about the manner in which animals are treated and the sacrifice of life that is inevitable in some animal experiments In designing any laboratory session the first step is to determine the educational goal. Next one determines how best to accomplish that goal. If animals seem to be the only method for fulfilling a given goal then the type of animal and the experimental protocol are both carefully evaluated. Specific considerations when using animals in a laboratory include: 1) Can an invertebrate species be used in place of a vertebrate one? 2) Is the proposed experiment the least intrusive means of addressing the given goals of the laboratory session? 3) Is the experiment free from pain and suffering?

The fulfillment of the above criteria are evaluated, before any experiments are conducted, not only by the professor but by a committee known as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This committee includes scientists and non-scientist as well as members from outside the college community. The committee's purpose is to assure that all experiments 1) use the minimum number of subjects, and 2) do not cause unnecessary or extreme pain and suffering. Pain and suffering levels are determined by various methods. One of these methods is to use the reports by humans who have undergone similar invasive techniques as an indication of whether a technique is exposing the animal to 'unnecessary or extreme' pain or suffering.

In closing, this letter is not designed to convince one that animal experimentation is right or wrong. It is simply a statement of what is occurring at Oberlin College and why. We use animals because the goal of the Program is to give our students the best and most thorough education possible. We would be doing the students who have chosen this major or our laboratories an injustice by not providing the best means of learning about a given topic or the opportunity to explore the topic. We always offer the option of not actively participating in a laboratory session that uses animals. While this is the case, we do feel it necessary that the option to participate still be available. If one is serious about pursuing neuroscience or any biological science as a career, such laboratory experiences should be part of their undergraduate education.

Undoubtedly some people will have further questions about what we do and why we do it. The faculty in the Neuroscience Program, personnel on the IACUC committee, and hopefully the neuroscience students, will try to make themselves accessible to intelligently answer any questions.

-Albert Borroni, Visiting Assistant Professor of Neuroscience and OC '85

Related Story:

Oberlin Animal Rights members protest vivisection
- October 3, 1997

Back // Commentary Contents \\ Next

T H E   O B E R L I N   R E V I E W

Copyright © 1997, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 126, Number 6, October 10, 1997

Contact us with your comments and suggestions.