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.