The Badger Herald

NEWS

PETA: university labs worst in nation

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Andriy Pazuniak:

SSFC wittles Wunk Sheek budget (October 21, 2005)
Cieslewicz, Judge come out on top in spring election (April 9, 2007)
Music industry serves campus (March 22, 2007)
UW to RIAA: No way (March 21, 2007)

by Andriy Pazuniak

Thursday, February 2, 2006

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have rated University of Wisconsin laboratories the worst offender of animal abuse among "some of the nation's premier university laboratories." However, university representative and UW professor Eric Sandgren said PETA is simply "pushing an agenda" and misrepresented information in their ratings.

In a press release, PETA referred to UW's Primate Research Center as the "Abu Ghraib" for animals, and in a phone interview Wednesday, PETA representative Mary Sweetland accused the center of mistreating animals for "worthless" experiments.

"It's a black hole when it comes to our tax dollars and producing research of substance," she said. "Some of the most worthless and cruel experiments, we believe, are taking place at UW."

But Sandgren, who also chairs the All-campus Animal Care and Use Committee, which evaluates each experiment conducted at the research center, questioned the credibility of PETA's claims.

"Reality and facts don't matter to [PETA], they're not interested in them," he said in a phone interview Wednesday. "We make certain the question is important, that animals have to be used and the correct species of animals is being used."

PETA criticized a variety of Primate Center experiments, including a fetal alcohol syndrome study conducted by UW researcher Mary Lynn Schneider, a taser study by UW researcher John Webster, as well as the research conduct of suspended UW researcher Ei Terasawa.

Calling Schneider's research "unethical," Sweetland said Schneider's experiments involve feeding pregnant monkeys alcohol and subjecting six-month-old monkeys to "bursts of random noise" while isolated daily in a small, dark room.

"It's really kind of shocking this kind of stuff is being approved by the UW Animal Care and Use Committee," Sweetland said, claiming research has been conducted at UW "for years" and has cost more than $2 million.

Sweetland continued saying the research was not practical, since it only proved "established fact."

"Why should we foot the bill for exposing pregnant monkeys to alcohol when everyone knows alcohol is dangerous to fetuses?" Sweetland asked.

According to Sweetland, Webster's taser experiment involved shocking pigs with tasers and she called the experiment a "boondoggle," accusing the university of doing the experiment only to "pump up" the stock of Taser International.

However, Sweetland reserved the harshest criticisms for Terasawa, who, according to Sweetland, was suspended for two years from conducting animal research after a monkey died "from neglect" during an experiment.

Calling Terasawa "either an idiot or cruel," Sweetland added the incident was just one example of the "gross cruelty" occurring at the UW Primate Research Center.

But Sandgren said PETA was "misrepresenting" the purpose of Webster and Schneider's experiments.

Sandgren elaborated Schneider's experiments are intended to study the effects of "very small, low-level amounts" of alcohol on a fetus during a pregnancy, which Sandgren said "almost nothing" is known about.

"The question of whether it is a problem to take a few drinks during a pregnancy has not been addressed at all," Sandgren added.

As for Webster's experiment, Sandgren remarked PETA misrepresented the purpose of the experiment, which was to study the flow of an electrical current through the body, specifically the heart.

Sandgren added the experiment cannot be done in humans, and the pigs "never felt any pain."

In the case of Terasawa, Sandgren added the university reported the misconduct and acted on it.

"When things are not handled the way they're supposed to, we handle that," he said.

Other universities on PETA's top ten "worst offenders of abuse of animals" list include Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Columbia University.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 2, 2006 @ 8:10am):

This is simply not news. The existance of ANY animal testing is upsetting to PETA. Please don't give these lunatics any more publicity.

Anonymous (February 2, 2006 @ 2:11pm):

So PETA doesn't like animal research at the U...is that news? What kind of news filter do you have at this paper anyways? Is it news if an anti-abortion group it doesn't like specific doctors because they do abortions? Way to fall into PETA's PR trap!

Anonymous (February 2, 2006 @ 3:56pm):

"Sandgren elaborated Schneider's experiments are intended to study the effects of 'very small, low-level amounts' of alcohol on a fetus during a pregnancy, which Sandgren said 'almost nothing' is known about.

'The question of whether it is a problem to take a few drinks during a pregnancy has not been addressed at all,' Sandgren added."

Sandgren should look at basic NIH websites. Here's a very simple one for starters:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochure.htm

Sandgren is simply making shit up, trying to spin crap research and turn it into something meaningful when it's not.

Following his line of reasoning, Schneider's research is designed to find some miniscule amount of alcohol that pregnant women can drink safely... how stupid.

The two previous posts must be from people who blindly accept any and all animal experimentation no matter how cruel, wateful, or misleading. They are probably physiology grad students.

Anonymous (February 2, 2006 @ 4:20pm):

I'm glad this paper fell into PETA's "PR trap." People need to know what goes on behind the closed doors of university research labs. Especially when one of the professors involved in the research is also the chair of the All-campus Animal Care and Use Committee. Wouldn't the Animal Care and Use Committee be better chaired by someone having no interest in the continuation of the experiments? Those committees are a ruse, anyway, because they don't have to be independent outsiders on them. But that's a whole other problem, beginning with the gov't regulations for animals in research.

Anonymous (February 3, 2006 @ 12:34am):

bunch of goddamn hippies... why can't they just let us murder living things like we want? isn't that what pro-life is all about?

Anonymous (February 3, 2006 @ 4:24am):

Who do I trust more, on a gut level - a grass roots organization that defends the innocent from exploitation and torture? Or a handful of scientists (?) that have everything to gain from funding? For cryin' out loud, how many have to pay for our refusal to eat right, exercise, use common sense, and accept ourselves? Bring on the doomsday asteroid, and nix mankind's worthless can!

Anonymous (February 4, 2006 @ 11:20am):

People of Madison need to stop looking away when exposed to the cruel practices that go on at the University. Madisonians claim to be progressive and compassionate, yet refuse to even attempt to look more deeply into the spin that comes out of the UW animal "research" PR. Get your heads out of the sand. There's animal abuse galore going on at the university - on man's best friend (yes they torture dogs), cats, monkeys, rats, goats, you name it. The only animal they probably won't cut up is the beloved Badger.

Richard James (February 5, 2006 @ 3:19pm):

I want to know what can be done to make adopting an animal a less tedious process than it is to get animals behind lock and key in the first place. Do you know what I mean? Its a one two three thing to get strays locked up but to get them out requires paperwork and many steps so its easier to just go out and buy another pet than try to find your old one or if you do now its an affair to change their circumstances. Why can it be as easy to get them out as it is to get them in?