Animals In Research | Environment/Nature |Axisoflogic.com

We are cat people. But we’ve been talking for a year about adopting a dog. We knew there were many dogs in shelters begging for homes, others languishing in filthy cages in puppy mills, or waiting to be rescued from certain death at our local pound. The only constant was that our dog had to be a rescue. We weren’t interested in a ‘breed’; a mutt would do just fine.

One day I received an email from Animal Alliance about 'purpose bred' beagles at the Ontario Veterinary College. I was outraged. These dogs are bred, socialized to trust people, then sold to labs or veterinary schools where they are used as tools and then killed when they outlive their usefulness. Due to advocacy by Animal Alliance, the college agreed this time to allow these beagles to be adopted instead of killed.

On impulse, I emailed that we would adopt one of the dogs. A purebred wasn’t what we were seeking, but this story touched us. So we arranged an appointment to see one of the older dogs that sounded like a good fit for our family.

We arrived at the College with trepidation. What if none of the dogs 'spoke’ to us, or seemed to like us? We were determined to be cautious and thoughtful in our decision-making and not get caught up in the emotion of the situation.

We were introduced to a number of lovely dogs, including the one we had specifically planned to meet; but none of them seemed to care about us. They sniffed us, walked around the room, stopped for a brief pat and then went on their way to find something more interesting. It looked like this was not going to be where we found 'our’ dog. We were told that applications were plentiful, so at least we could leave without feeling we had abandoned a dog desperate to find a loving family.

The Animal Care Worker demonstrated tenderness and care for all the dogs, and suggested that there was one more pair we should take a look at. She didn't usually show the dogs awaiting spay or neuter, but in this case she decided to make an exception.

We were shown to a cold, cement block rectangle of a room, subdivided by a thick steel railing. There were no toys for the dogs and nothing to suggest that play was part of their lives.

A volunteer was sitting behind the steel bars with two beagles. Once the steel gate was opened, the dogs walked over to us. A beautiful young female stopped for a pat before heading off to explore the barren room.

Then, we saw her! A small dark freckled face with 'seal pup' eyes.

This beautiful little 'purpose bred' dog stopped in front of each of us, put her paws gently on our shoulders, one at a time, and looked into our eyes. Unlike the other dogs, she didn’t leave our sides. Her soft eyes spoke to us in a way we could never have imagined. Her eyes said it all. To David, those eyes said she wanted a home and family; to me, her eyes screamed to get her out of there.

There was no thinking about this decision. It had been made; not by us, but by a twenty-pound dog that had no idea how her life would change.

We couldn’t take her home right away, because she was still scheduled for spaying. But we completed the adoption application and had it approved. It seemed strange that they would ask us if the dog would be allowed on furniture. After all, they had been quite prepared to kill her.

Maggie – because that was the name she would learn was hers – would need recovery time after the spay, but we would visit in the interim. Planning for her arrival was exciting, and we talked for hours about our new family member. Our cats knew something was up, but if they realized one of those things was moving in, they didn’t let on.

The surgery was done, and visiting day arrived. It was clear from the moment we saw her that Maggie was not herself. She was lethargic; her belly was red, hot, and swollen. The technician arranged for a vet to see her at the small animal clinic. There was no indication of infection, but she was in distress. Warm compresses were ordered for her swollen abdomen.

It seems that all the additional handling from students had caused her discomfort and irritated her tender belly. As well, three legs were shaved and her lower back had been shaved so deeply that she had two raw areas, one of which took many weeks to heal. The shaved area was to allow students to practice epidurals. “Well, she is a research dog,” I was told.

I left frustrated and concerned. That one comment had said it all. Research dogs are merely tools. If they feel pain, that’s to be expected.

At the end of that week, we brought Maggie home. She was a first class traveller and adjusted easily to this change in her life. Not the least of which was an introduction to Cairo, Sierra, and Rocky. Our cats.

Cairo was wonderful and welcomed Maggie with little fuss. As long as he still got his brushing time, this newcomer was no problem. Sierra was cautious at first but quickly saw that Maggie was no threat.

Rocky, though, was predictable; she went to her cat enclosure, climbed to the platform and refused to budge. She wasn’t going to move until someone showed this foreigner to the door. But hunger soon got the better of her. Even now she still eyes Maggie suspiciously, but mostly ignores her and has generally returned to her own routine.

