After years of hostility between UCLA scientists and animal rights supporters over the ethics of animal research, the two sides have recently attempted to improve and open the lines of communication.
This comes at a time when violence against UCLA researchers by a minority of animal rights activists is at an all-time high ““ attacks have included four firebombings since the beginning of 2008.
Speaking with animal rights supporters is a necessary step toward resolving the conflict, said David Jentsch, an associate professor of psychology and the founder of Pro-Test at UCLA.
“When you battle it out, you tend not to treat the other side like they’re human beings,” Jentsch said. “Before I talked with (animal rights supporters), they saw me as a monster. Now … they see that I have good motivations, even if we’re not in complete agreement.”
Jentsch said he has spoken recently with representatives from Bruins for Animals, a student group.
Both sides said the debate over animal research is moving in the right direction.
Still, a number of issues stood out on which they strongly disagreed.
Jentsch, who uses nonhuman primates to study the effects of addiction on mental functions, said animal research is an unfortunate but necessary tool for scientific and medical advancement.
Researchers already take steps to reduce the number of animals used in experiments and to treat research animals humanely, he said.
The task of overseeing UCLA’s animal research falls on the Animal Research Committee, which examines and approves every proposed experiment.
Jentsch, who serves on the committee, summarized his job according to the “three R’s:” reduce the number of animals in an experiment, refine the care of animals used and replace animals with alternatives where possible.
Conditions for animals have vastly improved over what they were in the past, Jentsch said.
“What happened 30 to 40 years ago is regrettable, and we know now that you can treat animals better and still get the same scientific results,” he said.
UCLA’s animals are cared for by a staff of nearly 100 veterinarians and animal technicians who examine them on a daily basis and look for signs of distress, said Kathy Wadsworth, the associate director of animal subject research. The animals are kept in social environments, are given things to do and receive sufficient food and water.
“It might be hard to accept, but it is absolutely true that nobody in the world is interested in the welfare of animals more than the researchers who work with them,” Jentsch said.
Animal rights supporters, however, say animal research is not an ethical or acceptable end for scientific experimentation, especially given recent advancements in alternative technologies.
“Currently there is a lack of exposure to alternatives to animal testing,” said Emmanuel Masongsong, a Bruins for Animals spokesman.
Masongsong graduated from UCLA in 2004 with a degree in microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics. He began interning in a UCLA research laboratory his first year and now works there as an employee.
He said he does not use animals in his research and instead advocates alternative experimental methods.
“When I was an undergrad I had no idea what alternatives were, and I thought you had to test on animals,” he continued.
Masongsong said many talented students have likely reconsidered careers in medicine or research because they do not want to experiment on animals.
He proposed devoting more resources to teaching students how to perform cell cultures and use imaging technology in biological research. Some schools such as UC Davis and Johns Hopkins University have specific programs devoted to animal research alternatives.
Groups like Bruins for Animals are often stigmatized as being opposed to scientific progress, because they support alternatives to animal research, Masongsong said.
“I think a lot of researchers are pretty antagonistic about people who advocate for animal welfare,” he added. “They want us to know they’re doing their best, so we should just lay off.”
Megan Wyeth, a graduate student who uses mice in her research on epilepsy, said groups like Bruins for Animals are well-intentioned, although she said she does not know much about their opinions or proposals.
Wyeth is among researchers who doubt animal research can ever be completely replaced.
“It’s true we’ve made tremendous advances in new technologies, but the brain, for example, is still mind-boggling in its complexity,” Wyeth said. “Right now, (functional magnetic resonance imaging) can only look at whole regions of the brain. In my research we’re analyzing individual neurons ““ nanometers in length.”
She said it is of vital medical importance to learn more about the disease, which affects about 50 million people worldwide. Though there are alternatives to using animals in epileptic research, there is no replacement for a living, intact brain, she added.
Concerns have been raised that additional funding for alternative technologies would take money away from animal research, which has more immediate relevance.
Wadsworth said that, despite differences in opinions, the university would like to work with Bruins for Animals to search for animal research alternatives.
“We do reach out to undergraduates and graduate students about alternative methods, but we could always do more,” she said.
The university held a conference last year on alternative research methods, which was organized with help from Bruins for Animals.
Masongsong said this conference was a good start, but more needs to be done.
“I don’t think that the current, piecemeal educational strategy for alternatives to animal research is going to be effective,” he said. “I don’t doubt the university advocates animal welfare, but until more people are involved I don’t think there is going to be a much wider perspective.”
Masongsong said a concrete timetable should be established for the eventual elimination of all animal research.
“Just like we’re seeing with research into alternative fuels, there’s a lot of initial resistance, he added.
But until a timetable is defined, scientists will not seriously consider using alternative research methods, he continued.
Masongsong said that violence is not the right way or a constructive way to try to convince researchers to change their methods.
“Anyone who advocates violence is completely hypocritical,” he said. “Hurting people does nothing to expose the suffering of animals.”
Jentsch explained that he is looking forward to continuing discussions with Bruins for Animals in the near future.
“Once you begin to have a productive discussion, that’s when you really start making progress,” he said.