Health

  • Dec
  • 22

An Alzheimer’s Researcher Speaks Out

Posted by at 6:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)


alzheimers

©2010 Jupiterimages Corporation

In a thoughtful opinion piece in The Chronicle of Higher EducationLawrence A. Hansen—an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of California at San Diego who is also a PETA member—laments the reluctance of both animal experimenters and some animal rights activists to move toward any sort of common ground. But he reserves most of his criticism for institutional-animal-care-and-use committees, which are supposed to make sure that alternatives to animals are used whenever possible, that experiments are scientifically valid, and that animal protection regulations are followed. But more often they are simply rubber stamps for any experiment that comes across their desks.

In his essay, a portion of which is excerpted below, he makes the case for a sea change in the way such committees operate—in the interest of “good science” that is both valid and ethical.

Professor Hansen writes:

One especially disturbing example of primate vivisection repeatedly approved by many university animal-care-and-use committees is a decades-long series of highly invasive experiments performed on rhesus monkeys to learn more about the neuronal circuitry of visual tracking in the brain. The luckless monkeys undergo multiple surgeries to have coils implanted in both eyes; holes drilled in their skulls to allow researchers to selectively destroy some parts of their brains and put recording electrodes in others; and head-immobilization surgeries in which screws, bolts, and plates are directly attached to their skulls. The monkeys are anesthetized during these surgeries. After a recovery period, they are intentionally dehydrated to produce a water-deprivation “work ethic” so that they will visually track moving objects for the reward of a sip of water.

… [M]ost of us cannot bear to even look at pictures of these monkeys, with their electrode-implanted brains and bolted heads, being put through their paces in a desperate attempt to get a life-sustaining sip of water. Such treatment is justified in the corresponding grant application by invoking the possibility that the resulting data may allow us to find the cause and cure for human diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

 But those of us who have spent decades in research on Alzheimer’s disease recognize that such a justification is an ethical bait and switch, since the neural pathway being investigated in these experiments is not even involved in Alzheimer’s disease. These experiments in the basic neuroscience of visual tracking are so thoroughly unrelated to the neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease that in more than 28 years of research in the neuroscience of the disease, I have never come across a single reference to them in any scientific literature on neurodegenerative disease. 

Research universities’ animal-care-and-use committees dominated by animal experimenters routinely approve such vivisections [i.e., those involving monkeys, dogs, and cats] because it is simply human nature to become hardened, if not indifferent, to pain we routinely inflict on others. As George Bernard Shaw put it, “Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”

Professor Hansen issues an important call for action when he writes that “independent agencies outside research-intensive universities are necessary to rein in scientists. Recall that the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act was instigated not by scientists but by an outraged public.”

 To read Professor Hansen’s entire essay, click here.

Posted to Health | Posted to Tags: , , , , ,

More:

Bookmark and Share
3 Comments

Subscribe to this post's comment RSS.

    Vivien Smith says...

    December 25th, 2010, 2:04 am

    Professor Hansen’s essay makes chilling reading. It exposes pointless and sadistic cruelty which has produced no knowledge of any significant benefit to man or beast. In heaven’s name staff the committees who approve such experiments with people of principle and humanity.

    Jacob Dijkstra, M.D. says...

    December 25th, 2010, 9:57 pm

    Recently, I collected signatures for a ballot initiative in Ohio to improve the lives of animals in factory farms. Near the campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland my request for a signature was aggressively rejected by an individual who exclaimed: “I am a researcher, I do not care about animal welfare issues”.
    I think that statement pretty much sums up what to expect from any attempt to improve the lives of animals in research labs. As Vivien Smith alludes to in her comment, it is not possible to have the research community regulate itself and the AnimaL Welfare Act is usually impotent. Pressure will need to come from outside these secretive establishments, as is done by a variety of animal rights organizations, such as Peta, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, etc.

    Anne Simpkins says...

    December 27th, 2010, 7:01 pm

    To the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, the law against Animal Cruelty should be applied to every “researcher” working today,
    wherever the torture labs are located!

    The need for secrecy is obviously the reason these inhumane people get away with the useless experiments on helpless animals.

    Every intelligent person should demand that animals in research labs be set free, because the results of this outdated method is not justifiable.

    Anne Simpkins

Post a Comment

Please keep comments polite, constructive, and on topic. All fields in bold are required.

About Health

Improve your health, save animals, and protect the planet.

Recent Comments

Disclaimer

The information and views provided here are intended for informational and preliminary educational purposes only. From time to time, content may be posted on the site regarding various financial planning and human and animal health issues. Such content is never intended to be and should never be taken as a substitute for the advice of readers' own financial planners, veterinarians, or other licensed professionals. You should not use any information contained on this site to diagnose yourself or your companion animals' health or fitness. Readers in need of applicable professional advice are strongly encouraged to seek it. Except where third-party ownership or copyright is indicated or credited regarding materials contained in this blog, reproduction or redistribution of any of the content for personal, noncommercial use is enthusiastically encouraged.