Proposal to elimate experimentation in labs is unaccpetable

Last week's Oberlin Review published an open letter to the Neuroscience Program from Josh Raisler Cohen. We take this opportunity to correct misinformation in Mr. Cohen's essay and to explain why his proposal -- that we eliminate experimentation on live animals in the NSCI 211 laboratory course -- is unacceptable.

(1) It is incorrect to say that students can take NSCI 211 without taking a college biology course. College-level biology is aprerequisite for the NSCI 211 lab. Some students fulfill this requirement at other institutions, including through AP courses taken in high school. It would be inconsistent to bar these students from NSCI 211, given that they have access to all other biology and neuroscience courses with the same requirement.

(2) It is misleading to say that "many students who take it (NSCI 211) are not Neuroscience majors or medical students." Our enrollment records, dating from 1992 when the course was first offered, show that almost all students in NSCI 211 are, or will be, majors in Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Biology, or Biochemistry. The experimental use of animals is standard in all of these professional fields, and of course what is taught in NSCI 211 is relevant for pre-medical and pre-veterinary students. We feel, however, that students not intending to major in one of the sciences, or who are unsure of their major, should not be denied educational experiences and opportunities given to science majors. Moreover, all students in the class should have the same opportunity to make choices as to how they participate: see point (3).

(3) The Animal Care and Use Guidelines state that "all animal use must be necessary." Mr. Cohen makes the assumption that because students in NSCI 211 "are not required to participate" in the laboratory exercises in which live animals are used, the use of live animals in these labs is not "necessary" and therefore violates the Guidelines. This misconception brings us to the heart of the Neuroscience Program's views on animal use and student choice. We are committed to giving students in all of our courses an education that rivals that of any institution in this country. We are committed to giving them a deep understanding of basic principles, a realistic look at how research is conducted, and to teaching them useful, modern laboratory skills. Animal use is often required to meet these goals. However, it is every student's right to structure their education as they wish. We have no desire to interfere with that right, and that is why we are flexible about a student's level of participation in each and every neuroscience laboratory course in which animals are used.

We unequivocally share the respect for animal life, whether it be human or non-human, that the members of Oberlin Animal Rights have. What is at issue is whether one group of sentient beings, humans, has the right to limit the educational or life choices made by another group of sentient beings, humans! We have no intention of forcing our views on anyone. In contrast, some of OAR's members claim that their beliefs are the only ones that are morally justified, and so demand, as Mr. Cohen does, that we must all adopt these beliefs. Hence, Mr. Cohen's reference to the "unfortunate impasse in the debate on animal rights on this campus." We thought a debate was supposed to have two sides!

The logic of many members of the Animal Right movement is not dissimilar to that of some members of the Pro Life movement. Both claim to be defending the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. Both define themselves as champions of the moral highground. Having defined themselves this way, they seek to impose their moral values upon others, no matter what the consequence to the individual, to the being they seek to protect, or to the world at large.

Given the complexities and emotionally-charged nature of these issues, its unlikely "resolution" can occur between the two factions in each group. We can hope, however, that tolerance between opposing sides will prevail. The right of each side to express its views -- with civility and accuracy, and without attempting to limit the rights of those who oppose them -- and the right of each individual to make his/her own choices, must be upheld.