This article is the second in a two-part series examining animal testing at Tufts. The first shared details of the research and oversight of the work being done with animals on Tufts' Medford/Somerville campus. This installation will be an overview of the controversy and the ethical implications associated with animal-directed research.
Animal-directed research. For some, the controversial term conjures visions of mistreated animals suffering in cages - but for others, it denotes wide-ranging capabilities for scientific progress.
Such experiments involving animals are common on the Tufts Medford/Somerville campus within the biology, psychology and engineering departments, and can be linked to a national debate between animal rights groups and scientific researchers.
Within the field of animal rights, there are a variety of organizations and positions concerning the use of animals in laboratories, ranging from the well-known People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to more conventional lobbying groups such as the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) in Washington, D.C.
In Massachusetts, the animal rights movement is led by the Massachusetts for Animal Rights Coalition (MARC). According to MARC, more than 500 million animals are used in laboratory experiments each year in the United States, in addition to 75 million "excess" mice that are destroyed without being used by researchers.
Steve Rayshick, co-founder of MARC, said that one of the coalition's main qualms with animal-directed research is the sheer number of animals being used.
"Despite claims by the scientific community that animal-directed research would be reduced, there are more animals being used in laboratories today than there were 20 years ago," Rayshick said. Rayshick considers the ultimate goal of MARC to be the total elimination of animal-directed research, which he thinks is possible within 10 years.
But despite outcries from animal rights activists, representatives of the scientific community say animal-directed research is essential to advancements in medicine, technology and the understanding of human behavior.
Tufts Professor of Biology Michael Romero, who uses animals in his research, cited the historical scientific advancements made using such experiments.
"It is important to remember that there have been very few advancements in medicine that have taken place over the last 50 to 100 years that have not used animals in research," Romero said. "Nearly every Nobel Prize in psychology or medicine in the last 60 years has used animals."
Rayshick explained, however, that key discoveries in anesthesia, heart disease and psychiatry have been achieved through clinical research using observation of human patients and autopsies. And according to the MRMC's Web site, many other important medical advances have been delayed because of misleading information derived from animals. For example, studies on monkeys incorrectly implied that the polio virus was transmitted via a respiratory, rather than digestive, route.
Professor of Psychology Joseph DeBold uses mice to research the effects of alcohol on aggressive behavior. The MRMC maintains that animal models of alcohol and other drug addictions fail to reflect crucial social, hereditary and mental factors in humans, but DeBold said animals are crucial to his research and that they are treated well by researchers in his lab.
"My ethical standard is that I feel that the experiments I do are important and that I do everything in my power to make sure that what I am looking at is the behavior of healthy animals," he said.
Romero explained that abuse of animals in research facilities is rare.
"If you take a look at the history of animal research use in this country, there are only a handful of documented cases of animal cruelty documented in research facilities," he said.
Much of the controversy surrounding animal-directed research concerns the use of internal committees to approve research proposals that use animals. Internal committees were first mandated in 1985, when Congress updated the Animal Welfare Act to require that researchers plan ahead to ensure humane handling and care of research animals. The law also requires that researchers take all measures to reduce or replace animal use as well as minimize pain and distress to animals.
Rayshick said he believes that the current regulations surrounding animal-directed research are insufficient and prone to cronyism within institutions.
"The internal committees that approve animal research proposals are filled with the colleagues and friends of the researcher in question and are therefore inadequate for ensuring the safety and welfare of the research animals," he said. He explained that even without the approval of the committees, there is little to stop a researcher from continuing with his or her project.
Romero, who is also the chairman of the Tufts Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), however, explained that requests for the use of animals at Tufts are frequently turned down until researchers rewrite proposals to meet the criteria for approval.
To meet MARC's goal of eliminating animal-directed research within 10 years, Rayshick pointed to recent advancements in technology that have the potential to replace many types of animal-directed research. In February, a coalition of government agencies announced a program that could lead to the end of using animals to test the safety of new chemicals and drugs for humans.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health all hope to replace animals with new systems that rely on human cells grown in test tubes and on computer-driven testing machines. Rayshick hopes that eventually this technology will be expanded to other types of research and be used in all research institutions, including universities.
In the meantime, professors at Tufts who use animals in their research offer firm assurance that animals on the Medford campus are used only when necessary and are treated as humanely as possible.
Bacon Hall, the Department of Psychology's facility on Boston Avenue, is equipped with sensitive temperature and humidity controls to make sure that the animals are kept as comfortable as possible. According to DeBold, the regulations for acceptable climates for the housing of animals are much more stringent than those for humans.
Bacon Hall is kept around 80 degrees Fahrenheit and maintains an elevated level of humidity to mimic the South American climate where the squirrel monkeys come from. It is also kept sterile, and access to the animals' housing is restricted only to individuals who are involved with the research. The United States Department of Agriculture and the IACUC both conduct periodic, unannounced inspections of these facilities.
Meredith Groff, a junior majoring in psychology who works with the squirrel monkeys, explained that animal testing is taken seriously at Tufts and that all students who work with animals must first take a course about animal care and provide proof of vaccinations in the hopes of protecting the animals from exposure to disease.
"No one at Tufts takes research with animals lightly," Groff said.
This article has been amended from its original version to correct for factual errors.
