Animal testing information available, thorough
Some people love conspiracy theories, no matter how outlandish. State News readers have been subjected to such people claiming that animals are abused in “secretive” research at MSU, but the claims evaporate when the facts surface.
In its fundraising efforts, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals chose one researcher from each of 16 basketball powerhouses for a mock NCAA playoff of “worst researcher.” MSU’s strong basketball program meant PETA had to find a researcher here to pick on, so they chose Professor Arthur Weber because he works with cats, testing treatments that might save eyesight in people with glaucoma. PETA described this as “removing their eyes while they’re still alive,” to trick readers into picturing the animals squirming in pain. In reality, the cats are always deeply anesthetized during the procedure and after the eye is removed (to measure the effectiveness of therapies), the cat is euthanized. These procedures were reviewed by veterinary ophthalmologists, who sometimes remove an eye from animals to prevent further damage because of disease, so the animal is never subjected to any pain or suffering. For those animals in survival surgeries, the cats are again fully anesthetized, given drugs to prevent pain, and afterward play like the rest of their cat roommates. I know because these experiments, like all experiments with animals at MSU, are published in journals open to any library user. Plus, I chair the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that must review and approve any animal research before it can begin. Furthermore, the USDA has made 21 surprise inspections at MSU since Professor Weber has been here and found no problems in his cat subjects: no postsurgical complications, no disease, no signs of anything but happy, healthy cats.
PETA left out the anesthesia, analgesia, IACUC and USDA oversight to mislead people about what’s really going on. PETA also failed to mention it is opposed to all research with animals, even if it’s humanely done, and even if the research saves millions of human lives. PETA doesn’t emphasize their true position because most Americans see it as fanatical, the type of thinking that might incite terrorists to firebomb Anthony Hall (as was done in 1992). PETA continues to mislead members and donors by saying it opposes only inhumane research, and then describe any animal research as inhumane by leaving out details such as anesthesia, painkillers, inspections, etc.
Students Promoting Animal Rights, or SPAR, President Drew Winter’s conspiracy theory is computer models can replace animal research. If Winter has a computer model that will produce a cure for glaucoma, he should crank it up and make himself exceedingly rich. But the odds are not good, since the number of therapies or cures that have been discovered by computer modeling without animal research is precisely zero. Indeed, how could you model anything as complicated as the eye until you know something about how it works to set your parameters? Maybe that is why biomedical scientists, who know a lot more about glaucoma than Winter does, and presumably have at least as deep a desire to find cures, pursue research with animals. If Winter had consulted our IACUC Web site, he would have learned that we require every investigator to justify why animals must be used, and to demonstrate that they have searched for alternatives. Some months ago, I contacted SPAR and offered to meet with them to explain how we make sure animal research at MSU is done humanely, but the group declined. Some conspiracy theories are just too precious to expose to facts.
Marc Breedlove
Barnett Rosenberg Professor of Neuroscience and chair of MSU’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
Published on Sunday, April 20, 2008
Comments
J. Edward Tremlett
04/20/08 @ 7:48pm
Well, that was the rebuttal to end all rebuttals.
SPAR-boy? Got an answer for that?
Get Your Facts Straight
04/20/08 @ 8:17pm
TOTAL PAWNAGE
Mr. Winter:
You just got SERVED.
Mike Saelim
04/20/08 @ 10:07pm
Oh snap! Now that is a rebuttal.
Dr. Breedlove just totally made my earlier comments entirely unnecessary.
Niiiice
04/21/08 @ 7:38am
What a brilliant, well thought out, and well constructed letter. Thank you.
Agent5
04/21/08 @ 8:41am
My faith in the opinion section of this website has been restored. Thank you, Dr. Breedlove, for allowing intelligence and thoughtfulness to shine through the sea of diarrhea that is the usual fare of the letters to the editor. Well done!
Dave
04/21/08 @ 9:03am
Thank you Dr. Breedlove.
