The proverbial hammer has come down on UCLA researchers testing the effects of methamphetamine withdrawal on animals.

On April 22, the campus was ablaze with the furor of the Animal Justice Project, protesting what they believe is the unfair treatment of animals by members of the university. This has become an annual occurrence on campus, as the experiment’s funding has now gone on for 22 years.

The issue at hand is a federal grant of more than $30 million that funds UCLA to test morphine treatments on rats. These experiments involve injecting their brains with said opiate. Ellen Ericksen, one of the protest organizers, said she believes it is “unethical, unnecessary and no humans benefit from it.”

But that’s much too unambiguous. Animal rights are very important from an ethical standpoint, and this is why we have legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985. These are not perfect laws, but they do provide some basic guidelines, such as defined standards of care for all warm-blooded animals, and as long as they are followed it would be unfair to call researchers unethical.

Unfortunately, animal testing cannot be abandoned yet, and protestors could better channel their efforts by lobbying for more legislation to protect the animals still in the system. Lobbying has recently directly lead to the complete ban of cosmetics tested on animals in European Union member states, and in the U.S., the Beagle Freedom Project achieved a victory when Minnesota allowed dogs used in taxpayer-funded experiments to be adopted after the end of experimentation – previously, they were euthanized. New regulations, such as tighter restrictions on the use of mice and rats, which represent the majority of all animals in experiments yet are not covered by the AWA of 1966, could also encourage researchers to develop new and improved research methods that do not involve animals.

Twenty-five years ago, children died 70 percent of the time within five years from leukemia, but after experimentation from animal testing, 80 percent of children now survive longer than five years with the disease. Insulin for diabetics was created by injecting pancreatic cell extracts into dogs. Inhalers for asthmatics, who number 300 million, of which 250,000 die every year were developed by testing on the lungs of guinea pigs. The testing currently in dispute, concerning meth addiction, has the potential to help about 1.2 million people who reported using meth to the National Institutes of Health.

At the same time, Robert Kavlock, the previous director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Computational Toxicology, told Science magazine, “We’re a long way away from animal-free toxicology.” Maurice Whelan, head of the Systems Toxicology Unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, told Science that models still cannot predict the bioavailability and biodistribution of a chemical or how it will be processed in the liver. Therefore, long-term testing is currently next to impossible to conduct without the testing of live organisms. There is almost no way that scientists with limited budgets working in capitalist countries would forgo cheaper and faster alternatives “just because.” There is obviously a need for further experiments of this nature if the transition has not been made. Scientists should aim to wean themselves off this reliance, but it is still a necessity because we lack the technology and knowledge.

And there are certainly alternatives to animal testing that can be lobbied for, namely in vitro testing, computer modeling and in some cases, human volunteers. The Humane Society of the United States points out that many common tests are quite easy to mimic in vitro, and that they can be much cheaper as well. The goal should be the eventual replacement of animals with models, and researchers have stuck to the the three R’s: reduce the amount of animals used, refine testing to reduce pain, distress, et cetera and replace animals with other methods. By following these principles and with new regulations, we can streamline the efforts of science toward developing animal-free alternatives.

We must look toward a future where we no longer need to use animals in labs, as we now have methods that are faster and even cheaper than the alternative. We must do it because, as the dominant species in the world, we must show empathy toward the plight of lab animals. But we cannot blindly ignore the benefits we have reaped from them. We cannot ignore that we are not yet proficient enough to abandon these methods entirely.

Join the Conversation

11 Comments

  1. Oh dear not another henchman for the vivisectors making experimenting on live animals, who do not have a choice but do have an inalienable right to life without fear or torture, sound reasonable. This kind of article is designed to encourage people to continue to look the other way and go about their business so the vivisection industry can continue their psychopathic torture un-inhibited.

    So let me ‘dissect’ Bekhzod’s arguments. First, The Animal Welfare Act does not cover mice, rats, birds or fish in any way at all. That means they are not counted and there is zero oversight, anything can be done to them and generally is. In a lot of the studies I looked at, if the results weren’t right the experimenters killed the rats and mice, threw them away and started with a fresh batch. Does that sound scientific?

    There are thousands of labs that experiment on animals in the U.S and maybe a dozen USDA inspectors checking on the animal’s welfare. The inspectors make appointments to come and inspect the labs; nothing could go wrong there then could it! Hundreds of labs are cited for violations of the animal welfare act every year.

    “Protestors could better channel their efforts.” I’ve always enjoyed someone else telling me where I should spend my energy and time but since I find animal experiments to be completely and utterly useless I will stick with exposing its lies thank you. Perhaps Bekhzod would be better channeling his efforts into actually reading about how animal experiments don’t work rather than hours writing op-eds spoon-fed to him by the likes of Edythe London.

