http://http://vimeo.com/8938058

Ethics of primate research
In early January, a UW-Madison board discussed the ethics behind nonhuman primate research. No changes to the current research infrastructure were ultimately made.

On Monday, 20 members of the Dane County Board of Supervisors signed a letter demanding an explanation from the University of Wisconsin regarding their scientific testing on primates. In their letter to Chancellor Biddy Martin, the supervisors, including District 5 Supervisor Wyndham Manning, asked the university to explain how their decision to classify animal research as ethical could be reached without extensive deliberations or studies.

As The Badger Herald reported in Tuesday’s issue, the group tasked with addressing the matter — the All-Campus Animal Care and Use Committee — initially claimed they were not the proper body to decide this ethical question. When they were once again prompted to do so by Martin, they assigned one member of the body, Robert Streiffer, to write a resolution to settle this debate formally. There was no extended deliberation of ACACUC to adopt the resolution, and the only point of contention was whether the committee should even address it.

Streiffer’s defense of the resolution explains the lack of debate as a matter of accepted social practice and progress, noting, “It is a practice that, in some minimal sense, society itself has taken a stand on, through the laws that allow it, the practices that encourage it and the funding that supports it.”

Although Streiffer saw himself fit to write the resolution, he does indicate that a formal exploration of this ethical question is better left up to the national organization responsible for animal care and use considerations.

This editorial board does not wish to argue in favor or against the research at this university. That’s because we’ve not been engaged in enough debate and fact finding to set out a course in one direction or the other.

But in this case, neither has the university. It may be that the procedures and processes in place are there for a reason and do justify the research being conducted in the name of scientific and medical progress. But there is a need to reevaluate this long-standing policy, as controversial and onerous as it may seem, to assure the university community that the platform we stand on is supported by sound pillars.

Many will assault an exploration of these questions as futile, given the lengthy evidence the scientific community has already accumulated. They may also assault the credibility of those asking the questions, calling animal activists radical extremists with no formal understanding of the situation. Those things may all be true in the end.

But there has been no full explanation of why the university stands by these positions. There is no full marshalling of evidence on both sides, but merely the implicit insistence that one position has been established as correct and to bring forth the arguments again would be redundant.

We disagree. While UW may reach the same conclusion, it should be cognizant of a need to root out “dead dogmas,” as Mill once said, if not to displace them, at least to justify our continued acceptance of such established principals.

Therefore, we ask Martin and the rest of UW administration to address this question more fully. If all sides agree the ethical question is important to decide, they should attempt to decide it themselves rather than wait for the rest of society to decide for them.

So yes, we applaud the question. We just don’t appreciate where it came from.

The Dane County Board is nearly unknown on campus and significantly ignored by a large portion of this city. The management of land conservation, countywide transportation, public services and law enforcement is increasingly important in the midst of this recession, but it’s increasingly difficult to explain that to a disinterested electorate.

Denizens of District 5 have been perhaps the furthest removed from these discussions among all county residents. They deal more directly with city affairs and see little need to even understand the basic functions of county government. Add to that the fact that their county representative, Wyndham Manning, has been quite reluctant to explain any of his accomplishments on the county board or reach out to the disengaged and get them involved.

We’ve explained this before and have received no response from Manning. We’ve asked him to talk to our editorial board and have received no comment. We’ve decided to pass on his follies and focus on the next supervisory candidates in hopes that someone will do what he didn’t — connect with their constituency in a tangible way.

But this letter forces us to bring the issue back to Manning and the rest of the board who feel their duties include investigating ethical issues as public representatives of other public institutions they have no authority over. If they cared, as we did, to comment on the current controversy at UW and demand answers, they should have done so as private citizens rather than county officials.

State agencies have reason to question UW. Federal officials have a right to do so — they have oversight capabilities that should be exercised in these situations. County officials, though, are merely adjacent to the situation and therefore waste their breath by using their public position to push the issue.

More importantly, however, it gives those with only a cursory understanding of how the county board impacts Dane County the impression that it is a largely frivolous or advisory body rather than one with real decision-making power.

We ask that the board members who signed this letter, Manning included, try and make a more concerted effort to tell this campus and its residents what they do and why it matters. We’ll certainly dedicate our efforts in the coming weeks to this mission thanks to this unfortunate decision.