WooHoo
04/21/08 @ 9:18am
The last 2 sentences are perfect. Extremism is unconcerned with facts. They simply get in they way of zealotry.
Angry Lady who loves her some chicken and fries.
04/21/08 @ 9:24am
I just found a rat in my french fries and a chicken claw in my nuggets….and it’s all MSU’s fault! SCREW YOU HOUSING AND FOOD SERVICES! AND NO MORE CHICKEN FRIES!!!!!!!
Abuser of Animals
04/21/08 @ 9:26am
Yeaaaaaah we gotta abuse – I mean, help – the SHIT out of those animals! Cats are so much happier without eyes, especially when they are euthanized afterwards! Yeaaaah euthanize the SHIT out of those cats —- VIVA RON PAUL 2008!
Communists love killing animals
04/21/08 @ 9:30am
I frequently enjoy taking copious amounts of dead cat heads and flinging them at oncoming traffic. Then I take huge dumps. – Kyle Bristow
I Love Marc
04/21/08 @ 11:56am
Marc Breedlove for President!
Anyone who believes that cutting cats eyes out and then killing them is ethically acceptable deserves my vote. I’m not even creeped out that his name is Breedlove.
Marc, Just wash that blood off yours hands and get to campaigning. Or does it not wash off too easily???
Question for Marc
04/21/08 @ 11:59am
Marc Breedlove I have a question for you:
How would you like to have your eyes taken out of your face while you were still alive, and then killed a week later?
Oh yeah, it will help people… save millions of lives.
BS! Those cats didn’t deserve this fate nor did they want it. Leave them alone and find something else to get off to.
question
04/21/08 @ 12:18pm
I wonder if the people here complaining about cat treatment would instead volunteer themselves for the same procedure to save the cat.
eric
04/21/08 @ 12:29pm
question for marc-
He is not a cat. He (marc) feels for others, as a human. Cats do not feel for others. Therefore, your question is moot.
Emily Rubino
04/21/08 @ 12:30pm
If you must comment on this topic, shouldn’t you at least have the guts to use your name?
Here’s the real itch, boatloads of cats are killed every day in animal shelters. I’m not terribly happy about that fact, but it is a fact. At least these cats will have served a purpose in their short lives.
Were Mr. Breedlove to “find something else to get off to” these cats would be euthanized at the SPCA, but hey, at least they’d have both eyes!!
Marc Breedlove
04/21/08 @ 12:37pm
Dear Question for Marc,
You have your facts wrong, presumably because you got them from the PETA website where they say that Professor Weber removes the eyes and euthanizes the animals a week later. This does NOT happen. The PETA site is wrong. As I said in the published letter, the only time eyes are removed are at the end of the experiment and the animal is euthanized immediately without ever waking up.
Please stop thinking the PETA website is a reliable source of information. It is not. BTW, I emailed them to inform them of their mistake, but they never responded. They are not very interested in being accurate.
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 12:37pm
I feel like this letter would have been a lot weaker if the author hadn’t resorted to personal attacks and calling them “conspiracy theorists who are too precious for facts”.. the fact remains that they cut the cats’ eyes out while they are still alive and then kill them. Some people are okay with that and others are not, but calling them ‘outlandish conspiracy theories’ which ‘evaporate when the facts surface’ is hyperbole.. Maybe you didn’t get the memo, Breedlove, but you are not the be-all-and-end-all on animal rights. PETA’s position has been clear to me for a long time so I don’t know what you’re talking about them hiding it. While your PhD means you went through a bunch of schooling, it doesn’t mean you’re that much wiser to make all ethical decisions and chastise anyone who disagrees with you.
common sense
04/21/08 @ 12:46pm
Marc Breedlove, you have singlehandedly tripled the average opinion writer IQ for the entire academic year. Well done!
I’m a vegetarian, I save enough animals, and I’m not entirely sure I like animals being used for research, but PETA and SPAR are going to new lows by misrepresenting themselves and others.
If you have a problem with a cat having an eye removed and immediately euthanized without feeling any pain, say so, more power to you. But to guise it as being against cats having eyes removed while alive, neglecting the anesthesia bit, and making it sound secretive, that’s making a strawman, and you’ll find a good job with the Bush administration.
lippi you rocket scientist
04/21/08 @ 12:50pm
Lippi,
Breedlove didn’t chastise them for having that opinion. He chastised them for misrepresenting everything and flat out lying, and portraying Breedlove as some kind of animal hating fiend.
They flat out LIED. LIED. They LIED about it being secretive (it’s not), PETA LIED about the procedure, and the only reason they even complained about MSU is because we have a good basketball team (WTF?). Some cute marketing grad working for PETA decided to go with it, and he’ll be damned, he was going to make this Sweet Sixteen theme work one way or another, and some poor prof got caught.
I would be effing pissed if someone LIED about me and ignored me when I tried to set the facts straight. They’re called peer review journals, they’re not top secret.
The other expose that came out of this is how little research the SN editorial board does….
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 1:01pm
I haven’t read everything state news has published on this story, but what I had heard was that the cats had their eyes removed while they were still alive. Thats true. A lot of people do not consider that “Humane”, even though IACUC does. A different definition of Humane would probably not allow IACUC to do the types of research it does. Some people, knowing all the facts, are still opposed to this type of research. “Misrepresenting” in your book means not buying into the same definition of humane, and not emphasizing the fact that the animals are anesthetized and such, as if that somehow makes it okay. If we are saying that animals deserve ‘humane’ treatment at all, which we are by anesthetizing them, then its pretty valid for people to bring up the fact that these creatures which must be treated humanely are having their eyes cut out and then killed.
Fredrik
04/21/08 @ 1:51pm
Curious how an opinion letter oriented in favor of the masses receives such an affirmative response.
Also, I fail to see anything deceptive from SPAR. PETA may have implied that the cats experience pain, and if it is not so, then that is misleading, but SPAR only denounced the research and encouraged alternatives; I don’t understand how a value judgment could be misleading. In fact, this opinion letter rests on a value judgment. Despite allegedly revealing the truth about Weber’s use of anesthesia, Breedlove has disregarded the most rudimentary consequence of the surgery, viz., leaving the cats without eyes! Okay, they can’t feel pain, but why is nothing noted about the removal of the eyes?! The fact is nobody here cares about animal welfare and rights, and even under unnecessary conditions, the masses will accept animal exploitation because it’s not happening to them. I bet if it were even human exploitation that as long as it wasn’t happening to them, the masses would allow it; oh wait, that does happen, all around the world. I just won a bet, to myself.
Jacob
04/21/08 @ 1:58pm
Lippi,
The SN, Peta, and Spar misrepresented themselves and lied because they (and you) have a philiosphical disagreement with the way death is initiated and the consequences upon reality and emotional understanding. You are correct, to some people, the drugs that remove pain, etc… do not negate the fact that you are killing animals.
However, most of the public doesn’t view it this way. So when you misrepresent the facts of the case in order to convince a large group of people, you have to at least try to play by their rules and morals too. If you simply want to battle beliefs against beliefs go to church.
But on a side note, cats, dogs, and even humans are danerously overpopulated. All three of the above species needs drastic reductions in population. As Gore Vidal said, “we have six billion people on a small planet built for two.” Thus, I suggest you rethink the moral implications of scientific research that involves death. Remember, death is part of the circle of life- and while I wouldn’t want to be a little kitty cat whose eyes are about to be removed, there is some logic in the fact that the cat has to die anyways and it is for greater feline and human good. (Remember, this research can help cure glaucoma in cats too).
Klaus
04/21/08 @ 2:13pm
Here’s a vote for no animal testing, period. We’ve made plenty enough medical progress, there’s no need to go further. We know enough to help many people in this world, and until they’re all helped with the information we have now, it is selfish and western-centric to keep pushing research while others are suffering.
