Alternatives For Neuroscience Rats

To the Editors:

One of the main points of contention is that there is “no legitimate use for this knowledge that could possibly justify excessive cruelty,” that “there are ways to teach students the same information and techniques without using dozens of rats every year,” and that “we can learn about [them] in other ways that do not harm living animals.” To begin with, the phrase ‘excessive cruelty’ is misleading. There are strict rules and regulations governing the use of any animal in a laboratory setting, among which are preventions against needless pain. Anesthetic drugs such as thiopental, Phenobarbital, pentobarbital, etc. are used to make the animal completely unconscious, and as with human anesthetics, are amnesic, so that when said animal wakes up, it has no remembrance of the procedure. When the drug wares off, the rat experiences pain, but no more than a human would that has just undergone surgery. In the instance of the experiments November 20, electrodes were placed into the rats’ pleasure centers, giving the rats control of their own intense pleasure. Suggesting that “models or videos or simulations” could be used instead of experiments is foolish and dangerous.
The purpose of experiments is not simply to “see what happens.” It is to become familiar with the techniques, to learn and be exposed to anomalies, to begin putting into practice the skills that have been taught. It is arrogant to think that one can understand everything about animal behavior or biology by never attempting yourself. One cannot learn any art unless it is by firsthand practice. Those Oberlin students in the Neuroscience department may go on to become brain surgeons or neuroscientists, and without a background of hands-on experience, they will be at a loss when it comes to operating on a human. These experiments are not “unnecessary” in the least. They are vital to those who would advance in their studies.
This leads to the final point - that these experiments are “based on a view of non-human animals as expendable objects to be held in captivity, tortured, experimented upon, and killed for our own purposes.” This “torture” has been addressed already, but it true that these animals are eventually killed, though quickly and humanely. The experimenters do not see them as objects, they are seen as fellow creatures, and are thus treated as well as possible, but in the cases of research or medical science, these creatures are necessary sacrifices to the advancement of humanity. The claim was made that “any ‘progress’ that requires such cruelty is not worth achieving.” In that case, most prescription drugs would be off our shelves, and medical science would take a leap into darkness. The logic that says we shouldn’t kill animals for our own “selfish purposes” also prevents any sort of pest or insect control, and disregards the fact that, in the wild, animals live in rougher environment and kill each other more painfully than they would be in any laboratory setting. This logic would also demand that people cease using soap, as it kills microscopic life which are “living, breathing, feeling creatures with the same desire to live freely as any human.”
In short - the experiments done at Oberlin are not cruel acts of needless violence, but carefully conducted experiments that take the rats’ safety and well-being into consideration, and that contribute to the knowledge and experience of the Oberlin student wishing to learn more about biology or neuroscience.

–Maxwell Teitel-Paule
College first-year