From Lauren Gottlieb’s article, the various WesSpeaks and the assorted chalkings, it is clear that the members of WARN are adamantly opposed to all forms of experimental animal use. Although I respect their dedication to the defense of life in all of its forms, their position has two elements that are a disservice to their cause: (1) They are grossly underinformed about the research performed on campus, its regulation and its relevance; and (2) They are viewing a very complicated ethical issue as if it were black and white. I would like to address these problems here and invite future dialogue.

First, I admit that I do not have an intimate knowledge of every research project on campus. Because of this, I will speak of what I do know and use it as an example. I work in Dr. John Kirn’s lab in the biology department, studying the neurobiology of songbirds. Amanda Chiu stated in her March 31st WesSpeak that "Animal experiments are fundamentally unreliable because results that may hold true for a rat or a dog may very easily not hold true for a human." Well, in the case of zebra finches and other songbirds that we study, that difference is the whole point of our interest. These birds can do something we, as humans, cannot: replace nerve cells in adulthood and yet retain incredibly complex, learned songs. If we lose brain cells as adults, they cannot regrow. If we can better understand how songbirds continuously turnover neurons without loosing learned memories and behaviors, perhaps we can apply their evolutionary solutions to our treatment of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and other neurological diseases. 

In reality, our work with songbirds is not far removed from this ultimate goal. Just last October, researchers at Princeton University discovered evidence of neurogenesis in adult
macaques, a primate species closely related to humans. By using all we know about songbirds and relating it to macaques, we might form the foundation for new treatments for humans to help regrow damaged or atrophied brain tissues.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to fully relate a bird’s behavior with its physiology without sacrificing the bird. Obviously, we cannot disregard the ethical cost of killing birds regardless of our benevolent aims. It is for this reason that Wesleyan has an incredibly diligent animal use committee. This committee is composed of the animal facility supervisor, faculty members, a veterinarian, and two objective members of the Middletown community. Any Wesleyan project involving animal use must be brought before this committee and scrutinized. This includes answering difficult questions: How many animals will be used? Can the number be reduced without detriment to the results? What will be gained by the project? Can these goals be attained by any other means aside from vivisection? Will the animals be subjected to any stressors? How can these stressors be minimized? All these questions and more must be thoroughly satisfied before the committee will approve any project. In fact, no project can even get federal funding without going through this discriminating process.

While evaluating laboratory animal use at Wesleyan, students must appreciate that research ethics is not a black-and-white issue. It is not unreasonable for a person to cringe at the thought of birds or rats dying at the hands of humans. However, this is not cause for negating the value of animal research. Ask any undergraduate who has taken an animal behavior or physiology course–much of what we know about animals is the result of diligent laboratory research. If we do not allow valid animal research to continue, we risk any future advancement in our understanding of animal systems, whether they apply to developing new treatments for humans or whether they serve to augment our understanding of other species.

I commend WARN for starting this dialogue and helping to raise awareness about animal research on campus. It troubles me that many students were unaware of Wesleyan’s animal research practices, and I very much appreciate this opportunity to inform and exchange viewpoints. The key to the success of this dialogue is investing the time to understand the full story, rather than jump to unconditional extremes. You do not have to fully support all forms of animal testing, nor do you have to fully refute its potential benefits. It is possible, however, to dislike the process of animal testing yet still appreciate its indispensability as a tool of science and health.

I would like to invite the members of WARN and other undergraduate researchers–and anyone else who is interested–to an informal discussion. If you would like to take part, please contact me at gamis@wesleyan.edu. When I get a better idea of the number of interested students, we can pick a time and a place. In the meantime, I encourage anyone who wants to know more about animal research at Wesleyan to talk to the science faculty. Approach them during their office hours, and let them know that you want to know more. Let them know that you are concerned about the welfare of laboratory animals, and that you want to form an educated and mature opinion about the subject, rather than depend on chalkings, posters, and rumor.