University of Michigan response to PETA complaint: 'We have nothing to be ashamed of'
It’s likely officials from the United States Department of Agriculture will visit the University of Michigan in the wake of a complaint filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals over use of animals in Survival Flight training.
But U-M officials say such inspections are routine, and that they have nothing to hide.
“We have nothing to be ashamed of,” said Howard Rush, a veterinarian and director of the unit for laboratory animal medicine. “We have a premier program, and the care that the animals receive here is really excellent.”
The animal rights group alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act involving the university’s use of cats and pigs in an emergency training course for its Survival Flight nurses in a Sept. 7 complaint to the USDA.
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 school should use human simulators instead of animals to practice procedures like intubation, the practice of inserting a tube into the trachea to ventilate the lungs, the group argued.
U-M begged to differ in its statement about the training.
“Despite the availability of simulators and other teaching aids, the unique environment in which Survival Flight nurses work requires these procedures to be performed using live tissue. There is no substitute for this type of training. Anatomic similarity between humans and some animals make them ideally suited as learning models for various essential life saving techniques, especially for young children.”
Rush said a host of internal and external controls govern the use of animals in training and research. U-M has a website to shed light on its animal research. Rush said the university expects a visit from the USDA following the complaint.
PETA launched an awareness campaign to pressure U-M to halt the practice of using cats and pigs; thousands of e-mails have been sent to the emergency room doctor in charge of the Survival Flight course and to an associate medical school dean.
It’s not the first time the school has come under fire for using animals in training.
U-M announced it would stop using dogs to teach emergency life-saving skills to doctors in 2009, about a month after a group called The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filed a USDA complaint alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
But despite the timing, the complaint had nothing to do with the switch to human simulators. That decision was made independently of outside pressure following a review by school officials that had been ongoing.
The U-M statement issued about the Sept. 7 complaint to the USDA indicates the school intends to cooperate fully with any followup on the part of the government.
Justin Goodman, the associate director of laboratory investigation for PETA, acknowledged the animals were under anesthesia during the Survival Flight training procedures, but that’s beside the point, said Goodman.
Animals are not disposable lab tools, he said. According to the complaint, based on documents obtained from U-M, the school uses 12 cats and 16 pigs each year for the Survival Flight course.
“Their lives have inherent value and we should not exploit them regardless of what our ends are,” Goodman said.
Mark Lowell, the emergency room doctor and professor who teaches the Survival Flight course, did not return a phone call this week from AnnArbor.com.
It’s not uncommon for PETA and other animal rights groups to file Freedom of Information Act requests in order to build a complaint against research institutions like the University of Michigan, said Liz Hodge, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Biomedical Research. The NABR is a nonprofit that exists to educate the public and media on the importance of biomedical research; it supports the “responsible and humane use” of animals in research, Hodge said.
Rush said the practice of answering the FOIAs is not disruptive to research or training, but does disrupt the work environment somewhat since answering the requests is a time-consuming task.
Juliana Keeping is a health and environment reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
Elizabeth Mount
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
If you are against all medical use of animals, I hope you don't take any prescription or over the counter drugs, never need an operation, or a life flight. Face it animals are used in testing to make things safe for humans. I doubt very much anyone in PETA refuses to use medications or would line up to be tested instead of animals.
Scylding
Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:42 p.m.
@Sue: you say that you would rather die than that an animal should have to live a miserable life in a lab to save you. I suppose that's your right to say that and wash your hands of the responsibility, unless one of the drugs such testing helped developed has already saved your life. So, has it? If you have taken an antibiotic even to fight off a strep or staph infection, you will never be sure. People die from bugs like them every day in this country. I can tell you that, if it weren't for antibiotics and other medications, my oldest child would have died shortly after birth. Today, she is a beautiful, happy freshman in high school getting all As and headed for a very productive and worthwhile adulthood. What, may I ask, with all due respect, gives you, PETA, or anyone else the right to say that the animal-testing for the drugs that saved her life should never have taken place? It strikes me as intensely hypocritical that so many at one end of the political spectrum so often say "you can't legislate morality," "keep your laws off my body," and other such rhetorical barbs, in response to efforts to preserve human life, yet these same people so often want to legislate their "values" onto the rest of us in defense of the life of cats and pigs. Wake up from your dystopian trance.
