Members of Oberlin Animal Rights (OAR) began a three-week protest of a Neuroscience 211 vivisection lab Thursday. In addition to protesting the series of six labs, members of the group will conduct a hunger strike.
Three students will fast for at least four days beginning Thursday, eating only water and fruit juice; the fast will continue on a rotating schedule for three weeks. Aaron Simmons, junior and liaison for OAR, Josh Raisler-Cohn and Piper Weinburg, sophomores and members of OAR, are the students on strike for a minimum of four days.
Other members of OAR will join in the strike each day for three weeks. Strikers plan to call the Neuroscience Program and the President's Office every morning when they start their fast.
At Thursday's protest 15 members of OAR lay on their stomachs with their hands tied behind their backs in the hallway outside the laboratory. Students in the lab entered, most accepting a statement of protest offered by Simmons as they entered the door.
Organizers of the protest emphasized the action was non-disruptive. "Our goal is not to attack what students are doing," Simmons said. He said the protest is aimed at convincing students in the lab to observe the vivisection and not participate, as well as bring attention to the issue at Oberlin.
Vivisection is a surgical technique that allows researchers to stimulate the brain with different chemicals and electric shocks. In the lab, the rats are anesthetized, and a hole is made in the animal's skull. A wide variety of electrodes and drugs can then be implanted and researchers can study their effects on the rats' behavior.
Students in the class are told at he beginning of the lab that they are not required to perform the lab themselves. They can choose to observe the instead, and still receive credit for the lab.
At Thursday's lab a statement signed by several members of the class was hung on the door to the lab along with the statement written by protesters. The students' letter acknowledged the arguments of OAR, but asked the group to stop the protests.
Part of the statement read: "We feel that protesting is interrupting the academic environment in which we have chosen to participate. We respect your disagreement with our actions, and we ask you to reciprocate that respect. Therefore we request that you discontinue this protest."
The protesters' statement expressed the group's absolute opposition to exploitation, involuntary suffering and killing of animals by humans. "Scientific progress must not be made through the sacrifice of any sentient creature's life or freedom, whether that animal is human or non-human," the statement read.
While members of the Neuroscience faculty express their understanding of students' rights to protest, and acknowledge their arguments, some are frustrated by OAR's repeated protest of the lab.
"I am really disappointed to hear they are still going to be protesting," Catherine McCormick, director of the Neuroscience Program, said.
"We appreciate that they have their right to protest," Smith said. "But we feel we are doing something worthwhile and appropriate."
Students in the course also feel the lab is worthwhile, and wish the protests would stop. Allison Falender and Amanda Brady, first-years and members of the class, were part of the group which wrote the student statement. Both said they think the protesters' goal to raise awareness and educate students about why vivisection is important. They do oppose OAR's protest however.
"I think a lay-down protest is inappropriate," Brady said. "People in the class have already had to come to terms with it. There is no need to make it any more difficult."
Falender said she thinks the value of the lab outweighs the loss of an animal. "It's an academic thing," she said. "I believe strongly in animal rights, but since the rat was fully anesthetized I don't think it suffered."
"I tend to doubt that any animal with a hole in its skull would not go through any pain," Simmons said.
"It seems to fit in the category of torture and murder," Raisler-Cohn said.
James Quinn, a college junior who participated in the lab last semester, said the lab was useful to him and did not seem to be cruel. He said the only problem he had was with one drug the lab experimented with which made the rats insatiably thirsty. He said that seemed unnecessary to him.
"It is good to understand what is going on even if you won't repeat it in the future. It's good to know what you are reading about when it is in studies," Quinn said.
The lab is different this semester, and changes every semester according to Smith. The primary goal is to teach the technique of vivisection and the ways it can be used for research, so specific experiments might change.
Raisler-Cohn questions the importance of doing the vivisection lab; he argues that if it is acceptable for students to watch the lab instead of perform it, there is no reason the school cannot simply show a video of the lab for the entire class.
Brady said watching a vivisection on video would not be enough for a student going into neuroscience or to medical school. She said the hands-on experience cannot be duplicated.
People from both sides of the issue are realistic about the difficulty of reaching an agreement that pleases both OAR and the Neuroscience Program. "In a lot of respects we're at an impasse because we don't want live animal experimentation and dissection and it is their livelihood," Raisler-Cohn said.
Simmons said OAR will continue to work for any reduction in the numbers of animals used at Oberlin, and changes in the lab requirements for dissection and vivisection.
Barbara Fuchsman, chair of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and director of federal support in the office of sponsored programs, said she thinks there is some space for compromise between the faculty and OAR. She talked about maintaining high standards of enrichment in the animals' environments. She does acknowledge that on the basic question of whether animal use is appropriate the two groups are unlikely to reach an agreement.
IACUC is responsible for making sure animal use at Oberlin complies with federal government standards. Fuchsman said she thinks both OAR and the faculty agree about the importance of having the highest standards for animal use.
Members of OAR and faculty and staff involved with Neuroscience are planning a forum for next fall to explore the issues in an academic environment. They are trying to use the Mead-Swing lecture series, a privately-funded series presented each fall in the areas of science or religion, for the forum.
Fuchsman is enthusiastic about the fall forum. "We are hoping to have a careful and thoughtful discussion in a very professional way with students and faculty," she said.
(Top) Discussion: Labrotory technician GiGi Knight discusses OAR's request to read a statement of protest to the lab with junior Aaron Simmons and sophomore Josh Raisler-Cohn. Susan Brown, the lab instructor, did not allow the reading. (photo by Susanna Henighan)
(Bottom) Protest: OAR protests Thursday's lab. (photo by Susanna Henighan)
Related Stories:
