Here is what I got for the December issue of The Noise, though it’s not just mine. This is the first time I’ve been able to co-write an article. I wrote this with fellow Noise compatriot, Sara Gamble. If the University simply said, “yeah, we test on animals; what r’ you gonna do about it?” this would have been much easier to write…
The atrocities discovered at Columbia University in 2003 revealed invasive surgeries leading to the death of baboons, other nonhuman primates, and many other animals. Some of the horrors include strokes artificially induced in baboons by removing their left eyeball to access and clamp a critical blood vessel, and monkeys with metal pipes surgically implanted in their skulls for the sole purpose of inducing stress in order to study connections between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. These animals were given nothing but aspirin for the pain, during or after the surgeries.
Some might argue that the torture of these animals is necessary for the progress of medical science, still the investigations revealed experiments that would be unnecessary by anyone’s standards. Experiments on the affects of nicotine (like we need to know nicotine is bad for us), morphine, as well as scores of pharmaceutical drugs (many of which are already on the market) continue to characterize animal research at Columbia.
Though Columbia University, a major research institution, may seem like the obvious poster-child for animal cruelty, the widespread use and abuse of animals in laboratories is dreadfully prevalent. Beyond the white walls and sterile atmosphere of many top research institutions, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and commercial facilities that provide test results to industry, the horrors do take place.
Nonhuman primates have been found with their brain exposed, some kept in isolation chambers wearing sensory deprivation devices that were installed at birth to study mental illnesses. Beagles have been found “debarked,” a procedure that basically rips the vocal chords out of dogs so researchers are not, as one website put it, “disturbed by the dog’s cries for attention.” Dogs, cats, rats, and others may have toxic chemicals poured on their skin, their eyes, and any other orifice that will yield quantifiable results that look pretty on research grant applications.
A nine-month investigation of IAMS dog food company revealed experiments involving chunks of muscle surgically removed from the thighs of dogs, and other experiments resulting in kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, and severe allergic reactions. Proctor & Gamble, who owns IAMS, has been in the spotlight for their malicious tests on animals in the name of household chemicals and cosmetics as well.
Those working on this issue know that this list, unfortunately, goes on and on.
Many groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.), Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (S.H.A.C.) and the Animal Liberation Front (A.L.F.) have brought significant and necessary attention to the way in which animals are treated behind locked doors. Northern Arizona University student and Animal Rights Now! (ARN!) campus president, Melanie Mauller has been a devoted animal rights activist for as long as she can remember and has helped to bring attention to this issue in Flagstaff.
“Growing up, I was always surrounded by all kinds of animals and never really viewed them as any different from myself.” After meeting like-minded folks in high school, and going vegan, she became active—educating people about the mistreatment of animals.
Not even a year old, ARN! has already accomplish a lot. Among other activities, ARN! has hosted a talk by Peter Young, who was recently released from prison after serving time for liberating thousands of mink from fur farms across the Midwest; they are also currently working with Sodexho, who provides campus food, to offer more vegan and vegetarian options, and they are also volunteering with Paw Placement.
Recently ARN! fell under Northern Arizona University’s paranoia radar (that’s NAU PR) when Ms. Mauller and others began asking questions about the University’s treatment of animals in its research labs.
Ever since ARN!’s questions have gained attention, the Biology Annex on Northern Arizona University’s campus has been shrouded in mystery. Even the University paper, The Lumberjack, referred to it as a building that “hardly resembles any of the other buildings; it is windowless apart from one widow on the side, shielded over by blinds” with signs that read “’DO NOT ENTER. THIS IS NOT A HALLWAY.’” Others have commented on the building’s cold cement floors and its locked, unmarked metal doors.
After weeks of persistence, ARN!’s questions were left unanswered. In fact, Ms. Mauller said that animal care supervisor Thomas Greene told her he was “indefinitely busy.” Eventually, Lisa Nelson of NAU Public Affairs responded, apologizing for the delay.
“Please know that any hesitation you may have encountered in getting a response from others is because people have legitimate safety and security concerns for themselves, the facility and the animals based on past acts of violence and vandalism around the country.” Not to discount Ms. Nelson’s concerns, but this is a good time to remind readers that even the most radical of activists, even those who have served prison time, have never harmed a living thing—human or nonhuman.
