In defense of the Vet School

I used to think like Diana Cartier ("Residents sound off on Vet School issue," Feb. 17). When I was younger, I wrote a school paper on "animal testing" and used the argument that I would not want to do these tests on my family, so they should not be done on innocent animals. Over time and with experience, however, I have to come realize that this is precisely why animal testing is necessary.

It is hard sometimes to explain to others, and sometimes even more difficult to reconcile in my own mind - but research using animals is a necessary evil in this world. I have dedicated my life to caring for animals, and I have spent countless hours studying ways to care for them when healthy and treat them when ill. In order to discover safer and more effective ways to treat animals, I will have to use remedies tested on other animals. I am not qualified to expound on details of the study in question, but I hope that this study and others like it will find new and better ways to treat broken bones, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disorders, and any of the other ailments afflicting our beloved pets.

I also hope that advancements in human medicine continue. In most instances, animals are used to test treatments for people. Rickets, polio, measles, rubella, rabies, and anthrax were all researched in animals before human vaccines and cures were developed. Antibiotics, lithium, pacemakers and laparoscopic surgical techniques were all tested on animals before being used on people.

Every time I open my medicine cabinet to take Tylenol, cold medicine, or anything prescribed by a doctor, I am grateful that it was first tested on animals. If I break a bone or need surgery, I want the doctor's procedure to have been tested somewhere before. Otherwise, how could I be assured that the procedure was safe? How could I know that taking the drug would not harm me more than it helped me? Rats, dogs and other animals are different from people, but they are the best models we have. Computer models have thankfully been able to reduce the numbers of animals used, but lack the technology to replace live animals. Right now, there is no alternative.

When one is found it will be a great day -- drug discovery and safety will improve and countless animals will be spared. But, until then, there is simply no other way. Neither I nor any readers would volunteer their children to be the first living being to try a totally new drug. Likewise, they probably would not volunteer their dog to test something that had NEVER been tried before.

Research animals remove this burden from the public. They allow dog owners to know that their treatment is the best available, and allow parents to know that their children's treatments will be safe and effective without having to put their loved ones in grave danger.

It is unfortunate that the Cape Cod residents ("An Open Letter to Vet

School Students," Feb. 17) did not receive the response they were looking for. I agree with them that the school should be more forthright at times. But, I also think that the school should speak up and be proud of the studies it does. We should applaud the efforts of these researchers to help dogs and I believe that Tufts should advertise this.

Unfortunately, how do we then control the floodgates? If everyone had input into every study, nothing would ever be accomplished. Stagnation of research would be the only result and advancement would be hindered. Instead, it seems reasonable to trust trained professionals -- experts in their fields and people who have spent years of their lives caring for animals -- to make these decisions. They do care, and I assure you that the students care. In a letter signed by over 200 students (some who support animal research and some who still have questions), we stood in support of our school and its staff because we trust them to make the right decisions. And, we know that if we have questions about anything, the school will listen to our concerns.

The irony of all of this controversy is that Tufts has been and still is an ethical leader. We were the first school in the country to take purpose-bred dogs out of the curriculum and to change the curriculum to exclude terminal surgeries. These changes were brought about by students with legitimate concerns and possible alternatives in mind.

The school continued to listen to student concerns in this case, and it is my understanding that those students with issues met with the Dean and voiced their concerns to the researchers. But, every problem does not warrant total change. It is important to understand that most major universities conduct research and that some of this research involves animals. I believe wholeheartedly that there is no better place for animal research to occur than at a vet school -- where the best possible care and most caring people can be found.

Josh Kramer is in his second year at the School of Veterinary Medicine