Sue
Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:37 a.m.
So many responses completely miss the point. PETA exists to protect animals; the have NO voice. People on the other hand have voices and the intellect to make choices, and to advocate for themselves. Humans do not have dominion over all other creatures. If an animal had to suffer some horrible life in a laboratory to save my life, I would rather die. To kill an animal for is one thing, to torture it for research is quite another.
stunhsif
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:29 p.m.
PETA has a problem with killing animals but no problem with aborting babies? Where the heck was PETA over the past 25 years when Pfizer(Warner Lambert before Pfizer bought them) was killing cats and dogs by the thousands right here in A2? My brother in law was a research scientist for them, he did his "fair share" of research on primarily dogs and all of them ended up dead!
dianebee
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 5:15 p.m.
What happens to these animals? Are they put to death after they are done? What happens if in training the tubes are put in incorrectly? Are they put to death then? How often are they experimented upon? Daily, weekly, monthly? How often are they "Put under?" How good do they feel when they wake up? I just know how lousy I have felt after having tubes in my throat after surgery, and know I that I wouldn't want it repeated. I feel sorry for these poor little animals. I sure would not want my cats to suffer, and understand that pigs are more intelligent than dogs. Animals feel pain, worry, are lonely and need comfort the same as humans. I am amazed at the lack of compassion from your readers!
braggslaw
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 5:03 p.m.
Just because something is enjoyable (and tasty) does not make it wrong. Hunters provide a necessary ecological service. Deer exist to be eaten. (not all of them of course) They are prey animals, as are rabbits, pheasant etc. I also fish (catch and release in the Huron) and I love to eat fresh Walleye and Perch. The fishery in Lake Erie is in great shape and should be harvested.
Speechless
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 5:03 p.m.
Excerpted from further above: "... Cat and pigs are unique in tubing situations because they are similar in design to small children, and also are prone to laryngiospasms (reflex action causing the glottis to close). This reaction can happen in people and is an EMERGENCY. Practicing on living tissue that reacts the same as humans is essential in emergency medicine. Ferrets are also often used because their tracheas are VERY similar to newborn children. These species are chosen for these specific reasons.... I have personally done endotracheal intubation on both models and live animals, and it is completely different and more accurate on living tissue...." Granted, there are reasons to select certain species over others as research animals for testing purposes, yet this begs a very practical question: Why not just directly use humans as training subjects, rather than animal stand-ins? Wouldn't it work even better, for training purposes, to haul over inmates from state or federal prisons in order to practice medical techniques on their anesthetized tracheas? Juvenile detention centers can be tapped to provide younger training "models" when desired; smaller children can be found among families detained for illegal immigration. And back in the 19th century, for those occasions when living specimens weren't required, a modest industry in grave digging helped stock the UM medical school with subjects, such that security at local cemeteries was a social issue for a time. Of course, involuntary testing on human subjects happens less and less in the developed world, and shouldn't ever happen at all, anywhere. Why is this the case? Well, it's because societies have increasingly said "NO" to such scientific choices, and do so more emphatically over time. People have been persuaded to alter personal belief systems to reject such coercion. As a result, scientists avoid coercing humans into research, since the larger community will no longer tolerate that. Meanwhile, they continue to take advantage of a range of other animals because wider support for this practice continues to exist, although it is gradually waning. Trainers and researchers will exploit other species precisely because they can, without fear of punishment. Eventually, as time goes on, restrictions placed on animal utilization will increase, as more and more individuals change their beliefs on the matter. It will become less and less acceptable. It already has.
bedrog
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 4:14 p.m.
bragg...i think youve clarified your ( ecological) priorities re hunting...and the 'tasty' part pretty much seems to cover 'em. But,yes, i will continue to support the work of the groups i mentioned, although concerns about their effectiveness in places where people indeed seem to view breeding as ethnic one -upsmanship or a sign of machismo are indeed troubling. We agree there at least, and on PETA..
sbbuilder
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 4:07 p.m.