Ms. Nelson’s sentiments reflecting faculty concern for vandalism, however, hold more water. Laboratories across the country have been spray painted, smashed up, or even burned to the ground in an effort to free the animals and ensure the cruelty will not continue. In the film, Behind The Mask, the illuminating documentary on the Animal Liberation Front, animal rights icon Rod Coronado, who served four years for a series of fur farm raids in the early 90’s, explains the reasoning behind such vandalism. If animals are taken from laboratories, “all a researcher has to do is get on the phone…and order more research animals and they’ll be there within a week. It was because of that that we started employing arson.”
Unsatisfied with the glossy answers she received, which the NAU Public Affairs office called “well worded responses to inquiries,” and a lack of meaningful dialogue with those directly involved in research, Mauller and ARN! decided to hold a demonstration in front of the Biology Annex on November 5th.
Before the demonstration, NAU’s Public Affairs office sent an email out to faculty. “In recent months animal rights activity has increased here at NAU.” The email went on to warn faculty about the upcoming protest and suggested faculty “avoid these protesters if possible” and that police dressed in plain clothes would be keeping an eye on the protest.
Ms. Mauller, who also works at NAU, was forwarded an email that was sent to her boss that referred to her as a “threat to the university” and advised that if her activities continued she should be fired. The email also mentioned that President Haeger shares these views.
Still there are two big differences here that maybe NAU doesn’t see. ARN! wanted straight forward answers to simple questions and Melanie is not Rod Coranado. The demonstration was obviously peaceful and even included several faculty members who share ARN!’s concern for the animals and frustration with the lack of communication from the University on this issue.
Even after the demonstration, the intimidation and threats continued. A few days later Ms. Mauller attended a demonstration against Snowbowl and was approached by a police officer who, without knowing Melanie personally, said, “how are you doing today, Ms. Mauller?” Though the officer approached her in a friendly way, the message was clear: We’re watching you; we know who you are. It was “totally creepy,” said Mauller. “We are not given answers, we are ignored, we are intimidated…all of which would lead most people to become very suspicious of what’s really going on.”
This is how research facilities bring vandalism and threats of sabotage upon themselves. Every single instance where a lab has been raided and vandalized, first people simply asked questions. When questions are left unanswered, and activists are ignored and intimidated, it is quite predictable that they will look to more radical approaches.
So, what exactly is going on with the animals at NAU? Despite not talking to ARN!, research faculty at NAU did address questions from The Noise.
The first issue worth addressing is the difference between animal testing and animal research. At first, one might suspect this to be a cop out. For example, a logger who makes a living by deforesting the world’s remaining old growth isn’t going to admit their actions are “deforestation” at all. In order to sleep at night, they are “developing natural resources.” Still, the trees end up dead no matter what. On the surface, it seems as though a similar rhetorical trick might be at work here. However, this is not the case.
According to a recent editorial to The Lumberjack, signed by seven members of NAU’s research faculty, “There is no “animal testing” at NAU, in the sense of using animals as surrogates for humans in testing the safety or efficacy of different products. There is, however, a wide variety of research that uses animals.”
Although university research is held to more stringent animal care standards than other private firms or for-profit companies, there is an element of ambiguity surrounding the issue because the public cannot see what’s going on inside the Biological Sciences Annex. “There’s an important reason why those doors are locked” according to Lee Drickamer, NAU Interim Vice President for Research and Regents’ Professor, “Nowhere in the country are people allowed into, at universities, the animal quarters or approved facilities and that’s for two reasons: one is to protect your health, and perhaps even more importantly to protect the health of the animals.” According to NAU’s Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs, Thomas Bauer, “federal regulations prohibit visitors to the [animal research] facility.”
Animal research at NAU is funded by grant money, mostly from the federal government and institutions like the National Science Foundation. Drickamer estimates that about 100-200 laboratory mice, 100 laboratory rats, six ducks, 12-15 varieties of reptiles and amphibians, a small colony of opossums and several dozen fish are currently in use at the University. Rodents come from companies such as Jackson Laboratories, while other animals are brought in from the wild, or bred on site. Research on these animals includes the study of the development and evolution of the jaw apparatus, the role of uranium as an estrogen blocker and oxygen levels in the respiratory systems and hearts of ducks.
