[rbogle]

Cap Times
9/13/2007

Animal research debate set

Should animals be used by UW-Madison researchers? Are they a reliable predictor of diseases and their cures for human beings?

Two highly respected experts on the subject will tackle that issue in a debate sponsored by The Capital Times at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 26, in the auditorium of the Wisconsin Historical Society building on the UW's Library Mall.

Ray Greek, a retired anesthesiologist, author of three books on the use of animals in human disease and drug research and president of Americans for Medical Advancement, insists that animal research is useless to predict human results.

He will square off with UW-Madison Prof. Eric Sandgren, an animal researcher and chair of two animal research oversight committees on campus, who argues that human medical advances have been made as a result of research using animals.

The debate is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Dave Zweifel, editor of The Capital Times, will moderate the debate. After presentations by the debaters, they will answer written questions from the audience.

[/quote]

[gebhardt_53566]

This is a very interesting debate, and I am very happy to hear that its free and open to the public. As a clinical psych major who someday hopes to do research, it will be interesting to hear the pros and cons of the animal research field from people who deal with it on a daily basis.

[evansvillehousewife]

Meh.

These "debates" usually turn out as protests. They're a crock of shit. I attended one with several scientists as a support crowd at a "debate" with our resident research animal vet Krugner-Higby and Dr Kauffman, of Meat and animal sciences.

I don't remember who was on the opposing view board, but what sticks out in my mind was the fellow that said he would "rather watch his newborn son die" then to see him live with research gained from the torture of animals. However, it was known to us ( he was a grad-school flunkie a few fellow researchers knew) this individual lived through a bout of intestinal tuberculosis, the treatment of which uses animal-derived PRODUCTS, not just the results of research. Sickass hypocrite, that one.

Funny, too, how the "activists" got to speak during the public rebuttal but we scientists/animal welfare proponents were screened out.

What it amounts to is a sham of a "debate" to demoralize researchers and give the attending public a slant sided view.

What drugs get promoted have less to do with research and more to do with lobbyists and politics.

[evansvillehousewife]

it will be interesting to hear the pros and cons of the animal research field from people who deal with it on a daily basis.

I don't see ANYONE on this board who DIRECTLY deals with animal research on a "daily basis" I see no animal care technicians, grad students, or research associates. I see a physician and an administrator. None of which handle monkeys, horses, cows, birds, reptiles, or rodents on a daily basis. On the other hand, I've handled at least one of the above species, daily, for the past 13 years on the UW Campus. Why haven;t some senior research techs been invited? We're the ones in the trenches, so to speak.

[gebhardt_53566]

Funny, too, how the "activists" got to speak during the public rebuttal but we scientists/animal welfare proponents were screened out.

What it amounts to is a sham of a "debate" to demoralize researchers and give the attending public a slant sided view.

What drugs get promoted have less to do with research and more to do with lobbyists and politics.

So what are you getting at? That we shouldn't even have debates from people that are in charge, but only hear from the people who do the little bits and pieces of work who usually never see the whole picture, and have no say on the budget or the media ends of it? Or are you saying its hopeless to even talk about in and we should just give up helping millions of people just because a man who uses the animal products is a hypocrite and whines a little bit?

[Me7Me]

I don't want to put words into her mouth but I think what evansvillehousewife is saying is that these debates rarely provide any insight into what actually goes on in animal research. Those who debate against animal research are often not armed with actual facts but perversions of facts or outright lies. They don't provide alternatives or ideas that would increase animal welfare, they simply want to convince people that the research is useless and all animal research is evil. It should be debated, but from what I have witnessed in Madison, these debates are often frustrating, pointless and meaningless, which is very sad for everyone.
I'm a strong proponent of animal welfare, I also work in animal research. In 2 years I have seen our research go from a promising idea to an animal research project and now to a veterinary clincical trial, in a few short years it could be in human trials. I'm curious to see how someone could describe this as useless research. Animal research isn't just about predicting disease in humans. Every medication you take, every new and old therapy that the medical world uses has been tested on animals. Just something to keep in mind if you decide to go to this debate.

