In a world where people strap bombs to their bodies and blow up other humans, is it too much to ask that we reconsider how we treat animals used in scientific research? Does the book of Genesis statement that man has "dominion over all animals" justify cruel and sadistic experiments committed in the name of understanding?
As a scientist and an atheist, I don't think so. I believe that how we treat those that are less powerful than ourselves is a reflection of how a society values life and ipso facto the value of that society.
A few weeks ago, author Jane Mayer's book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, brought controversy to Penn's campus with the charge that University professor Martin Seligman gave a lecture for the US Air Force SERE program (short for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape), with CIA personnel present, regarding his "learned helplessness" theory and its use in resisting torture in enemy captivity. (Full disclosure: Dr. Seligman is the father of an SP news editor.)
Dr. Seligman denies that his work was meant to be used in extreme CIA interrogation techniques, but there is no denying he built his theory on research that involved dogs being electrocuted in cages for five seconds, every minute, for an hour, with no way to escape the trauma. Dr. Seligman communicated to me that the voltage was set to "moderately painful" although I would have liked to hear that from one of the dogs. The conclusion was that these poor animals became utterly depressed and apathetic. Could we have figured this out without physically and mentally torturing man's best friend? I fail to see the value in such knowledge (unless I worked at a CIA black-site prison).
There are many examples of gruesome research for our collective benefit, but few are as dreadful as the studies by comparative psychologist Harry Harlow at the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Harlow constructed metal chambers called "pits of despair" where he placed baby rhesus macaque monkeys to see what cold hard solitary confinement would do to their minds.
Surprise! The monkeys were soon psychotic and incapable of interacting with other monkeys.
After up to a year in the chambers, some females were impregnated on "rape racks." Is it really worth knowing that some demented mothers smashed their babys' skulls in while others ate parts of their still-living children?
As a biomedical Ph.D. student studying the human immunodeficiency virus, I accept that our experiments often lead to trials in which non-human primates are given engineered viruses, vaccine candidates, or anti-retroviral drugs to determine if they are safe and effective in human beings. This frequently results in sacrificing the life of the monkey - but I believe that so long as they are treated with respect, and the research is necessary, the ends are justified. While groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal Liberation Front are too extreme in their quest that no animals be harmed in medical research, and the recent attacks on scientists in California are outrageous, I do think someone needs to speak for those who suffer and die for our benefit.
So where do we draw the line? Most Americans think eating meat is okay, and I couldn't live without a good steak now and then. But what about killing animals for sport? I grew up with a father who loves to hunt but eats everything he shoots, and I myself have killed for food. Do we draw the line at dog fights where they tear each other apart so people can place bets and win money?
What about the infamous experiments at Penn in the 1980s in which baboons had their skulls bashed in to study traumatic brain injuries - while the researchers filmed themselves laughing and mocking the poor creatures?
I have done volunteer work with the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society for the past two years. As a result I have seen firsthand the brutality that our neighbors regularly inflict on animals. If anyone doubts what I am talking about, I suggest they spend one hour in the receiving room at the Philadelphia Animal Control facility. The lack of empathy for those that depend on our kindness is appalling.
The line between unnecessary cruelty and conscientious research must be clearly drawn. This line is one that, when crossed, leads to the degradation of all living beings ª- and we see the effect as our society passively accepts our government torturing suspects for information.
Animal cruelty laws need to be stiffened and the research community needs to think long and hard about how animals that give their bodies and minds for our collective benefit are treated.
George Leslie is a PhD candidate in Cell and Molecular Biology. His e-mail is georgejl@mail.med.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
