PETA dissects protocols
Oct 2, 2009, 3:04 PM
By RYAN DAVIS, The Muleskinner
WARRENSBURG, Mo. -- Animal lovers, listen up. The University has been under fire recently from the activist organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which claims UCM does not follow federal laws pertaining to experimentation on animals. However, representatives from the University refute these claims, arguing that all federal requirements are being met.
The organization recently posted an alert on their Web site titled, “Animals are being killed at the University of Central Missouri,” in which they accused the physiology and biology departments of using inhumane/outdated methods of experimentation on animals.
When contacted about the issue, and the methods of experimentation in question, a PETA official offered his opinion on the topic.
“Students and faculty aren’t using these methods because they are good science, they are archaic and inhumane—it’s neglect,” said Justin Goodman, research supervisor of PETA’s laboratory investigation department. “All we are asking is that the University replace these methods with
newer, more humane alternatives.”
A few techniques in question are dissecting frogs while their hearts are still beating, rats being placed in decompression chambers until they almost pass out, cockroaches’ legs being cut off and rabbits being killed so students can examine their intestines.
John Gole, the department chair of Biology and Earth Science, said UCM often goes further than what’s required regarding laboratory protocol and said that some methods PETA listed on the site aren’t even practiced anymore.
“We aren’t required to run protocols on frogs, but we do it anyway, just simply to show that we are making a good faith effort and show that the animals don’t suffer extreme pain and distress. We don’t use rabbits anymore because we used to buy a rabbit for 12 inches of intestine and that bothered me enough that I said, ‘You know, we aren’t getting benefit out of doing that,’” Gole said. “So we do examine our protocol. We don’t look at parasites and frogs anymore, where they are dissected live. So some of the information that they put out to their membership is blatantly false.”
In the alert, after presenting what Gole claims is misinformation disguised as fact, PETA urged its followers to respond by telling them to “politely ask the University to end the animal experiments” by e-mailing George Wilson, provost and vice president of Academic Affairs. This has resulted in Wilson, as well as Gole, receiving a few hostile e-mails.
Responses lack research
The site does not urge its followers to further research the issue before contacting the University, sparking some to respond in a moment of distress. This has led some to believe that this may have inadvertently led to some of the threatening e-mails received.
“What I find disturbing is that some of their members that I got e-mails from, were totally misinformed as to what we do. They were making all kinds of accusations and some of them were threatening,” Gole said. “Those were the activist members, not necessarily PETA and their research people. But if [PETA] start[s] spreading things that simply aren’t true, then maybe they need to look at themselves a little bit.”
PETA cites records
When asked about the organization’s claims, Goodman seemed confident in the information from which they based their accusations.
“We requested the records, through the open records law, from the University via e-mail and they sent them to us directly,” Goodman said. “The law requires [faculty members] to seek out more modern methods available and we found in the records that they intentionally neglected doing so.”
However, Gole said that PETA is also misinformed about faculty members not looking into alternative methods.
“We have looked at sites, but haven’t documented what sites we looked at for alternatives. So now we are putting into our protocols that we did do it, and specifically, which ones we looked at,” Gole said. “Ultimately, they don’t have any authority to force us to do anything; we follow all federal protocols and we complied with the Sunshine Law by giving them all of our documentation within less than a day.”
University says otherwise
Wilson, who also indicated that the information provided on the Web site was misinformation, further refuted Goodman’s claims.
“The University is always current in meeting all required protocols and ethics,” Wilson said. “We do a very small amount of animal research as compared to other universities, and when we do, we follow all federal requirements.”
In response to these claims, Goodman remained firm that what the University is saying is simply false.
“That’s absolutely not true based on the accounts of the student who informed us and the records that we obtained from the University,” Goodman said. “The United States Department of Agriculture has filed a federal case investigating the use of these methods when there were more humane methods available—so, we will see.”
USDA complaint
However, Dave Sacks, spokesman for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said that an investigation is not yet underway.
“We haven’t even concluded what action will be taken in reference to this complaint. We received the complaint from PETA, which was sent August 25, and sent a letter to them saying that we received it and will look into it,” Sacks said. “All of the complaints we receive are taken very seriously, but, there are no other complaints about this particular research facility that make us believe there is gross negligence at work.”
PETA too extreme?
Wilson asks those looking into the issue to keep in mind who is making the accusations and remember the organization’s past actions.
“Remember that PETA is the same group that was upset with the President of the United States for swatting a fly, so they occasionally overreact,” Wilson said. “I have received over 7,000 form e-mails from people visiting their site. After reading them, I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of the people did no further research on the issue because they were all essentially the same.”
Gole also raised issues with PETA’s tactics when reacting to situations in the past.
“I don’t mean to minimalize what they are trying to do in any way because I can see where they are coming from, but on the other hand, I’m very leery of an activist group that is fully capable of breaking the law and them doing so has been documented in the past,” Gole said.
Past PETA attempts
Negating claims that PETA may occasionally overreact, Goodman said that this is not the first time that they have tried to resolve the issue with the University.
“Initially we wrote to the University, asking them to look into the issue, and didn’t receive a satisfactory response,” Goodman said. “So we went further and filed a complaint with the University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”
Given the fact that the issue stems from the lack of comprehensive documentation on the University’s part according to Gole, he indicated they will work to provide more comprehensive documentation in the future.
“PETA sent us some useful information. In other words, there are some things that we do need to clean up in our protocols,” Gole said. “Beyond that though, the protocols are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and we report to them, not PETA.”
No former complaints
Wilson also thought it important to note that the University has always passed review by saying,
“We have never had a single documented issue with research and experimentation performed here.”
Sacks confirmed Wilson’s claims and indicated that the University has never had issues with passing inspection.
“Each research institution is required to submit an annual report to be reviewed. In reference to this, I’m not aware of any other problems with this particular research facility in the past,” Sacks said.