Gibulet Your arguments are to the point, and have the added benefit of experience, both of which are lacking in Sheechless' comments. The UofM consistently pushes the research envelope, including techniques for saving human lives. When a viable method is devised that will negate the use of animals, I'm sure they will be at the forefront of adopting it. Meantime..... I'm also a hunter, and have mentored a number or teens over the years. One thing I always emphasize, is that you never, ever, shoot if the outcome is questionable. You must be absolutely certain of a kill before pulling the trigger. It is completely unethical to wound an animal because of poor hunting technique. The kids are surprised that the first thing we do is practice/verify shooting skill before we ever go into the woods. In a round about way, that is what training EMT's is about. You don't want to send one of these people on emercency runs unless you are certain they will perform precisely as trained, and will use their skills to save lives.
braggslaw
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 3:57 p.m.
Bedrog, Having a child is a fundamental right in this country. The fertility rate in the U.S. is about what is required for replacement (2.1). The fertility rate in Japan and Europe is below replacement rates. That leave the developing world. How am I supposed to keep people from having children in the developing world? Donations to corrupt international organizations? enforced sterility? distribution of condoms that will never be used due to cultural differences? Knock yourself out.
bedrog
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.
braggslaw...yes, hunting is a needed ingredient in animal population control now that natural predator/prey balances have been destroyed. And yes, PETA has a thoroughly unsavory record on the tactics they employ on anything they touch,from milk drinking, to fur wearing to hunting, and to the current issue on this thread. But your 'noble service' line is a tad much ( especially given the 'tasty' part) UNLESS a hunter also shows as much concern for human overpopulation as the non human kind...e.g. by membership in groups like 'Planned Parenthood' and " The Population Connection" ( formerly ZPG). That kind of hunter is a good kind. Otherwise not so much.
braggslaw
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
I am a hunter and I do a noble service. There are no wolves or cougar in the lower peninsula. Hunters remove about a 1/3 of the deer each year. If this was not done, the deer would overpopulate, die of starvation, and cause numerous vehicular accidents. The deer are a food resource that requires harvesting and they are quite tasty.
jcj
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.
@racerx If you are not aware of PETA'S antics concerning hunters then you might want to do a little research. Hunters have had to endure many attacks from PETA and other fanatical groups like them!
Gibulet
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.
"One day many years from now, it will seem bizarre to most people that their society once regarded the lives and welfare of other species so casually....ethical distinctions based on species categories will gradually blur and begin to dissolve in time. This will also be driven by advances in technology that allow DNA sharing between unrelated species..." Are you...from the future? "old habits can be hard to break at the end of the day, that accounts for much of the bottom line here. Research personnel who work on the cutting edge of knowledge simply don't like to consider changing their ways or reexamining values, just like most other people." ~ The cutting edge is what we live for, and if there is a better way of doing something, we jump at it. Animals aren't used because were are just so darned stubborn, or there would be NO use of models or artificial means at all. If we never "re-evaluated our values" than research animals would still be subjected to horrible procedures with no anesthesia and no clear protocols on how experiments are conducted. It is a CONSTANTLY evolving process made to protect; weighing both the potential good of the research with the quality of an animals life. That is definately change. "Due to their academic background, they have better skills at constructing rationalizations, while also maintaining easier access to media through outfits like the National Association of Biomedical Research." ~ You make academic background sound like an illness, and it's side effects are making things up. You don't need a degree for that, even the most uneducated manage it just fine. With so many people getting so angry about something they know SO LITTLE about, it is logical to have a way of defending your position and getting out information. "they feel they can more easily battle PETA than the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine." ~ The PCRM is made up of those educated people that seem to bother you so much. PETA, well...is not. When an educated, informed, and (usually) non-biased entity asks a question, their peers are likely to consider it. When people line up with pitchfolks and salad clothing and sit in birdcages saying cows get stuffed in them...well, would you consider that? Shock value is well and good for PETA most of the time, it gets them followers and tons of money. But with that comes the "loony" label, and at times can actually work against them.
salfek
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 2:51 p.m.
