• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The submission by UCLA Vice Chancellor of Research Roberto Peccei (“Extremists target legitimate research,” Aug. 21) suggests only terrorists protest the use of animals in research. In fact, many law-abiding individuals protest animal research that has little benefit to human health and comes at the cost of great suffering for animals.

UCLA prevents the public from verifying how researchers are using these animals. Even when research documents from federally funded experiments are requested by way of the Freedom of Information Act, UCLA responds with such documents so heavily redacted that it is impossible to make sense of them. These efforts to maintain secrecy suggest that the university has much to hide.

It is also not the case, as the vice chancellor suggests, that research on animals is tightly regulated. California’s state anti-cruelty laws do not apply to animal research.

The federal Animal Welfare Act, the only legal regulatory device available, does not regulate research design since it deals only with husbandry requirements for some of the animals in research labs.

Approximately 90 percent of the animals used by researchers (rats and mice) are not included in the definition of animals covered by the act. They receive absolutely no protection at all.

The USDA, charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, also has few inspectors. This does not add up to a picture of “tight regulation.”

The public tolerates animal research because it believes it is necessary for medical progress. There are organizations created by physicians, however, that advocate the use of non-animal research as more efficient and reliable. Then why does animal research persist?

Researchers trained in animal research techniques find it inconvenient to learn new methods. Moreover, animal research is lucrative. Its traditionally respected position in medicine guarantees grants that are often a critical part of a university’s budget.

Although researchers assure the public that animals rarely suffer in labs, millions of animals are experimented on and killed in American labs every year. They suffer greatly from fear, pain and the extreme deprivation from lifelong confinement in a cage.

If UCLA is confident that its research animals are receiving “humane care and ethical treatment,” then it should have no problem showing the public what is going on.

The campus deserves to know the actual basis for claims that this research is valuable, non-redundant and cannot be accomplished through alternative methods.

I call upon the vice chancellor to institute a policy of transparency for UCLA’s labs. Researchers should participate in campus discussion on animal research, not simply issue statements claiming their work is unassailable.

UCLA now has the opportunity to set the standard for transparency, leading the way for other institutions and creating an open forum for discussion.

Rietveld is a UCLA law student and member of the UCLA Animal Law Society.