[gebhardt_53566]

Very good points indeed, and I agree that these debates can be frustrating, but thats no reason to call them "crocks of shit." It just means that more people need to be educated about the subject through debates and forums like these. People need to weed through the hecklers and bullshit just like with anything else. Even many forums on here get caught up with many people who are just craving attention and don't care about the actual topics discussed.

[rbogle]

evansvillehousewife and Me7Me are very confused.

First, there have been 2 of "these debates" in the past ten years here in Madison. There wasn't a protest associated with either of them. I know because I participated in both of those debates and have been involved in organizing the upcoming debate between Greek and Sandgren.

There haven't been more debates because those supporting the status quo have steadfastly refused to discuss the matter in open public fora.

We have suggested round-table discussions, lectures, debates, townhall meetings, etc., but they have consistently refused to participate. The only reason that the past debate (a year and a half ago) and this one are occurring is because one lone researcher on campus has agreed to discuss the matter in public. One.

The claim that "Those who debate against animal research are often not armed with actual facts but perversions of facts or outright lies," is just a projection. In fact, the university is very resistant to providing the public with any facts. It certainly wants to provide the public with spin, but it is, perhaps understandably, resistant to sharing actual facts. Some of the facts it has hidden recently include:

Dr. Ei Terasawa was discovered to be violating the Animal Welfare Act over the course of an eigthteen year-long study involving monkeys chaired for up to four and a half days at a time while a pump forced any of about 50 neuroactive chemicals into their brain and sucked out the perfusate. The violations were not made public until we discovered them as a result of open records requests.

Ned Kalin, Steve Shelton, Ruth Benca, Richard Davidson, and perhaps others, video recorded the behaviour of monkeys in various situations including their reactions to fearful and other situations after parts of their brains were destroyed. They mentioned these videos in their published papers. We sought copies of them (thinking at the time that there was perhaps a single set of tapes) but the request was denied. Once the Isthmus asked for the tapes and a local attorney got involved, the university admitted to having destroyed 627 such videos after they denied our repeated requests.

On the day of the last debate, I was handed a UW document that reported to the USDA the number of monkeys approved for individual housing at the university. Individual housing of nonhuman primates is a recognized cause of psychological problems and can result in various responses such as severe self-wounding, repetitive motions, self-denuding, eye-poking, and other abnormalities. Keeping monkeys caged alone requires a written exception. The document, when the numbers were tallied, suggested that perhaps 1,000 of the primate center's monkeys might be so housed. The university steadfastly refused to disclose the actual number. Recently, a document that was (accidentally?) included in a public document request from an oversight commitee meeting stated that 400 monkeys at the primate center (about a third of all the monkeys there) are individually housed.

The list goes on. The claim that, "Those who debate against animal research are often not armed with actual facts but perversions of facts or outright lies," is a perversion of the truth. In fact, we regularly attend oversight committee meetings, review approved protocols, inspection reports, read published papers, and are keen to any official document reporting on the matter. If critics get the facts wrong occasionally, it is only because the university works so vigorously to keep the facts hidden.

evansvillehousewife wrote:

I don't see ANYONE on this board who DIRECTLY deals with animal research on a "daily basis" I see no animal care technicians, grad students, or research associates. I see a physician and an administrator. None of which handle monkeys, horses, cows, birds, reptiles, or rodents on a daily basis. On the other hand, I've handled at least one of the above species, daily, for the past 13 years on the UW Campus. Why haven;t some senior research techs been invited? We're the ones in the trenches, so to speak.

I'm not sure what this means. But, evansvillehousewife (and Me7Me), I invite you to discuss the matter in public, to stand up and state your mind, to share with the public whatever it is you believe to be the facts and justifications of vivisection.

If you'd like to participate in a public forum, please contact me at rbogle@primatefreedom.com. If you do, I will give you an opportunity to fully explain your job and beliefs so long as the audience can ask you questions.

