The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Taser experiments will help save lives

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

Also by Josh Moskowitz:

Taser experiments will help save lives (April 7, 2005)
Planted articles hurt Iraqi democracy (December 14, 2005)
DeLay's tactics catch up with him, finally (April 15, 2005)
Iran key concern for Israel (January 26, 2006)
Journalism out in jeopardy (April 25, 2005)

by Josh Moskowitz

Thursday, April 7, 2005

The use of Tasers by law enforcement personnel has evolved into an extremely controversial and contentious issue over the past several months. Tasers fire two small darts carrying roughly 50,000 electric volts that temporarily paralyze a recipient. While law enforcement officials, including Madison Police Chief Noble Wray, laud the Taser for its effectiveness as an alternative to using deadly firearms, groups such as Amnesty International have called for a Taser ban due to the 70 deaths related to electric shocks since 2001.

Here at the University of Wisconsin, professor emeritus of biomedical engineering John Webster has been given a $500,000 grant by the U.S. Department of Justice to discern whether Tasers directly electrocute the heart or are simply a factor in heart failure that might possibly be fueled by drug use or other medical conditions. The results of his experiment may very well decide whether or not Tasers can be used as a law enforcement device.

In order to test his hypothesis that Tasers do not directly cause heart failure, Webster has decided to use pigs as the recipients of Taser shocks. The choice of pigs as the primary subject of the study stems from the fact that a pig’s heart closely resembles that of a human’s. Indeed, scientists have even begun to conduct experiments regarding the possibility of pig heart transplants for humans.

For Webster’s study, he will use three groups of pigs, all of which will be on some form of anesthesia to dull the pain. One pig will be given cocaine, one will receive shocks and one will be given cocaine and receive electric shocks. Through his research, Webster hopes to provide answers to how police should use the devices, standards for how powerful the Taser should be and instructions for emergency room physicians on how to treat those who have been shocked.

While Webster’s independent study will be the first of its kind, animal rights activists from across the country have and continue to urge administration officials to suspend the two-year study due to apparent animal cruelty and insensitivity. According to Laura Yane of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), “Subjecting pigs to cruel experiments is not the way to go on this. It’s so obvious,” she said. “This is a half-million dollar boondoggle.”

Additionally, Terry Young, a professor in the Department of Population Health Sciences, has withdrawn from an outside study that was to be conducted with Professor Webster because of his Taser study. Young cites Professor Webster’s Taser experiment and its cruelness as the primary reason for her refusal to collaborate with Webster.

While the use of animals in any scientific study should be closely scrutinized for malfeasance and mistreatment, the current hoopla surrounding the use of pigs for Professor Webster’s study is bewildering and borderline ludicrous.

Tasers have become an integral instrument for police officers combating violence. Indeed, statistics show that more than 5,500 police department and prison officials use Tasers as a means of protecting themselves and the general public. This represents a dramatic increase from five years ago when only a handful were used.

Taser International, the company that manufacturers Tasers, has performed minimal research on the health effects of its weapons. In testing its most powerful gun, the M26, it used a single pig in 1996 and five dogs in 1999. The scope and depth of these experiments is pathetic and independent inquiry should have been demanded years ago.

With his study, Professor Webster hopes to save lives. The results of his study will undoubtedly produce more experiments hoping to support or counter his claims. In order to ensure the most reliable and accurate data, pigs must be used as test subjects. The significance and circumstances of this study merit little condemnation from animal rights activists hoping to save the next pork chop.

Josh Moskowitz (jmoskowitz@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 7, 2005 @ 3:14am):

How much will these pigs weigh? Will they have any prior heart problems? What about cholesterol, stress, fitness, age, species?

Did the 70 people who died from Taser use all have cocaine in their system? If so, how much? Did any of them have crystal meth in their system? Vioxx? Viagra?

This experiment is pathetic. UW researchers should know better than to use stupid showboating like this to get attention and vie for relevance. And Poli Sci majors should leave the real science for the real scientists, Josh.

Anonymous (April 15, 2005 @ 11:33am):

Hey Josh, you seem to be short on facts. You didn't mention, for example, that even though Webster has been telling the media that some of the pigs will be given cocaine to mimic the human heart on this drug, Webster's scientific protocol outlining the experiment doesn't mention cocaine at all. This is the protocol that was approved by the Department of Justice and that he is obligated to carry out. Why the discrepancy? Webster has also showed an unscientific bias by stating, even before beginning his study, that he believes Tasers are safe to use on people.

You also say that the Taser manufacturer tested the Taser on only six animals and that the scope of these experiments is "pathetic." You do not mention the many other Taser studies have been performed on animals by others, including the U.S. Military.

But the best argument not to subject animals to more studies is articulated by your statement: "...more than 5,500 police department and prison officials use Tasers...." If the weapon manufacturer and law-enforcement agencies were to take responsibility and accept a sensible protocol of follow-up medical assessment for Taser victims, they could gain relevant information. They could supplement this information with the medical histories and autopsy reports of the more than 100 people in North America who have died after being shot with Tasers.

Anonymous (April 15, 2005 @ 11:33am):

Anonymous (June 26, 2005 @ 9:25pm):

I agree with the animal rights advocates. It's really cruel to hurt animals like this. Lucky for the author of the article that he isn't a pig.

I do understand about helping humans. I have a PhD in Psychology.

I think it shows a lot about the author to use the term "pork chop". It's derogatory. Kind of reminds me of how the Nazis called the Jews "vermin".