Animal testing is neither beneficial nor progressive. 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. Sheep, for example, can ingest large amounts of arsenic with no problem, while penicillin is fatal to guinea pigs. Numerous drugs, including the diet drug Phen-Phen, have caused serious injuries and death in humans because animal tests failed to show any potential for danger. The most notorious example of this is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960’s, mentioned by Prof. Devoto in the Argus article of March 8. Ten to twenty thousand babies were born with terrible abnormalities, some so grotesque that mothers were driven to infanticide. Thalidomide was approved for human use because animal tests showed no prediction of genetic effects. Once the link between Thalidomide and human abnormalities had been established (through clinical studies), it proved very difficult afterward to duplicate these abnormalities in any of a wide range of species that the drug was tested on. 

The argument that all medical advances have resulted from animal tests is also a misleading and inaccurate statement. Some discoveries have been due to animal tests - simply because they were the only type of experiments being done. However, since 1901, two thirds of the Noble Prizes for Physiology and Medicine have been awarded to scientists using non-animal technologies. Clinical and epidemiological studies have had much more of an impact on human lives. The link between smoking and lung cancer was established through such studies long before it was proven through animal tests. In this and many other cases, reliance on animal testing has hindered scientific advances. Cell and tissue cultures, computer technology, and test tube experiments are far more effective and reliable. 

Besides the practical evidence against animal testing, there is the ethical aspect to consider. Animals used in experiments are unable to give their consent for participation. We use them simply because we can, and this is exploitation. We certainly would not consider using a human baby for experiments, even though they also are unable to indicate their consent or refusal. But we have no problem using a baby monkey or a grown dog, and at Wesleyan, fish, birds, mice, and rats are used. Perhaps Prof. Devoto said it best when he said he wouldn’t even work with primates because "it looks too human." After all, they would be "horrific, barbaric" experiments to do on humans. Are they any less "horrific" or "barbaric" when done on other animals? Simply because birds or mice bear less resemblance to us than a primate does not mean they are any less capable of experiencing fear, pain, and agony.

I am also comforted little by any suggestion that the animals here at Wesleyan are treated "humanely." Living in a cage and the process of being handled every day can be stressful
enough, and presumably, having a hole drilled in your head can be mildly discomforting as well. These animals receive no protection from the Animal Welfare Act, the primary federal legislation regulating animal treatment, as it does not apply to mice, rats, or birds. Besides, how much do you think a rat costs to buy? An animal worth a handful of change is not an investment a professor would probably be particularly concerned about maintaining. 

The primary question, however, is not whether these animals are being treated decently. It is whether or not they should be used in the first place and the answer is no. It makes no sense for a "progressive" institution like Wesleyan to endorse research methods of the past. As a truly progressive university, Wesleyan should seek to expand and utilize the cruelty-free alternatives currently available. There is no excuse for animal experimentation, especially not at Wesleyan.