[Me7Me]

I personally wouldn't partcipate in a public debate due to personal safety issues. I'm not going to introduce myself to strangers who try to break into my place of employement and might possibly protest outside my house calling me a murderer. Both of these things have occurred several times over the past few years. Attempted break-ins have increased so much in the past few years that now we have full time security that patrols our work place. These actions are why the animal research community is reluctant to participate in debates and round table discussions with groups such as the one your involved in. I don't keep my job a secret, if I know you or we just happen to meet on the street and we start talking about animal research I'll take questions and answer them truthfully.

A writer from the Isthmus was once allowed to tour the Primate Center. He then wrote that the animals were terrified. They weren't terrified, they didn't know him and he was wearing a white visitors garb which the animals are unfamiliar with. He disrupted their routine and he was stranger. I also suspect that he doesn't know enough of primate behavior to know what a "terrified" monkey looks like. He also wrote that after death, monkeys are tossed into a "garbage chute". The so-called garbage chute is a pass-through fridge that goes to necropsy. It's not too different from what humans awaiting autopsy are put in. Now, am I supposed to respect and debate people who are allowed access to my place of work and write lies about it?

Also, the rules for animal research are very strict. I don't disagree that there have mistakes made by researchers, we're human, not robots. I also know what can count as a violation. An error in paperwork or a protocol number can count as a violation. Taking 3.1mls of blood instead of the approved 3.0mls is a violation. You make it sound like every violation a researcher makes is a tramatic, life-threating situation, that's just not true. You also make it sound like the investigators actual research is a violation, it is not, sorry it's not warm and fuzzy. I've never heard anyone from your group make a suggestion to improve an animal protocol or reduce the number of animals used or , brace yourself, find ways to make research animals lives more enriched. From what I can tell, you find the most invasive procedures you can find and use them as examples of why the research should stop.

[evansvillehousewife]

First, there have been 2 of "these debates" in the past ten years here in Madison. There wasn't a protest associated with either of them. I know because I participated in both of those debates and have been involved in organizing the upcoming debate between Greek and Sandgren.

It was a protest because there was only one side allowed to have support from the audience. One side of the panel was heckeled and not allowed to be supported by informed supporters.

There haven't been more debates because those supporting the status quo have steadfastly refused to discuss the matter in open public fora.

Most likely in the interest of securing research goals. It's like asking the R&D department of a private company to expose their current work before proving their hypothesis and securing data.

We have suggested round-table discussions, lectures, debates, townhall meetings, etc., but they have consistently refused to participate. The only reason that the past debate (a year and a half ago) and this one are occurring is because one lone researcher on campus has agreed to discuss the matter in public. One.

See above. And also, because discussing with you is a waste of air and time. You will never agree that people and society benefit from animal research, and researchers will not concede from that stance.

It's about as effective as matching the LBGTQ union in a "discussion" with Brother Jed. Amusing at first, but boring after ten minutes. Nothing ever gets DONE.

Dr. Ei Terasawa was discovered to be violating the Animal Welfare Act over the course of an eigthteen year-long study involving monkeys chaired for up to four and a half days at a time while a pump forced any of about 50 neuroactive chemicals into their brain and sucked out the perfusate. The violations were not made public until we discovered them as a result of open records requests.

Well, if you requested them, and you got them, then they WERE MADE PUBLIC. The violation could have been anything from having porous materials in the room to the room temps not being recorded. Did he violate his protocol? I repeat, DID HE VIOLATE HIS PROTOCOL? If all violations were made public as news (such as a sandwich in an office adjoined to a lab or a cardboard box on the floor) it would be dreadfully boooorrriinnng.

Ned Kalin, Steve Shelton, Ruth Benca, Richard Davidson, and perhaps others, * They mentioned these videos in their published papers. We sought copies of them (thinking at the time that there was perhaps a single set of tapes) but the request was denied. Once the Isthmus asked for the tapes and a local attorney got involved, the university admitted to having destroyed 627 such videos after they denied our repeated requests.

Then apparently, you had no legal right to this RAW data. They defended their data and research and had the ANALYZED data to back up the published papers. If you are running a study that measures the output of cow shit, you aren't required to store said collected shit if your methods of quantitation have been approved and you can replicate your research.

You're just pissed you don't get the videos for shock value. You could go make your own at any VA hospital or pootly staffed nursing home.... but I guess THOSE abused primates aren't as important.