    The cosmetics testing ban that is mentioned took 30 years to force into effect whilst animal experimenters fought it the whole way. During its inception, animal experimenters from the U.S traveled to Europe to work to stop it and see how they could stop it happening here in the U.S. Does that sound like people who are actively seeking an alternative to experimenting on animals? Nope and that is because it is a major money making business all around, which researchers refuse to give up even when it is not necessary and other protocols exist.

    The examples of successes quoted are also incorrect. Insulin experiments on animals effectively threw off diabetes research for decades because researchers could not reproduce the same results in animals they found in the autopsy of people who had died from it.

    Of course everything that is quoted in this article comes from animal experimenters themselves, does anyone really think that someone who makes their careers and millions of dollars out of animal experiments wouldn’t defend it to the hilt? In fact, the major advance in human health came about from simple hygiene. Studying diseases in humans might actually find the evasive cures animal experimenters have yet to find.

    If we put the same kind of money into human studies and educating people on prevention rather than cure perhaps we wouldn’t have so many people suffering. But then again, no one makes money out of healthy people do they.

    1. Hi Julia! I am familiar with animal research and think it is vitally important that we explain the reality of animal research to the public so that we can all face issues such as addiction, cancer, etc. as a united front.

      There are a couple things in your response I wanted to comment on:

      1. “The Animal Welfare Act does not cover mice, rats, birds or fish in any way at all. That means they are not counted and there is zero oversight, anything can be done to them and generally is.”

      While the first sentence is correct, these animals are indeed accounted for and their use is well regulated! There is an organization at UCLA and every other research institution called IACUC/OARO that is solely tasked with the welfare of research animals. In order to do ANYTHING to any vertebrate animal the procedure must be detailed along with its purpose and scientific rational. These experiments are approved by a board of senior scientists and under heavy scrutiny to ensure minimal discomfort and wasting of animals.

      Additionally there is also a Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine (DLAM) full of trained vets and vet-techs that will check animals weekly to ensure their welfare! They can and do shut down labs/experiments in the case of animal discomfort.

      http://ora.research.ucla.edu/oaro/Pages/index.aspx

      https://portal.dlam2.ucla.edu/Pages/Default.aspx

      2. “In a lot of the studies I looked at, if the results weren’t right the experimenters killed the rats and mice, threw them away and started with a fresh batch. Does that sound scientific?”

      If you could provide these studies I would like to take a look as well. It is a serious violation of research ethics to do something like this and if it did occur it would most certainly not be published. In the case where an experiment does not work, as scientists we learn from our results and do not do it again because that would be a waste of animals and money! You are correct that in most studies the animals are euthanized at the end in order to study their tissues. This is done under heavy anesthesia and in the most humane way possible, under the supervision of DLAM.

      3. “There are thousands of labs that experiment on animals in the U.S and maybe a dozen USDA inspectors checking on the animal’s welfare. The inspectors make appointments to come and inspect the labs; nothing could go wrong there then could it! Hundreds of labs are cited for violations of the animal welfare act every year.”

      The USDA is not responsible for research animal welfare. The burden lies on each university’s DLAM to inspect and check animal welfare. Every animal and animal facility is inspected weekly if not daily at some institutions! There are dozens of veterinarians and vet-tech’s for every animal facility. Unlike factory farms we do not and cannot neglect the health of our animals as that would be detrimental to both our consciences and research.

      Unfortunately there are minimal alternatives to animal research. You posit that we can preach prevention and human studies; however how do we educate someone to prevent autism? depression? cancer? And how do we test those preventive methods? Over thousands of years and a handful of human generations? Human studies are simply unfeasible for the vast majority of research, you cannot control a person’s entire life and then collect and study their tissue when you too are bound to the same lifespan.

      I really hope that what I have said will make a difference in your opinion, and that you can understand that animal researchers are conscientious human beings as well. I happen to agree with you that animal testing of cosmetics was an unnecessary evil and am glad we are rid of it, unfortunately no such alternatives exist for medical resarch.

      1. You jest right? The IACUC is staffed with vivisectors and their friends. When students from the Animal Law Society asked to join they were rejected. How on earth can you write this rubbish and think anyone will change their minds? UCLA has been in violation of the animal welfare act, on one occasion that we know about workers actually barred the way for inspectors to enter the lab! I cannot even express my contempt for this response. People who experiment on animals are not conscientious human beings at all. You have been forced by activist to take on ANY animal welfare regulations at all otherwise your barbarism would hold no boundaries. And, excuse me? “How do we educate people to prevent cancer? What on earth are you talking about how about the World Health Organizations report stating that most cancers are caused by lifestyle so people can start by stop eating meat. I don’t have the time to refute all of your preposterous claims right now but will later. In the meantime – look up the word gas lighting. That is what you are doing. The reports are called Deadly Doses and are available on the Animal Justice Project website. Oh and p.s – instead of hiding behind a fake name how about using your actual name!!! That way we can all see that the vivisectors at UCLA are behind this post.

        1. Vivisection of conscious living animals is not by any means a common practice at any labs on campus. You are fighting a straw-man there.

          I fully welcome these regulations because they make my life easier, I do not like to see animals suffer and neither do my colleagues. Again you inflate this straw-man image of brutal animal murderers, which we are not.

          Cancer is caused primarily by mutations in the genes that regulate cell reproduction. Chemicals that cause and exacerbate these mutations are present EVERYWHERE in the modern world, its not just meat as you claim. And you have yet to come up with preventative measures for addiction, autism, schizophrenia, hypertension, depression, PTSD, heart disease, lupus, alzheimers, etc.

          And I don’t reveal my name because if I did I’d be the target of death threats by misinformed animal rights activists.
          http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Firebombs-show-new-tactics-of-animal-activists-3202365.php

          You clearly don’t want to hear anything I say as it disagrees with your narrative. But if I reach one person my time wasn’t wasted.

          1. On the contrary. You are only interested in your own argument not anyone else’s. Typical of a vivisector, unless everyone agrees with YOU they are unworthy. Take Dr. Ray Greek and Dr. Larry Hansen. Both extremely well respected in their own field but because they oppose vivisection are dismissed out of hand and attacked by the animal experimenters. There are untold examples of why animal experimentation doesn’t work but clearly you are not interested in this argument either even when it is done by your own kind. You can see a few of the Doctors who do NOT support your claims specifically about cancer here http://www.safermedicines.org/page/quotes_cancer. So lets address a few of the options because YOU have yet to come up with a cure for any of the above mentioned diseases even after 30+ years of experimenting on animals to find one so why or how I should come up with multiple cures for diseases scientists and Doctors cannot do is quite incredible really. But, lets take heart disease – um diet ….I seem to remember President Clinton if not curing himself going a long way to curing himself with a vegan diet. http://www.pcrm.org/about/volunteer/preventing-and-reversing-heart-disease. Oh but there i go again, quoting Doctors you think are irrelevant because they don’t agree with the animal model. Please tell me how experimenting on animals is going to cure PTSD or addiction??? Read Dr. Gabor Mate, these ailments are induced by environment, economics basically our screwed up culture so how you are ever going to cure that with a pill is beyond anyone. It’s funny how you always play the “death threat” card when it is activists who are clearly in more danger than experimenters. We are the one’s who are targets of the FBI with legislation like the AETA which UCLA just happened to make deals with various Senators behind closed doors. Oh and lest i forget all the students who have been threatened with expulsion if they DARE to oppose vivisection or indeed even the faculty who were regularly threatened and raided because they opposed vivisection and only protected by their tenure. And please, don’t even mention the Jentsch car fire, particularly conveniently set just before UCLA went to Feinstein to beg for her to sponsor the AETA. No-one was ever caught for that and I wonder why? You think I’m going to change my mind after all of this and what we see goes on behind closed doors just because you plead some kind of victimhood!!! Anyone had any monkeys wake up during surgery recently? Anyone had any monkey feces thrown at them lately? Broken any rabbits legs have you lately? Forced a pregnant sheep to stand up 24/7 have you? I have often seen commentary from students who considered working in animal labs and how they were forced into it, how they became dulled to the pain and suffering. Ever wondered if that is where you are? Dulled to any pain and suffering you incur.

          2. And I’m going to add, here we are debating online when we should really be debating in front of an audience, something else UCLA vivisectors won’t do with people like Dr. Ray Greek. The last panel you had there UCLA REFUSED to make it a debate because you know hands down, debating with a peer you will not win.

  2. The author states that long-term testing is currently next to impossible to conduct without the testing of live organisms, because others have stated that no other toxicity model exists yet. The problem is 95% of all new drugs that have passed testing in non-human animal species then fail in human trials, and vice versa, drugs that fail in non-human animals may work real well in humans. Example: aspirin causes birth defects in rats, mice, cats, dogs, guinea pigs and monkeys but is considered safe for pregnant women. The list of failed tests is very long and this means the tests themselves are either completely worthless or very dangerous, because they are providing a false sense of security. Given that the number of prescription drug deaths are increasing and now up to about 100,000 each year in the U.S. it seems that scientists should quickly find another toxicity model and leave the non-human animals out of the their laboratories.

  3. In this day and age it is high time this sadism disguised as science is buried in history.no more.time to move onwards with kindness and compassion.

  4. Given that the number of prescription drug deaths are increasing and now up to about 100,000 each year in the U.S. it seems that scientists should quickly find another toxicity model and leave the non-human animals out of their laboratories.

  5. As a UCLA alumnus, I am especially concerned that my previous comment on this article was removed. Another person who argued against animal experimentation also had her comment removed. It was marked as “spam”. I know UCLA is determined to hide from its students and the public what happens in its animal laboratories. Is the university censoring speech on the issue?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *