Ethics of animal testing debated in forum

Six speakers argued different sides of the issue

Protests by Oberlin Animal Rights (OAR) in the past have not brought changes in the Neuroscience department's vivisection policy, but this year's protests did bring an organized debate.

Six experts in various aspects of animal use spoke to hundreds of students and faculty members on Monday and Tuesday to help shed light on the issues that surround the debate on animal use in science.

The lecture series, entitled "Animal Use in Science and Medicine: Ethics and Policy," brought science and humanities majors together to discuss humanity and science.

The first pair of speakers discussed the science of animal use. Andrew Rowen of the National Humane Society spoke first and illuminated a key issue in the debate with questions of whether animals suffer. "Is suffering a cognitive response?" Rowen asked, and proceeded to discuss the term "suffering."

Rowen pointed out that the use of animals in research has dropped by 50 percent in the last 20 years, but that the Humane Society continues to press the agenda of "replacement, reduction and refinement," in animal use.

Later in the debate, Rowen said the use of animals in an undergraduate facility was a weak teaching tactic. "Using live animals as a way to get students' attention is a lazy way of teaching," Rowen said. The audience stirred at this comment.

Professor of Neuroscience Stuart Zoler from University of California at San Diego gave a history of animal use and spoke of the criteria that committees use to approve or disapprove of animal use in research. The committees assess the potential benefit of the research, the quality of the proposal and the likelihood that the potential benefits will be realized when making their decisions.

With such little total funding available, Zoler said, only the best research gets funded, and that best research, he claimed, caused the least pain and distress to animals.

Later Monday, a philosophy debate ensued. University of North Carolina Philosophy and Religion professor Tom Regan and Professor of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University Raymond Frey spoke on the ethics of animal use.

On Tuesday, people packed King 306 again to hear Jerrold Tannenbaum, a veterinary ethics expert and Carol Adams, the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat speak on the politics of animal use in science.

Tannenbaum said that in 12 years he has seen public sentiment on the use of animals in research change drastically. He used a scenario in which an animal was killed painlessly and asked if the animal's welfare was affected adversely. Almost the entire audience thought so. Twelve years ago, he said, that would not have been the case.

Tannenbaum interpreted current law to say, "Don't cause pain, but if you must, minimize it."

His speech was followed by Adams, who titled her speech " A key cannot unlock a tree." Unlike the other talks, she took an outsider's stand on the issue. "Why are we looking at rat brains to tell me about my essential womanhood?" she asked.

Adams, a self-proclaimed eco-feminist, questioned the "egocentricity of our species" and said, "we all breathe, we're all earth's creatures and we all dream."

"They were really interesting. I don't know that they really changed anybody's mind," Neuroscience major senior Alex McCarthy said.

At the fourth debate, an open panel discussion, the generally calm exchanges grew more heated. "People stuck more forcefully to their positions," McCarthy said. "It was a little more inflamed."

"I don't think the campus should assume the issue is settled," senior Jonathan Edmonds, a member of OAR, said.

As to the quality of the debates, Edmonds said, "I certainly realized the complexity of the issue for the pro-animal use side."

The lecture series was made possible by the combined efforts of the Neuroscience and Philosophy departments, OAR and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.