Maggie is a wonderful dog. She was bred and socialized to be complacent and to trust people. Beagles, and other dogs, are bred by the thousands strictly for profit. They are sold to labs, testing facilities, or experimental institutions, including veterinary schools in Canada who are more than willing to pay the price. There is big money to be made in raising animals for research.

Maggie had been sold to the University of Guelph for their veterinary school. She was no more than a tool for students, and would have become one more dead beagle when she’d outlived her usefulness. Except for Animal Alliance.

Canadians profess to love animals. Many have pets, and most will happily spend time telling anyone who will listen how cute, smart, well-trained, adorable, important their scaly, feathered, or furry friend is. Yet, Canadians exploit or support animal exploitation, at unprecedented levels and in unimaginable ways. Prof. Gary Francione, of Rutgers, suggests we seem to be affected by “moral schizophrenia”.

Canadians compartmentalize the treatment of animals. They won’t accept that their own pets should be subjected to research, but ignore that the same animals in the hands of a pound or testing facility are brutalized.

Vivisectionists, those who experiment on animals, and their supporters will claim that pound dogs and cats are not adoptable, that no one wants them. 'Purpose bred' animals don't make good pets, they say. This is not true, and it is a moral lapse for people to accept this without question.

Discussion about the use of animals in research is controversial, complicated, and confusing – by design. Hostility towards those who question the use of animals and the painful experiments they endure is shaped by massive propaganda and advertising by multi-billion dollar industries. These include: biotechnology and pharmaceutical corporations; research institutions; entertainment and fashion enterprises; and the egg, meat and dairy industries who present animal exploitation as normal and as “common sense”, in the words of sociologist John Sorenson, of Brock University. Those involved in the use of animals at every level of research, or testing, or whatever euphemism they call it, conceal their activities and hide behind language crafted to make us believe there are no other ways to find cures or treatments for humans. In reality, there are many alternatives.

“Whenever people say 'we mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it that they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, 'we must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.”

Bridget Brophy, in About Canada Animal Rights.

Discovering the ‘Animal Model’
It has been a long and challenging journey for this author to investigate the myths and realities for research animals. It is all done behind closed doors. But given what any rational person can grasp, the animals live out their lives – however short that might be – suffering varying degrees of pain caused by seemingly morally absent people.

I found it intriguing that university vivisectionists refused to meet with me. Not one person currently involved in research at the local university was willing to talk about their work. This is despite that these people are usually on a taxpayer-funded payroll.

One retired researcher, who is a vocal vivisectionist, did meet with me and shared information and her point of view. What I learned is that researchers keep their work hidden behind a wall of security because of all the 'scary people out there who would do them harm.' That’s a favourite myth trotted out every time any question of the ethical consideration of the use of animals is brought forth. There have been some isolated incidences of acting out by people opposed to animal research, but they are a very tiny minority. There is no real need for this work to be hidden from view.

Martin Seligman, a noted psychologist, experimented on at least one dog by painfully and repeatedly shocking it as it tried to find a safe way to cross an electrified floor. There was no way to escape the pain. Allegedly, this was done to study learned helplessness. The information from the dog’s responses was extrapolated to how humans react to both physical and emotional pain. Dr Seligman doesn’t seem to have been deterred by the fact this is already a well-documented subject from human models who had suffered at the hands of partners, parents, or strangers. This was needless research.

Herein lies the greatest of all incongruences:

“… the researcher's central dilemma exists in an especially acute form in psychology; either the animal is not like us, in which case there is no reason for the experiment; or else the animal is like us in which case we ought not to perform an experiment on the animals which would be considered outrageous of performed on one of us.”

Professor Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation.

Beagles are favourite targets for testing household products. They are force-fed things you use every day in your homes that are known to be toxic. The feeding continues until they die. Intentionally breaking the bones of beagles to practice surgical techniques and to observe the healing process is common practice in orthopaedics.

There is big money in the buying and selling of these animals for testing, as if they were inanimate objects.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC)
According to its website, this organization is charged with taking care of Canada's animals used in all areas of research. It was established in 1968 as a non-profit, autonomous and independent body. It is a national peer review agency responsible for setting and maintaining standards for the care and use of animals in research, teaching, and testing. And it is self-governing.