First, let me say that I have the most utmost awe, respect and admiration for those in the field working in the U of M Survival Flight program. No question. It is important to note that the original story about this in the Detroit News does state that the University of Michigan is now in a very small minority (5%) with its continued use of animals for this type of training. Clearly, the other 95% of Survival Flight programs around the United States who are not using live animals are doing something right and its working - so what are they doing? Its a shame that so many can't see past the word "PETA" and have a responsible dialogue on this issue. This is just not as simple as to say that those who are concerned about the use of cats and pigs care not about people dying, as many imply. I care about cats and pigs and people. Let's at least try for having the cake and eating it too....95% of the US is doing it. http://www.detnews.com/article/20100908/SCHOOLS/9080359/1409/PETA-urges-probe-in-use-of-animals-in-University-of-Michigan-nurse-training "Only about 5 percent of universities that offer courses such as Survival Flight use animals to teach these skills, Goodman said. Wayne State University does not use animals to train students in lifesaving skills, officials said."
racerx
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 1:42 p.m.
Have to agreed with MikeB, and I wonder if PETA has ever gone after the hunters whose yearly carnage in the open woods of animals is not a concern. Suggestion for PETA members; offer oneself for testing.
Speechless
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.
One day many years from now, it will seem bizarre to most people that their society once regarded the lives and welfare of other species so casually. At that point they'll better understand that the manner in which a culture treats the "least" of its citizens — and its creatures — represents an accurate measure of that society's values and its true level of compassion. Traditional, but arbitrary, ethical distinctions based on species categories will gradually blur and begin to dissolve in time. This will also be driven by advances in technology that allow DNA sharing between unrelated species. We quickly forget, too, that these debates over research ethics involved the deceitful manipulation of human subjects not very long ago. The ultimately scandalous Tuskegee syphilis experiments went on for a full generation or more, even after the successes of the civil rights era. The scientists involved during those years saw little reason to question their research values. For background, visit http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1207598 In regard to testing on animals, it's something to which most research scientists become accustomed once they've been doing it for a while. It becomes a habit, and old habits can be hard to break — at the end of the day, that accounts for much of the bottom line here. Research personnel who work on the cutting edge of knowledge simply don't like to consider changing their ways or reexamining values, just like most other people. Due to their academic background, they have better skills at constructing rationalizations, while also maintaining easier access to media through outfits like the National Association of Biomedical Research. I suspect university researchers have circled their wagons more tightly this time around because they feel they can more easily battle PETA than the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. As far as the current scuffle goes, take note from this article that PETA and other groups often use FOIA requests to build a case, so it's clear that UM, along with other schools, are not fond of public attention drawn to animal-based research practices. If research scientists really felt emotionally secure on this topic, they'd freely boast about it to whoever will listen, rather than forcing private citizens to make FOIA requests.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 12:43 p.m.
Pigs are tasty. I love bacon, so to me the pigs are going to be made into food anyway. I hate cats so I have no problem with them being used in this circumstance.
Gibulet
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
I have interned at UM research for Vet Tech school and had extensive courses in school dedicated soley to research animals. I can guarantee you that PETA has no idea what actually goes on during these sessions. I had no idea how theses animals were treated until I was educated thoroughly, and the reality some of these animals are treated better than peoples' pets. Yes, the are used for experiments, but the laws dictating the perameters are VERY extensive and specific. The animals comfort is of utmost importance and not following the protocols will not only force a stop to a P.I.'s research, but damage their reputation. "But, cats? That one I do not see at all." "How is a cat or pig any more realistic than a simulator?" Cat and pigs are unique in tubing situations because they are similar in design to small children, and also are prone to laryngiospasms (reflex action causing the glottis to close). This reaction can happen in people and is an EMERGENCY. Practicing on living tissue that reactes the same as humans is essential in emergency medicine. Ferrets are also often used because their tracheas are VERY similar to newborn children. These species are chosen for these specific reasons, not because they are "cheap". I have personally done endotracheal intubation on both models and live animals, and it is completely different and more accurate on living tissue. Most people are against research testing because they do not know WHY it is being utilized. I know, I was one of those people. If your newborn child was struggling for air, would you want a doctor intubating who has only ever done it on a plastic model? Last year a group of students protested at UM for how horribly the research dogs are treated. One student crammed himself into a small cage, claiming that is was the exact cage UM uses on dogs. FLAT OUT LIES. Runs are used for dogs, NOT wire cages, and laws are in place for the required amount of movement, stimulation and enrichment for all animals. That student bought a cage at PETCO and sat in it for shock value, it was NOT fact. While PETA does occassionally land huge successes against animal abuse, they are just as biased as those students. I for one will not be a hypocrit. I take medications, I have family with pacemakers, I have loved ones who were saved by EMTs and doctors. They should use models when available and realistic, but that is not always the case.
