University of Michigan among several schools facing criticism for animal research
PETA organized a protest in February to pressure U-M President Mary Sue Coleman to stop use of cats and pigs in survival flight training for nurses. The school says there is no substitute for lifesaving techniques taught, and the animals are humanely treated.
PETA photo
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has waged a campaign for more than six months against U-M’s use of cats and pigs in survival flight training for nurses. The animal rights group says nurses in the training course should use human simulators instead.
But the school argues there is no substitute for live tissue when practicing procedures like intubation, the practice of inserting a tube into the trachea to ventilate the lungs. It’s especially valuable to learn life saving techniques that could be performed on patients such as young children, the university says.
In 2010, Survival Flight held three animal training labs and used a total of three cats and 12 pigs. The animals were under general anesthesia, meaning they felt no pain during the procedures. Three cats were adopted out after the training and the pigs were euthanized.
Survival Flight is a transportation service for patients in need of critical care. It’s available 24 hours a day, by helicopter, plane or specialized ground transportation.
The News points out that pressure has resulted in changes and reviews of the use of animals in research in the past at U-M and elsewhere. U-M stopped using dogs in courses for doctors advanced trauma life support in 2009. The MSU vet school stopped using live dogs for surgical training in 2010, The News reported.
What do you think? Should all animal research continue? Should it all cease? Does it depend on the circumstances in each case? Explain your take on the issue below.
Comments
BhavanaJagat
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
The use of animals for the purpose of training in a specific area is being questioned and we may have to narrowly focus on that issue. It is not about research, it is not about testing pharmaceutical agents, and it is not about feeding people. Animals provide us an opportunity to learn about Compassion. They can give us the experience of Love. We are the objects of their Adoration. This training of intubation in the pediatric age group is also imparted in other countries. We need to also train nurses to deliver compassionate care. We need to choose a training model that trains the person to render service with care and compassion. The tubes used in pediatric care are tiny and training could be imparted by sending nurses to pediatric wards, neonatal care, or pediatric emergency units where intubation is often done. People learn while observing a procedure that is being performed and later perform the procedure under supervision.
JSA
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.
Let stop testing on the animals and test on the PETA people instead.
bedrog
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 11:47 a.m.
PETA is yet another organization that , although rooted in legitimate concerns, carries them to a ' reductio ad absurdem' level and further discredits itself as a serious partner in debate by obnoxious and over the the top exhibitionism. Several others of the same sort in ann arbor ( but focused on the middle east ) have similarly and appropriately reaped the non-benefits of such behavior....
John McHugh
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
Sorry, they will not be able to do that. I see PETA's plea, but there are much worse treatment of animals in slaughter houses. Animals are caged and raised in a single cage their entire life's and then slaughtered. They don't want the animals to get out and move around because it will cause weight loss of the animals. This is the case for pigs, cows, sheep, chickens, and the like. If it's going to market it will not hardly move until it goes to slaughter. PETA, should get on that before they get on medical testing of animals. That's my opinion.
Kara Gavin
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.
For more on animals at U-M, please visit our website at <a href="http://animal.research.umich.edu/" rel='nofollow'>http://animal.research.umich.edu/</a> Kara Gavin U-M Health System Public Relations
UtrespassM
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Researchers: Please design your experiments thoughtfully, and respectfully to these animals.
Marvin Face
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
Wait a minute. Are these the same costumes that Virg Bernero supporters wore ouside Snyder's campaign HQ? <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/costumed-protestors-in-ann-arbor-call-rick-snyder-a-chicken-for-dodging-debates/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/costumed-protestors-in-ann-arbor-call-rick-snyder-a-chicken-for-dodging-debates/</a>
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
Animal Costume parties are so 80's
Kai Petainen
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
ha.. animal costumes are in i guess.
Kai Petainen
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
come to think of it, if PETA wants to save more animals than just 15 pets, then they should take a closer look at dumping permits into the Huron River and see if any of those are 'generous' to each agency. by concentrating on aquatic animals, they might be able to improve the environment for much more than 15 animals.
Kafkaland
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.
This is a difficult issue. There is no doubt that some animal testing is absolutely necessary before moving a promising drug from the lab into clinical practice to establish safety. Not all testing can be done in tissue culture, and before giving it to healthy humans, I prefer giving it to mice first. Where things get complicated ethically is when the new drug is not developed as an improvment of clinical outcome, but to circumvent patent protection. The pharma companies but not the patients benefit. Although it's often very hard to tell at this stage of drug development whether that's true, it still leaves me with a foul taste when scores of animals are sacrificed for profit. As to using animals in teaching physicians and nurses, it seems to me that it is necessary in some selected instances, but institutions like UM should regularly re-evaluate the necessity in each course. As simulators get better, life animals may indeed become obsolete and even inferior to a well-designed human simulator, but that has to be a case-by-case decision. It certainly shouldn't be done jsut because that's always been the way they did it, but if it has a clear advantage, may be unaviodable in many cases. And this particular case seems to be one - I'm sure UM would prefer to just make the whole controversy go away if a well-designed simulator could do the same equally well or better. Finally, there are some cases that point to a clear flaw in the regulatory system: Right now, it is a sequential process: first the scientific merit of the proposed study is determine in a binary, yes or no fashion. If it is scientifically meritorious, then questions whether the number and kind of animals is appropriate, and whether proper procedures in reducing pain and euthanasia are followed. A recent study to correlate facial expressions of mice with intentionally inflicted pain is an example - no tradeoff between scientific value and animal pain was made as the regulations don't allow for that.
Kai Petainen
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
I'm all in favor of the environment, and by now... my annoyance at Ann Arbor officials is well known for the unsolved huron river spill last summer. I'm unaware of others in the city that are even remotely concerned about what happened in the river last summer. They complain about animals, but ignore our water and don't solve stuff that may have hurt our river animals. Go figure. Anyways... That being said, it might surprise some that i'm not against animal testing. I don't like it, but I think it is a 'necessary evil' of sorts. I'm not sure how tests could be done without them, and I think the long term benefits may outweigh the negative aspects.
grye
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
If the U of M stops using animals and someone dies during a medical procedure due to lack of "live" practice, can PETA be sued?
Bubble world west
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
another interesting note; you can't do research directly on humans, without using animals first. It's in the Nuremburg code. There was this country called Germany that had bans on the use of animals and used people for all kinds of tests, mostly unethical. So even if PETA would be willing to use themselves, they couldn't, unless it was tested on animals first. Which leaves the option of not using our intelligence to solve complex health and societal issues or using it in a humane fashion with animals.
John of Saline
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.
PETA is not a good organization. If they had their way, you can kiss any new medicines and medical technology goodbye--unless they'd like to volunteer themselves to be the first ones to test such things straight out of the lab!
Lola
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
I agree but would add that the animals MUST be used in a humane manner. Absolutely NO suffering can be allowed. In my experience (and I do have a lot of experience in this area) researchers are far more humane to animals than large commercial farms and slaughterhouses. It's nice that the cats were adopted but why did the pigs have to be euthanized?
ex734
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 6 p.m.
Sadly animal research is a necessary evil. A huge majority of people don't like doing it, but understand it needs to be done. What is important is that the animals are treated with respect and dignity and not just the people doing the work but the general public recognize the sacrifice these animals make.