Its members include:

•   Agriculture Agri-Food Canada
•   Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry
•   Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada
•   Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
•   Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine
•   Canadian Bioethics Society
•   Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies
•   Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science
•   Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute
•   Canadian Council of Departments of Psychology
•   Canadian Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine
•   Canadian Federation of Biological Societies
•   Canadian Institutes of Health Research
•   Canadian Society of Zoologists
•   Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
•   Department of National Defence
•   Environment Canada
•   Fisheries and Oceans Canada
•   Health Canada
•   Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
•   National Research Council
•   Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Two ‘limited term’ members are the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Each of these stakeholders has a vested interest in the use of animals in research, teaching, and testing. Each of these bodies is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo so that they can continue to gain financially from such use. Each of these agencies is a fox guarding the henhouse.

But one additional organization is a member of CCAC. And if we thought this was one we could all trust in regard to the care of animals, we might have been wrong. It is the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS). Here is the organization supposedly protecting Canada's animals, working hand-in-hand with the biggest users and exploiters of animals in the country. The CFHS is part of this group when they should be leading the fight to force the end of such abuse.

Both CCAC and CFHS state on their websites that they strongly believe that any system for the oversight of the care and use of animals in society must include members of the public. So what impact does the public have? Well, community members serve within three CCAC initiatives: Animal Care Committees; Assessment Panels; and the CCAC Council.

But here’s the problem. Their input is so constrained and contrived as to be utterly useless. Assessments are carried out only every three to five years, and only on invitation from an institution wishing to be evaluated. And there are no surprise visits. A cynic might say that was to ensure that no one gets caught in the act …

So where on earth do they find these members of the public? Beats me, but they are most definitely not people who believe it is ethically wrong to experiment on animals. They play along with the researchers who insist on being protected by physical barriers against public scrutiny, perpetuating the myth of those crazy animal activist nuts. So their code of secrecy keeps those of us on the outside, well, on the outside.

Work against the legalized abuse of animals falls into the category of social justice and “like other social justice movements, animals rights is a critique of power, hierarchy and inequality and an attempt to eliminate them.” (John Sorenson, in About Canada Animal Rights, 2010).

The CCAC website notes (in section 1.4.1 of their page on community membership) that “most Canadians support the use of animals in science, provided it is scientifically justified and is conducted in accordance with humane principles.” However, until and unless the CCAC can provide detailed descriptions of the experiments, tests, and research, we are apparently expected to trust to their good judgment.

The public is not granted the opportunity to view the animals or have accurate explanations about the goals of the experiments, what will happen to the animals during the experiments, how the experiments or testing will benefit Canadians, and what happens to the animals in the end. It is disingenuous for the CCAC to claim “most Canadians support the use of animals in research” – most Canadians are deliberately excluded from knowing anything about it.

Insider evidence tells us of kittens with eyes sewn shut for six months, dogs and cats living in wire cages, animals with holes drilled into their skulls while their heads are held in vices while they are conscious. According to the CCAC, this is what Canadians find acceptable.

In fact, Canadians have no idea what goes on in laboratories and testing facilities across the country. The CCAC and their organizations need that level of ignorance to continue so that the huge research dollars are not jeopardized.

Inclusion in CCAC is completely voluntary. Their protocol sheet about animal usage is voluntary. So there is no need to disclose the objectives of the proposed work, the animals to be used, the procedures to which the animals will be subjected, and levels of expected pain and distress. The CCAC does talk about ‘the three Rs’ – Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement – to decrease the number of animals used. But no one involved in using animals must provide any information or agree to an assessment by CCAC. Everything is voluntary.

In his 2007 book The Emotional Lives of Animals, Dr. Marc Berkoff writes about these three Rs. He says this refers to refining procedures that cause harm to animals, reducing the numbers of animals used, and replacing animals with other methods.

How many animals
According to the CCAC website, between 1996 and 2008 there were 43,246 dogs and 117,663 cats who were bred, bought and sold, and used for a wide array of undisclosed test and research purposes. And then they were killed.

