by Cherie Colston
(Editor's note: The data for
this article was obtained from United Action for Animals, Inc. by
Mr. Colston.)
How many of you will still believe the old myth that veterinarians
are men whose careers are devoted to the relief of animal suffering?
Some are, but this doesn't seem to include research veterinarians
whose emphasis is on animal experimentation rather than the health
and well-being of animal (or human) patients. Some veterinary
medical educators are becoming concerned about this trend away
from animal care toward research. Veterinarians today are trained in
"basic" science (which routinely entails the artificial production of
disease or injury in animals) and don't have enough knowledge to
provide proper health care for sick animals.
Since the estabilshments of competition for research grants was
expanded to include veterinarians, we find them emulating
researchers in medical schools, colleges, universities, and hospitals in
the artificial production of disease and injury in what they call
(somewhat cold-heartedly) "anima! models." These veterinary
experiments include the artificial production of heart injury in
animals, forcing animals to smoke cigarettes, radiation - drug -
chemical maimings and killings - imdeed, the whole spectrum of
animal abuse.
Most humanitarians don't know that the organized research
veterinarians have aggressively fought legislation for the "human
treatment" of laboratory animals, although not a single bill has ever
been introduced that would prevent research veterinarians or other
animal experimenters from doing whatever they wanted to do to
laboratory animals. It is interesting to note that, when lobbying
against humane treatment of laboratory . animals in 1965, the
American Veterinary Medical Association stated, "The decision
made half a century ago was that animals should be used for
scientific experimentation benefitting man and other animals." Is
there any better way of saying that animal experimentation must go
on simply because it has been conducted in the past?
Why, then, do ill-informed humanitarians, self-appointed as
leaders in laboratory animal welfare work, assume that research
veterinarians are the logical ones to "protect laboratory animals?" It
is nonsense for them to believe that research veterinarians or anyone
else can protect laboratory animals under experimentation, because
the very purpose of an experiment is to perturb, to alter, living
systems, to maime or kill in what can be appropriately called 'the
death sciences.'
A former student of veterinary medicine and animal science
wrote the following letter to the United Action for Animals, Inc.:
"My life-long dream and ambition to become a veterinarian
dissipated following several traumatic experiences involving standard
experimental procedures utilized by dispassionate instructors for the
Pre-Vet school at my state university. They felt it was perfectly
acceptable to experiment with and then terminate the lives of all the
animals they utilized, which I found revoltingly unacceptable to my
own moral code. After numerous confrontations with these heartless
vivisectionists, I painfully decided to pursue a different career."
Here are a few examples of the "research" that denies human
treatment to laboratory animals:
inummommumminimmumiummmummummiumniiiiiiiiiiiiiiimminimiiiiiiiiimuminiimmumminnumminommiummimmummuummunumumummanummumiuniimmummummmmomommumi
You can't buy safety
with animal agony.
imumuomommummummummommommunumounumumummustwoomiummiumuunimmuummmimmumiumummumuniumiumumilimmummiummiummumminiumummummummummuumm,
Page 7
Environmentalists! Consumers!
STUDIES IN ANIMAL AGONY
C.C. READER
(1) Institution-Surgical Laboratory, College of Veterinary
Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Paid for by-National Institute of General Medical
Sciences. Category-Dogs killed in no-goal experimental surgery (NIH
Fellowship, PHD dissertation).
What was done to the animals:
Two research veterinarians, one a professor of veterinary surgery,
performed the following experimental surgery, admitting it was not
intended for use in either veterinary or human surgery. Under light
surgerical anesthesia, they cut out a bone from the spinal columns of
12 dogs and substituted experimental plastic devices. Five suffered
spinal collapse after surgery and were killed by the veterinarians. A
sixth, paralyzed by "thermal (heat) spinal injury from photographic
lights" for 30 days "dragged itself over and around barriers without
damage to the prosthesis" before being killed. Two others were also
killed after surgery, one because of damage to the spinal cord during
the operation, and the other because the plastic bone was "poorly
applied." Four dogs that survived longer than 30 days were
considered "long-term survivors."
(2) Institution-Dept. of Anatomy, School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of California at Davis. Paid for by-not cited, possibly
used university's own funds. Category-Infant rats castrated; sexual
behavior observed; spinal cords also severed. Conclusion - Castrates
with severed spinal cords could not ejaculate even when stimulated
by the experimenters because early castration had deprived them of
the male hormone androgen.
(3) Institution-University of Oregon Medical School, Portland,
Oregon. Paid for by-Louis W. and Maud Hill Family Foundation,
Saint Paul, Minnesota. Category-Purebred dogs and pound dogs
compared for ability to survive experiments (experimental heart
surgery already tested and perfected on hundreds of other dogs by
the same surgical team.)
Conclusion - Purebred dogs should be used in surgical
experiments since "exemplary" breeding and research facilities
would preclude public "allegations" concerning the origin and care
of laboratory research animals.
There are many more examples, too numerous to mention here.
The chief reason why laboratory animal work continues to remain
stagnant is because major humane societies both in this country and
abroad are closely allied, in one way or another, with research
veterinarians. This relationship creates a conflict of interest so
sinister that humane societies under the influence or domination of
research veterinarians cannot, will not, or dare not speak out
meaningfully on behalf of laboratory animals. The next time that
humanitarians are told that research veterinarians are going to
protect laboratory animals, we urge them to refer to the booklet,
The Death Sciences in Veterinary Research and Education, from
which this article was written. To receive your copy, write to:
United Action for Animals, Inc.
509 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017.
'ay 16, 7! t
rat,
the AVMA was really 4....*:44 . 11
Rep. Flood's subcommittpP with
that public funds should be wised
to meet the needs of the
commercial laboratory animal
breeders.
Evidently the AVMA got all
it wanted and more, because in
1973 it reported that it had
given a "Plaque of
Appreciation" to Sen. Warren
Magnuson; a "Certificate of
Appreciation" to Rep. Daniel J.
Flood, and a "Plaque" to Rep.
Paul Rogers, who is Chairman of
the powerful House
Subcommittee on Health and
Environment.
The National Society for
Medical Research, which exists
to promote the procurement and
use of laboratory animals,
moved its headquarters to
Washington some years ago.
Although it is a tax exempt
organization and not supposed
to lobby, by its own admission
the NSMR lobbies Congress
intensively. To our knowledge,
the NSMR hasn't given any
"plaques" or "certificates" to
key Congressmen, but if offers
other rewards; it publishes the
pictures of such powerful
Congressmen as Representatives
Rogers and Flood in its Bulletin.
The multi-billion-dollar
Congressional research subsidy,
with its resultant animals agony
is a prime example of how
government secrecy can be used
to serve special interests with
public funds without the
knowledge of the public. People
can't object to what they don't
know. It's no wonder that now -
in 1974 - we are reading such
statements as "The Latest, polls
on public respect put Congress
at the bottom of the list below
garbage men and even
secondhand car salesmen" and
"Voter polls show voters
approval of Congress as an
institution at an all time low of
20% - lower than even the
President's standing." We at
UAA are not politicians, , but we
are convinced there would be
great progress in our work for
replacement if Congress were
serving the public interest as well
as it is serving the objectives of
the AALAS, the AVMA and the
NSMR.
We intend to continue
working hard for
REPLACEMENT, but at the
same time we intend to keep on
disclosing how Congress is
gouging the American people
out of untold billions of dollars
for outworn, outdated,
unspeakably cruel research by
serving special interests with
public funds. We will do this by
showing that Congress is still
subsidizing the same kind of
incredibly cruel animal
experiments that were being
performed from 50 to 100 years
or more ago.
EZEZ3
Two points