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 2:13pm
I’m still not sure what exactly is happening with these cats, in the article written by Mike Blasky, Breedlove is quoted as saying “The animals are completely anesthetized, receive painkillers, and once the animals come out of the anesthesia, 10 minutes later you can’t tell the difference,” So I’m having trouble figuring out what is being misrepresented, and by whom.
Most of the public keeps by the philosophy, “out of sight, out of mind”,when it comes to animal rights, and most of the time I do too. Groups like PETA bring these abuses into public focus by using shock tactics.
And no, when debating, I do not have to argue within the public’s rules and morals, but thanks for the suggestion. Battling beliefs against beliefs is fruitless until you treat them like ideas, and then people change their minds and opinions.
To address your side note, that is scary. We have no idea what the carrying capacity of the earth will become with new technology, and actively reducing populations by mass killings is really not okay even if you do justify it by the fact that ‘the earth is overpopulated’ thankfully you are not God and you don’t get to make those decisions.
And yes, it is a good debate as to whether the maltreatment of animals is okay if it contributes to humanity/science/etc, what things do we consider deserving of ethical rights and what those rights should be.
Marie
04/21/08 @ 2:16pm
Fredrik, you must have missed this part of Dr. Breedlove’s posted response: “As I said in the published letter, the only time eyes are removed are at the end of the experiment and the animal is euthanized immediately without ever waking up.”
when posting “Breedlove has disregarded the most rudimentary consequence of the surgery, viz., leaving the cats without eyes!”
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or just trolling with the rest of your post, so uh, good job.
Sigh
04/21/08 @ 2:19pm
Did you hear that some people have their appendixes removed while they’re…gasp…ALIVE?! REMOVED! ALIVE! A-L-I-V-E!
Just wow
04/21/08 @ 2:20pm
“We’ve made plenty enough medical progress, there’s no need to go further. We know enough to help many people in this world, and until they’re all helped with the information we have now, it is selfish and western-centric to keep pushing research while others are suffering.”
wow.
Just wow
I hope you never have a loved one suffering from a terrible and painful disease.
Fredrik
04/21/08 @ 2:24pm
Jacob, please. It is given that there is a human benefit to removing cats eyes, but to forever justify it on the grounds of “circle of life” and that cats will have to die anyways is dumbfounding. The “greater human good” is the ideology we should strive to forget, because you could easily justify using humans for the greater good, does nobody see the hypocrisy in these principles?! Alas, the human good isn’t the greatest good, as well. We’re not alone in this world, why are we acting like it? Survival of the fittest and eat or be eaten doesn’t apply to how we live, or how animals really live, so why must we fear coexistence? I think Hobbes got it wrong.
Fredrik
04/21/08 @ 2:27pm
Marie, I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out, but that just makes this whole process worse.
J-money
04/21/08 @ 2:34pm
Anyone notice another issue inherent in this debate. Here are a few premises. First, animals are equal in every way ethically to humans. Second, even though the cats do not feel pain, it is wrong to kill them. Lastly, the majority of cats could never survive in the wild due to breeding by humans.
Taking this into account, how many PETA members do you find protesting abortion clinics? Even if the fetus cannot feel pain, according to PETA’s “ethics” it is still wrong to abort the fetus. And like cats, fetuses typically cannot survive outside of the womb.
Does anyone have figures on what percentage of PETA members are pro-choice?
Marie
04/21/08 @ 2:50pm
It’s easy for healthy, 20-something year old Americans to hate animal research. We’ve already benefited from advancements and have yet to experience many experiences that come with age (like, say, glaucoma).
Do you enjoy not having rabies, polio, or smallpox? Even if you haven’t personally been vaccinated for these or other diseases your quality of life is DRASTICALLY better because a century ago some experiments were done on rabbits, chickens and dogs. If you really find any animal research deplorable you should convert to Christian Science and forgo all the offerings of modern medicine.
The Crime Lab
04/21/08 @ 3:44pm
Apparently dogs and cats are on the same societal level as humans. I, for one, now call upon the powers that be to ensure that dogs and cats who kill other dogs and cats in alleys, backyard rumbles, and extreme-fighting cage matches be brought to justice for the horrific murders they have committed. Let any cat who has killed a bird, rodent, or other mammal be brought in for questioning.
If we are to apply human standards to them and consider their use in research as murder, we must also assume that killing one another also counts as murder.
Let us begin to purge the world of these murderers! We must stop the violence! Think of the poor mice and birds that go orphaned due to the horrific murder, mutilation, and consumption imposed on their parents by these mammalian monsters!
Jacob
04/21/08 @ 3:46pm
Frederik and Lippi,
I actually wasn’t addressing Hobbes or any other philosopher specifically.
I was simply pointing out the idiocy in your policy of always addressing moral absolutes as finite and perfect. Society believes life is always good- yet, with a smaller population, we would be better able to feed and provide for one another. And if you don’t believe in the danger of over-population- I suggest you investigate the dangers of global warming, the lack of food, the destruction of the environment to support global human activities, etc… The policy that life is the only answer is childish and selfish.
But you are right, the human good isn’t always the greatest good- thus we should strive to not destroy the envrionment and control our own breeding and consumerist habit less we destroy everyone. By the way, the circle of life is not an end all argument- but it is certainly a better argument than simply saying we should never kill anything. I’m mainly stating that life and death are compliments, and in order for our world to work we need both. I’m not stating one way or the other that killing cats is bad or good- but keeping them alive morally is no worse than killing them. It is the reasons and actions behind their lives and deaths that matter.
And I never said you “have” to argue within the public rules and morals. But if you don’t attempt to concede anything, then you will never get anywhere.
And to address your scare tactics- we actively euthanize many cats and dogs everyday. Further, we help control our pet population by spaying or neutering. Oh yeah, Lippi, once again you resort to ill-defined emotional arguments in an attempt to convince people that you have actually thought something out.
Rather, for those of us who recognize that the world is colored in with shades of gray and not simply black, white, good, evil, we will continue to have intellectual discussions.
Jack
04/21/08 @ 4:21pm
Question for those that oppose animal testing.
1. You have a serious illness that without treatment would cause death.
2. A treatment exists, but it was developed using animal testing.
Would you
A. Accept the treatment to save your life?
B. Turn down the treatment because it was developed through animal testing?
I’m pretty sure I know the answer.
Just facts
04/21/08 @ 4:32pm
Animals have been put on this earth for their own reasons, not to be our test tubes or torture victims.
“Looking out for your baby or your friend is easy, the test of moral fiber is to stick up for those you relate to least. Those you understand minimally, and those you think are not that much like you.”
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 4:38pm
whatever Jacob
It sounded like you were calling for genocide and restrictions on human reproduction, which I called scary. I then went on to explain that you are not God and do not get to make those decisions. I should’ve just assumed you were right because you’re evolved enough to see the world in shades of gray and not simply black,white,good and evil. I’ll keep it in mind. Maybe you should preface all your posts with it so no one ever questions you. But if I did that how would we continue to have intellectual discussions!?
AHH!
MSUAlum2001
04/21/08 @ 4:54pm
Forgive me because I haven’t gone back to read the articles, but where exactly does Dr. Weber get his cats? How many a year are actually euthanized? Anyway, if the cats are “lab” cats, then they were bred specifically for this purpose. If they were cats obtained from shelters then Dr. Weber is giving them a longer life than they would have had in a shelter, where in most cases if they can’t find a home for them in few weeks they are put down.
And let me ask those who are vehemently against this, is this the next Anthony Hall incident(s)? You know the one where PETA and the ALF torched the building? And they also “rescued” minks from a lab and released them into the wild only to have them die within a week because they couldn’t survive out in the wild!
Mike Saelim
04/21/08 @ 5:04pm
http://tiny.cc/P4iNj
If you click through the link to the Investigative Opthamology and Visual Science journal page, you can click “Full Text” in the upper-right-hand corner to access the PDF with Dr. Weber’s paper on his glaucoma research. On pages 4-6, you can easily read their exact procedure.
Justin Lippi and Fredrik, I suggest that you read this, to find out what actually goes on.
You’ll see that everything Dr. Breedlove has claimed is corroborated and substantiated by the experimental procedure used by Dr. Weber. This account, and only this account, is the truthful story about the procedures – the only primary source, if you will. If it weren’t truthful, other researchers would not be able to reproduce Dr. Weber’s results, and he would be immediately labeled a fraud in the scientific community.
Happy reading! In case you do not fully understand some of the terminology used, I’m sure that if you email Dr. Breedlove, he would be happy to explain the rough parts. If not, I could give it a shot (saelimmi@msu.edu)
Jacob
04/21/08 @ 5:24pm
Lippi,
I didn’t say don’t challenge me. People, including me, are wrong all the time. That’s why we need the first amendment to protect us- so people are always free to speak their mind.
However, I find it odd that when all people ask you to do is back up your arguments, you resort to insulting them and saying that “Maybe you should preface all your posts with it so no one ever questions you.”
As for genocide, it is defined as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.” Thus, the killing of some cats for scientific purposes wouldn’t be considered genocide. That would more likely involve all cats. Dr. Weber’s research has purposes above and beyond those of Hitler. But then again, you don’t want to consider the fact that all death isn’t bad- which is the underlying assumption you refuse to admit.
As for population control- we control lots of populations- deer, cats, dogs, etc… Are you honestly arguing that all animals and forms of life should never be killed in some effort to obtain a Utopian existence where no one ever dies? That’s plain crazy.
It’s funny, you have to insult me personally rather than actually attack my arguments or any other arguments on this board. I’m sure you are a smart individual- thus said, why is animal testing inherently bad? Do animals have souls? Have they obtained a level of consciousness that is commonly attributed with the ban against human testing? Why is the life of one cat greater than the life of millions of humans?
These are the grand philosophical questions that your arguments pose than that you must answer. Simply yelling “life is good, death is bad” isn’t good enough. That’s what Dr. Breedlove so eloquently put in his much more intelligently and researched letter to the editor.
So, I’m sorry I offended your sensibilities, but I was simply trying to extend your thought process beyond that of high school philosophy and ethics.
Sigh
04/21/08 @ 6:04pm
“Animals have been put on this earth for their own reasons, not to be our test tubes or torture victims.”
Animals weren’t “put on this earth”. God is an imaginary friend of the masses.
As for animal rights…if you’re so against the killing of animals, why don’t you go protest grain farmers who kill countless animals per year in their harvests. How about you go build insect-proof sidewalks, so no ants or beetles are needlessly killed as students walk to class. Why do you only defend the cute fuzzy-wuzzy animals?
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 7:53pm
Jacob, you started the personal attacks: “Oh yeah, Lippi, once again you resort to ill-defined emotional arguments in an attempt to convince people that you have actually thought something out.”, and you continue with the “So, I’m sorry I offended your sensibilities, but I was simply trying to extend your thought process beyond that of high school philosophy and ethics.” I don’t think all death is bad. Like you said, it is part of the cycle of life. Forcing death on humans is certainly bad, so the real question is whether animals deserve the same rights that humans do. I get into that later. I will get into this later as well, but no I did not suggest that we never kill animals in order to obtain a utopia where noone ever dies, but speaking of utopias and saying the ends justify the means is very very dangerous, especially when utopia is impossible. You suggested that the earth was overpopulated with HUMANS and animals. Now if we’re killing that cats because they’re overpopulated then why aren’t we killing humans as well? I’m not asserting that we don’t use animals for testing, I am up in the air on that. I am asserting that using the fact that the planet is overpopulated is a bad and dangerous rationalization for that, because it leads to things such as genocide and sterilization laws. Yes the earth is probably overpopulated and we need to think about that, but using that to justify ‘population reduction for the purpose of science’ is dangerous. This plays in to your argument about necessary evils for the creation of an Utopia.. there will never be a Utopia. And for the record, western medicine benefited from the experimentation on Humans done by hitler. That by no means makes it right.
I’ve already stated, “And yes, it is a good debate as to whether the maltreatment of animals is okay if it contributes to humanity/science/etc, what things do we consider deserving of ethical rights and what those rights should be.”
Let’s work on answering the grand philosophical questions that my rhetoric proses according to you, and I’ll throw in a couple of my own.
Why is animal testing inherently bad?
If you think animals have souls and define killing/using something with a soul without its consent bad, then animal testing is inherently bad.
Do animals have souls? Are they conscious?
Yes
Have they obtained a level of consciousness that is commonly attributed with the ban against human testing?
I’m going to dodge this question and propose another one, seeing as we do not do testing on people who are unconscious: Why should we care about animal rights? – you will find a lot of people see animal rights as a razor for a society in general, in the same way that how we treat the poor and the mentally ill is a razor for society in general; I think ghandi said something about it. That being said, a lot of people have the ability to shut that out, I can think of two ways..
The first is just not thinking about it. When I first started eating chicken again, the leg would occasionally come alive and I would have a realization that it was once a living thing and feel really bad about eating it. When that happened I just ignored it and continued eating my chicken and now I can gobble away on it.
The second is being thankful for the animals for giving up their lives for us. I think the Native Americans did this.
Why is the life of one cat greater than the life of millions of humans?
Some would argue that a society that has the ability to shut out compassion and pick and choose some lives over other lives is mentally ill. If you buy into this argument and think that anything that has consciousness and a soul counts here, then we are in murky waters with animal testing. IACUC already plays into this argument by agreeing to treat the animals ‘humanely’. The fact is the animals do not want to die and while humane treatment helps gloss over these ethical problems, and helps people repress them like I do when I eat chicken, it does not get rid of them. PETA brings these out by painting images of the animals screaming and squealing and suffering, something that offends most people because they don’t want to see that. That’s why they get such a visceral reaction. Yes PETA ignores the humane treatment thing, because they don’t think it matters. Their tactics certainly raise the debate of whether humane treatment does matter.
Justin Lippi
04/21/08 @ 8:25pm
is there anything else you want me to elaborate on?
Entertained
04/22/08 @ 10:40am
/munches popcorn
Spartan 2008
04/22/08 @ 4:18pm
I think this letter is excellent and attacks Drew Winter at his base. Winter is nothing more than a mediocre journalist with extremist values he uses to prevent modern research. I bet if he had glaucoma, he’d be telling another story.
Anonymous
04/23/08 @ 8:45pm
Wow. This interesting website says that PETA killed over a thousand cats per year from 2001-2006.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf
I’ve never heard of a researcher who used a thousand cats in an entire career. Can anyone share with us any data to refute this horrible, horrible accusation?
Thanks!
Anony
04/23/08 @ 10:26pm
Anonymous
04/24/08 @ 4:58pm
So one is morally compelled to painlessly kill animals without learning anything that will help anybody if the animals were abandoned, but it’s absolutely and always immoral to painlessly kill animals in order to learn how to help other animals and people. Interesting logic.
Here’s the thing: in the same county as PETA there is another, public, shelter that takes in animals and finds homes for a big percentage of them. How come PETA can’t do that? Oh, because it’s too expensive.
Plus, is PETA still furtively dumping the bodies of the animals they kill in dumpsters around town after dark? Or have they stopped doing that?