The Executive Director of the CCAC states: “society accepts animal models. Animal models are close to humans as they are mammalian, animals and humans share diseases.” He also states that the “trend is to use fewer animals.”

Well, the total number of all animals used in Canada in 2008, and this includes non-human primates, was 2,272,815. Every one of these lived a life full of fear, pain, and a most unnatural and isolated existence. The 'trend' has a long way to go.

In an interview on Disclosure, a CBC documentary in 2003, Dr. Gauthier, the CCAC Executive Director, was asked, “In 34 years of operation you've never had to shut anyone down? Everyone plays by the rules?” Dr Gauthier agreed that they have never had to shut down an operation and, “Yes they do [play by the rules], definitely yes.”

We are asked to take this at face value. There are confidentiality agreements signed by CCAC Committee members. No one can go public with anything they see that is disturbing to them in the institutions they visit, if they are permitted to visit at all. The goal, as stated to me by Dr. Gauthier, is “not to close anyone down.”

The dogs and cats that are used and discarded, subjected to painful invasive surgeries, broken bones, holes drilled into their heads, forced to ingest or breathe toxic substances day after day, month after month, living in wire-bottom cages that allow for only limited movement, sometimes constrained so that there is no movement and never see the outdoors – are just like your dogs and cats. To claim otherwise, is simply a lie. There is no ‘research subspecies’.

What goes on in the secret and protected world of research and testing would shock most Canadians – if they knew about it. But the secrets are well-guarded by CCAC and its members.

One beagle was shown by hidden camera frothing, drooling, and desperately trying to get out of its cage. A handler forced it back inside while shoving Oxycontin down its throat. This terrified dog was stuck in a small cage and forced to endure a dog's reaction to this potent drug. I’m pretty certain there isn’t a lot of street traffic for this drug among beagles, so the value of this research is highly questionable. We already know how the drug affects people who are, after all, the intended users.

There are dark and hideous secrets behind the locked and sealed doors of these facilities and they get money from Federal Grants. Did you know this?

Where do the animals come from
Many of these animals are bred at large factory-like facilities such as Marshall Farms. Their website is quite open if you want to adopt an animal from them, but accessing information about their ‘purpose bred' animals is impossible.

The beagle I am looking at right now – Maggie – is a Marshall Farm's 'purpose bred' dog. She was born and raised in New York at their massive facility designed specifically for the purpose of breeding a wide variety of animals for research. And no one can view the animals or practices on their closely guarded web site. The public doesn't approve? They don't know!

This dog can now play chase with other dogs at the off-leash park, can sleep beside her feline brother in the sun in the backyard, and can take great delight running down stairs, leaping through the air, again and again – because she can. This twenty-two pound bundle of affection, joy, and thrilled-to-be-alive dog is here only because Animal Alliance made public the 'terminal surgery' policy at the Guelph Veterinary College.

People I speak to are shocked and dismayed when they hear Maggie's story. It is ethically abhorrent to the very Canadians who CCAC claims accept that dogs like this are killed by the thousands every year.

Royal’s story
In the past, local pounds and humane societies were forced, or willingly surrendered, animals being held by them under the Animals for Research Act. Animal Alliance worked diligently for years to stop most pounds from doing so in Ontario. Essentially, the Act provided that if your dog or cat went missing in a storm, or move, or just wandered away from home and landed at the local pound, that loved family member could be turned over to a lab or university for research.

It happened to Royal!

He was a thirteen-year-old Golden Retriever, a cherished pet who was cared for and watched over in every way possible. He had good and regular veterinary care, was groomed regularly, but went missing on a holiday weekend. The pound is required not to include holiday time in the number of days they keep the animals. But they did anyway.

So after an abbreviated incarceration time, Royal was sold by Artekka Canine Control in contravention of the Animals for Research Act. He had not been held for the legally mandated time. He was eventually resold to the Guelph Veterinary College where he came into the care of Dr. Denna Benn, who was in charge of the pound dog conditioning facility where Royal ended up. Through her, he then went to the university veterinary college.

Dr. Benn told Royal’s owner that she never checked on the time requirement for Royal. Her reply in the report of the chronology of events stated that, “No, I have been dealing with pounds for years and I just go on trust.”

