Animal testing is a complex issue, taking good care of test organisms is not – Dailyuw

On January 8, a pigtail macaque monkey died of dehydration at the UW primate research lab after going an estimated three days with no water. The tube that connected the water supply to the monkeys cage had become disconnected, cutting off its source of drinking water. A technician was responsible for monitoring the cages and equipment, including the water line, twice a day. They had neglected to check the water supply for several days, until they noticed that the monkey was lethargic and weak, by which point it was too late to revive the animal.

Was this merely a freak case of neglect and irresponsibility?

The disheartening truth is that this is merely the latest manifestation of something that runs much deeper. The number of primate skeletons in the labs closet have been piling up for decades.

Before delving into the case further, some background information is appropriate.

Research conducted on animals has been going on since before Socrates and Aristotle fathers of the study of ethics walked the earth. While unsavory to think about, it is beyond argument that animal testing has contributed to uncovering the secrets of mammalian anatomy, as well as the discovery of numerous treatments and procedures like artificial hearts, pacemakers, and anesthetics, to name a few.

Even today, the medical world is making steady strides to treat malaria, breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, and schizophrenia, which were all dependent, at one stage or another, on animal testing. The UW primate lab has historically focused much of its research to advance research for an AIDS vaccine. These are the facts.

But all these beneficial contributions, ostensibly made possible in part via animal testing, must be weighed against another fact: 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for animal testing. Of that figure, about 85,000, or seven percent, were used in studies that caused pain or suffering which could not be relieved.

Such a statistic cannot be swept under the rug. Do all of these animals even the ones that are spared intensely painful, traumatic experiments play unequivocally vital functions in the direct advancement of human well-being by eradicating insidious diseases or in developing life-saving vaccinations? If not, then we are confronted with some rather thorny questions. Have we allowed the notion of scientific progress to embolden us to treat animal testing with a skewed ethical code, and to perpetuate senseless cruelty?

Even into the 1980s, the notion that animals couldnt experience pain the way humans can was widespread. The roots of this notion can be followed back to the philosophy of Rene Descartes.

Brilliant though he was, Descartes was operating on a strictly philosophical plane, not a biological or medical one. Further, his pioneering idea of rationalism has long been superseded by empiricism within the scientific community. Most biologists today would argue that many animals possess at least some basic level of consciousness. Clearly then, something is massively off-kilter with our outlook on animal welfare.

The case of the macaque monkey death in the UW primate research lab is yet another disturbing manifestation of this outlook. If this was an isolated, one-off incident, it would be deeply disheartening and saddening. However, its not an isolated, freak incident.

Not even close.

For literally decades, various UW animal research programs have come under investigation, been the target of a slew of lawsuits made by animal rights organizations, and been cited on numerous occasions for failing to comply with animal welfare standards.

In 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) found the UWs previous primate research center guilty of the deaths of five baboons that had been neglected. The facility had been a former mental institution and had been shown in multiple cases to be unsuitably equipped to house monkeys.

In 1996, a macaque died of dehydration in an incident nearly identical to the one that occurred this past January, also prompting an investigation by the USDA, which ended in a $20,000 settlement.

In 2001, an animal rights group filed a complaint against the UW, stating that the primate lab had failed to uphold a law requiring any instances of prolonged pain and suffering to be reported to the USDA. The group claimed that the lab confined macaques to a chair for hours, chained by a collar.

The obscene list of the labs dirty laundry goes on and on.

In 2008, researchers were cited by the USDA for performing unauthorized experiments on monkeys. In 2011, the USDA fined the university over $10,000 for allowing another macaque to starve to death. In 2014, the lab was cited when workers placed three juvenile monkeys in a cage with older, aggressive males, who tore the younger monkeys to pieces.

Despite all of this, another three monkeys were killed in 2015 while undergoing a previously unattempted experiment. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), under all-too-familiar circumstances, a macaque also died in 2016 of dehydration after being neglected for several days.

The investigation that was prompted by the death of the macaque this year also found that 17 of the primate cages hadnt been cleaned in at least two weeks.

Morgan Rawson, a student and leader in Campus Animal Rights Educators (CARE), smoothly ties together the significance of these accusations.

From my own personal research, I have noticed very consistent patterns of negligence on behalf of the primate lab, along with a strong tendency toward justification through accreditation, where they take advantage of their prestige as a highly regarded research university to justify severe mistreatment of animals, Rawson said.

From CAREs perspective as an intersectional club, the treatment of the monkeys is without a doubt unacceptable, she continued. Further, the very fact that the university still heavily relies on outdated research methods involving model organisms, when so many universities have moved to alternative methods, is perplexing.

What is the takeaway from all of this? The UW is one of the most heavily federally funded universities in the United States. For proof of this, look no further than the brand-new, $124 million dollar underground primate facility being constructed on campus right now. The primate lab can afford to take better care of its research organisms if it chooses to.

And it has no reason not to.

Animals that are starving, dehydrated, or with otherwise generally compromised immune systems, are of far less use in experiments. The side effects from a novel drug being tested are likely to be more pronounced on a weak individual. And besides, primates are among the most expensive model organisms. Flippantly wasting money on primates to replace neglected ones is a serious slap in the face to those that could actually benefit from the labs medical advancements.

If this wasnt enough, animal rights organizations are never far behind and are willing to expose the misdeeds of the lab. This should be a glaring indicator that the primate research lab needs to find a new paradigm for its treatment of animals, especially if it hopes to contribute with breakthroughs in medicine.

Reach writer Tony Sciglianoat opinion@dailyuw.com.Twitter: @earthtotones

Go here to see the original:

Animal testing is a complex issue, taking good care of test organisms is not - Dailyuw