*snip* The document, when the numbers were tallied, suggested that perhaps 1,000 of the primate center's monkeys might be so housed. The university steadfastly refused to disclose the actual number. Recently, a document that was (accidentally?) included in a public document request from an oversight commitee meeting stated that 400 monkeys at the primate center (about a third of all the monkeys there) are individually housed.

I've been in the "individual housing" rooms. The animals can touch each other throrgh the cages, see each other, hear each other, move around, etc. Keeping animals in individual controlled environments is vital to research. Can you see how throwing a group of monkeys together to administer individual treatments might screw up data? You've taught science, Mr. Bogle, I know you understand.

The Harlow lab also has an enrichment program in place. The caretakers there love the animals and I have seen them weep if one is euthanized or injured.


evansvillehousewife wrote:

I don't see ANYONE on this board who DIRECTLY deals with animal research on a "daily basis" I see no animal care technicians, grad students, or research associates. I see a physician and an administrator. None of which handle monkeys, horses, cows, birds, reptiles, or rodents on a daily basis. On the other hand, I've handled at least one of the above species, daily, for the past 13 years on the UW Campus. Why haven;t some senior research techs been invited? We're the ones in the trenches, so to speak.

I'm not sure what this means. But, evansvillehousewife (and Me7Me), I invite you to discuss the matter in public, to stand up and state your mind, to share with the public whatever it is you believe to be the facts and justifications of vivisection.

If you "aren't sure what this means" I invite you to have an average 10th grader explain it to you.

If you'd like to participate in a public forum, please contact me at rbogle@primatefreedom.com. If you do, I will give you an opportunity to fully explain your job and beliefs so long as the audience can ask you questions.

EXACTLY. YOUR audience. Interesting how that is always a condition.I refuse to explain my job on the internet (duh) and as far as my beliefs, I believe in them, and don;t need to justify them to you.

What about the bunnies, Rick?
What about the dairy cows?
What about the rodents?

You're speciest!

[rbogle]

evansvillehousewife,

Your anonymous statements disclose much confusion.

A public debate's purpose is to allow the public to hear people argue and defend their different positions; it isn't intended that the debators will convince each other. I know that the notion of public involvement and education regarding the use of animals on campus is worrisome to you, but it is the university's responsibility to do this, and it has failed miserably in this regard. Must be the 100s of millions of dollars at risk.

Ei Terasawa is a senior researcher at the primate center. She's (not he) been around for a long time; it's odd that someone claiming to have personal knowledge and insights into the system here thinks that she lost her access to animals for two years because of some minor violation. Yes, she "DID VIOLATE [her] PROTOCOL." Why don't you know that?

What utter garbage about people trying to break into any lab on campus. You really have no idea whatsoever about the things you rant about. For instance, most of the monkeys individually housed monkeys have been infected with SIV. They are isolated from other monkeys because, it is claimed, the isolation does not allow lateral transmission of the virus. Allowing them to touch each other (and potentially bite each other) would make the separation sort of silly. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. None. And, you're a coward.

[evansvillehousewife]

evansvillehousewife,
A public debate's purpose is to allow the public to hear people argue and defend their different positions; it isn't intended that the debators will convince each other.

Public forum? Check. Stating my views on vivisection and research? Check. Audience's right to respond? Check.

We're already in your public forum and discussion. I stepped right up to your plate. You just haven't rallied your paid activists yet. I'll wait, if any of them can write.

The rest of your blather is just angry, insulting attempts to gain information. I'll forgive you for the namecalling. Peace be with you, fellow primate!

[gebhardt_53566]

so rbogle, how do you assume to discover new information about partially functioning brains without in fact damaging part of the brain and seeing what happens? do we just wait every few hundred years for a freak accident like Phineas Gage and study the hell out of a fluke in human history, or do it through repeatable research that can be directly related to humans?

[admin]

What is the big fucking deal, it's only Animals, a lower life form. We are the superior life form on Earth.

End of story.

[gebhardt_53566]

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp ... &Player=wm
If you think superiority is this, than think again.