While the owners were following every possible lead to find their beloved pet, Dr. Benn had the dog in front of her. It was clearly a well cared for dog, clean, chubby, friendly, and social. His nails had recently been trimmed. He even had tags with the owner's phone number!

Despite all this, it was decided he was too old for the current research program. So he was killed, on September 5, 2001. Legally, Royal should have been held for 72 hours, meaning he should have been safe until at least September 6. But despite having the owner’s phone number right in front of them, the Guelph Veterinary College destroyed the dog.

Alternatives
Charities who receive huge federal grants use animals in research. These include cancer research, kidney research, and heart and stroke research, among others. Canadians give vast sums of money believing this will bring about cures. There are alternative methods that are proving to be more effective and successful that the animal model. Canadians need to be persuaded to tell the charities that we will gladly give money when there is a move to more progressive and ethical practices.

In place of animals are highly successful computer simulations, virtual dissection, manikins, and/or shelter medicine programs. The complexity of the simulation programs is astounding. They can even measure tactile pressure. Models can be taken apart and reassembled allowing students to clearly examine the internal parts and how they work, and life-like manikins are designed to simulate blood flow, injury, and common veterinary clinical procedures. (See ‘Summary of Betrayal’ in AV Magazine-AAVS, Summer 2009)

Scientists from the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine have shown that the composition of a human islet is so different from that of a rodent model, the rodent islet is no longer relevant for human studies (see Berkoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals)

Questions and Answers
(Point/Counter Point with the American Anti-Vivisection Society)

Q. Isn't it true that every major medical advance in the last century was a result of animal experimentation?
A. No. 92% of the decline in mortality rates in this century occurred before the introduction of vaccines and treatments derived through vivisection. Studying the natural course of disease within human populations has had a much more profound effect on human health. Analyzing human populations has provided much better indicators about factors contributing to cancer than animal studies. The connection between cholesterol and heart disease was established through epidemiological studies.

Q. Wasn't the vaccine for polio dependent on using monkeys?
A. The most important advance for the vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller, and Robbins demonstrated the virus could be grown in human tissue. Sabin argued against vivisection in 1984. He stated that work on prevention of polio was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of polio in monkeys. Just because some used monkeys, does not prove they had to or that monkeys were a good choice.

Q. Are there alternatives to the use of whole animals in research and testing?
A. Using animals is a thing of the past. Alternatives available to modern researchers are less expensive, more reliable, and ethically sound. These include: in vitro, clinical and epidemiological studies, computer technology, cell cultures, CAT, PET and MRI scans quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis in drug design and chemical toxicity.

Q. Won't children die if we don't support experiments on animals?
A. This is not a decision anyone will ever have to make. Vivisection has produced inaccurate and dangerous results with enormous waste of time on an archaic method while promising new techniques are ignored.

Q. Would you rather scientists test new drugs on people?
A. They already do and always have. Remember Thalidomide? Dr. Robert Sharpe, Scientific Director of International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals, was a Senior Research Chemist at the prestigious Royal Postgraduate Medical School in London, England. Animals were being tested with chemicals and he resigned his position to investigate the results of testing on animals. He presents a powerful body of evidence documenting failures, misleading results, fatalities, and missed opportunities of animal research.

Conclusion
Changing paradigms is slow and tedious. But changing minds about the use and abuse of animals cannot wait. Every day, thousands die in unimaginable ways. Changes occur because of public pressure and the use of animals in research is a social justice issue like every other social justice issue. It is relevant and timely for the CCAC, researchers, and big business invested in the use of animals to develop a humane and ethical approach to what they do. There are alternatives, and the results from the use of alternatives are based on sound scientific principles.

“Animals should not be treated as things; they are not resources or means to our ends but beings who have their own interests, and the principle of equal consideration must apply to all sentient beings. It is hypocritical for those who espouse other progressive causes to endorse hierarchy, oppression, and exploitation simply because the victims belong to other species.”

(Sorenson)

Canadians cannot call themselves moral or ethical simply because they want to think of themselves that way. It is the actions we take that determine our morality. Our ethical standards are demonstrated by what we stand up for; what we say is only relevant when it matches what we do. It is time for Canadians to speak out about what is socially acceptable to them when defining the way our animals should be treated. We need to do the right thing with regard to animals used in research. And we need to do it now!