According to Drickamer, much of the animal research at NAU is done for the further conservation and understanding of animals, the rest of it is bio-medical, wherein animals are used as models for understanding the functions of human beings. “The welfare of the animals is our primary concern, because we don’t get good answers, we’re essentially wasting the lives of some of those rats or mice if we’re not doing things properly—caring for them properly, doing all the other parts of the research process properly.”
Part of the tension between animal researchers and animal rights activists lies in this understanding of “welfare.” Wherein researcher’s primary concern for the animals lies in the quality of “answers” received from test results, animal rights activists see animals’ lives as no less important than our own. Indeed, nobody can claim that the life of a lab rat means any less to that rat than our own lives mean to us. The “welfare” of the animals lies in understanding that all animals, whether they are born in the wild or in a laboratory, have a right to an autonomous life. This logic applies to zoos, to factory farms, and any other scenario where nonhuman animals are exploited.
Drickamer went on to say, “If we accept the premise that animals are necessary as testing or research models for doing things related to human health or their own health or to conservation, then there will be animals used in research, but our first goal then is to make sure that they’re healthy.”
The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) requires that an animal-use protocol be completed and approved before the acquisition of any vertebrate animal for laboratory purposes. Locally, a committee including a community member and non scientists will review these protocols. The Animal Welfare Act, on which this protocol is partially based, covers only warm-blooded, vertebrate animals but excludes laboratory raised mice and rats among other animals, however NAU’s policy extends to all vertebrate animals, warm or cold blooded, born in a laboratory or in the wild. (More information on the regulations and procedures can be found at the University’s research page.
Another, more obvious, point of tension between animal researchers and animal rights activists lies in a difference in perception. Animal rights activists, by and large, do not accept the premise that “animals are necessary as testing or research models.”
On the one hand, researchers will tell you that there is work being done to find alternatives to using animals. Included in the IACUC protocol are provisions to prevent unnecessary animal research— this includes avoiding redundant, excessive, or unduly painful research. ‘The Three R’s of Animal Research’ are followed: 1. Reduce—use the fewest animals necessary to obtain statistical significance. 2. Refine—use less painful or invasive techniques. 3. Replace—replace animals with non-animal systems (computer models, tissue culture, etc.).
Still the clash of perception runs deeper than the content of any protocol. For example, as mentioned above, many of the mice delivered to NAU for research are from Jackson Laboratories; according to their website, they aren’t actually individual mice with individual, autonomous lives at all. Instead they are branded “JAX® Mice.” As long as they are JAX® Mice, they will be treated like JAX® Mice. But of course they are rodents just the same, no different than one you might find scurrying into a hole as you approach in the woods. The difference is this: the one you see in the woods is living the life it was meant to live, while JAX® Mice are bred specifically for the use of humans.
Drickamer echoed the sentiments of many of those who support animal research. “You go to the doctor and you get a prescription for an antibiotic, in an indirect sense, you’re saying that animal research is okay.” Applied to other scenarios, however, major holes in this logic are revealed. For example, if you go to the store and purchase toilet paper, does that mean you think deforestation is okay? If you’re cold and need to buy a jacket, does that mean you’re okay with child labor?
As Mauller explained, we’re privileged enough “not to realize that [our] actions have costs and we live in a society that tells us it’s okay to be naive to those consequences.” This ‘priviledged life’ depends on a profound disconnect between production and consumption, which means that even discovering the social and environmental ramifications of our choices and purchases is often difficult to do, and avoiding products or actions that directly cause harm to other living beings is even more challenging.
In his book, The Culture of Make Believe, author and activist Derrick Jensen wrote, regarding our inescapable and systematic connection with exploitation, “No matter how clear my perception or how pure my intent, as a consumer in a global economy I’m still drawn into situations that as a human I find abhorrent.”
The point is, just because we’re dependent on a system that is based on exploitation doesn’t make us personally accountable for it. Illuminating this exploitation, however, does give us the responsibility to stop it.