Jay Jay
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
As MikeB stated "I wish PETA would work on the senseless savagery we inflict on human beings and then shift to animals". We human beings (if "human" is the correct wording to use) have long way to go in terms of treating each other. PETA would be much better grounded in looking to stop the mistreatment of humans. MikeB -- point very well made.
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.
go blue! unfortunately peta has raised a question. they will continue to be persistant. keep on it fellow carnivores. i like the bumper sticker i saw this weekend, "if we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" LOL
same guy
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
@lisam, "ends" in this case means "goals" or "purpose", as in the phrase "the ends justify the means".
AlwaysLate
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
With our over-weight society getting bigger and bigger everyday, I can see how a pig could be viewed a similar to humansat least American humans. But, cats? That one I do not see at all. And under the influence of anesthesia or not, no self-respecting cat that I know would allow a tube to be pushed down its throat without scratching your eyes out!
bedrog
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.
I would think that by their past tactics, ( as opposed to legitimate arguments for humane treatement of animals), PETA would be disqualified as having any legal standing to lodge a serious ' class action' complaint. Stand firm UM.
braggslaw
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
I like animals. I like eating animals. I will stop eating animals when other animals stop eating animals.
bluemax79
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.
PETA just needs to go away with this kind of complaint. we are talking about saving human lives here.
Jamie Weeder
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:26 a.m.
How is a cat or pig any more realistic than a simulator? Especially a cat or pig under anesthesia? There must be some sort of happy medium with technology these days- and for that reason, it leads me to believe this is purely a financial matter- not like UofM has a hard time making ends meet.
Jay Jay
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.
It is indeed sad that groups like PETA are so blind to reality. Where they might have had a chance to really do something, ie, where animal cruelty indeed exists, they waste their time attacking the University of Michigan, a leader in research and whose treatment of animals is as humane as can be. PETA is an organization whose time came and went. They need a new charter, a real vision, and true objectives to make sure they have some utility to our society, rather than taking on a radical point of view shared by few. Any group that tries to impose its opinion on others (and that seems to be a disease our society is suffering from today in many different areas) needs to go back and re-look at how a democracy works. PETA has no respect for anyone who does not hold their opinion, an opinion that is held by a very tiny, yet vocal minority. PETA should be given the same priority they deserve on this one, ie, ignore them!
Davidian
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.
Peta doesn't have a leg to stand on. Instead of caring for animals, they use their dollars for advertising and enticing celebrities. They euthanize the animals they are supposedly protecting. I wouldn't say they are radical. That implies some level of intellectualism. They are delusional. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
lisam
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:05 a.m.
Their lives have inherent value and we should not exploit them regardless of what our....ends are????, Goodman said. What are ends" Do you mean..."needs"?
Gorc
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:01 a.m.
I wonder how a member of PETA would feel if one of these life saving procedures had to be used to save their own life?
M.
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.
Well said MikeB. PETA and their supporters want animals to have equal rights with humans. They're NOT human, but we are lucky to have them as companions, food, and as a means to develop more ways to save human life. Without ethical (scientific ethics laws, not made up PETA ethics) animal research, there would still be many diseases we couldn't cure and many life-saving procedures would not have been discovered.
MikeB
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 5:32 a.m.
As much as I love animals I have to go with people first. As a one time paramedic, simulators are very good but they are just not realistic enough in every case. I wish PETA would work on the senseless savagery we inflict on human beings and then shift to animals.