Neuroscience Society Fights For Animals In Research

PHOENIX—It’s not often that Stephen Lisberger, a neurobiologist at the University of California, San Francisco speaks to 400 scientists at one sitting. But there was standing room only at this month’s 19th annual meeting of the Society for Neu- roscience when Lisberger—who uses monkeys to study eye movement—and two other researchers shared their experiences with proponents of theanimal rights movement. That panel discussion was one of three sessions designed to draft members into the war against animal rights activists. The talks were part of a larger effort by the scientific community to strike back against what it sees as the harassment—and occasional violence—it suffers at the hands of some of those activists. And the large crowds at these sessions were indicative of the research community’s increased concern about the issue. “I think the society is really coalescing behind this effort,” says Adrian Morrison, professor of anatomy at the University of Pennsylva- nia School Of Veterinary Medicine. “We have tried to move toward positive action and finally to turn the tide in our favor.” For the past two years, Morrison has chaired the society’s committee on animals in research, which was formed in 1981. He gets about two calls a day, and as many as nine during a crisis, from members concerned with animal research regulations or worried about becoming targets for animal rights extremists. The committee counsels scientists who have been attacked, and, when needed, it has coordinated letter-writing campaigns in support of the work under siege. During the past few years, the committee has sponsored a panel discussion to inform members about regulations and laws pertaining to animal care. But that is not enough, the society’s leaders have begun to realize. So this year they organized a first-ever legislative workshop onmanimals in research. The 75 participants discussed proposed legislation in Congress and around the country, learned about the political process, and practiced presenting their views effectively to legislators. The society hasn’t neglected its scientific roots, however. This year it held its second tutorial on the use of surgery and anesthesia on animals. The workshop attracted 230 people, many of them young scientists. They had to come a day early and pay for an extra night in a hotel, when what they are really supposed to be doing is learning neuroscience,” says Morrison. “So you can see that this is a very dedicated group." This year’s meeting also marked first time that the society asked scientists like Lisberger to talk in detail about the attacks on their work, offering both dos and don’ts on how to react. For Lisberger, the ordeal began in 1983 and culminated with a public hearing at which his university presented the case for animal research so effectively that the harassment subsided. “Make sure you are doing good research and treating your animals appropriately,” he advises colleagues, because only then can the scientific community. provide the necessary support. That broader support is essential, says Richard Van Sluyters, a neuro-biologist from the University of California School of Optometry, who has also been a target for animal rights activists. “You absolutely cannot defend yourself,” he says. Instead, the response must come from colleagues and from the institution, he says, and it must come quickly. He and the other speakers urge scientists to anticipate trouble and prepare a clear summary of the research and why it is important. Universities should have a designated spokesperson who is familiar with the research and a strong animal care program with an animal care committee that is familiar with a scientist’s activities. “You have to have all that ironed " out ahead of time,” says Van Sluyters, “so you don’t have to do it at 11:30 at night [during a crisis].” The society’s outgoing president, David Hubel, has worked hard to inspire his colleagues to speak up against animal rights extremists. “By Dr. Hubel making that [animals in research] the major message of his presidency, we’ve shifted into overdrive,” says Morrison. Earlier this year Hubel and sev " eral other Nobel laureates sent a letter to then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop asking him to speak out in defense of the use of animals in research. (In response, Koop said he has frequently defended the value of animal research.) In the name of the society, Hubel has contacted federal legislators and the voluntary health organizations asking them to take action. He also sent letters to society members urging them to campaign in local schools. “We have to do that because our adversaries are doing it in a big way,” Hubel told members during the society’s business meeting. “Otherwise the next generation is going to grow up thinking we’re criminals.” Hubel would also like medical doctors to display posters and pamphlets in their waiting rooms, and the society is thinking about issuing fact sheets on the brain that can reinforce the point that animal research is essential. But even so, Morrison says that not enough members have become involved. “It’s not even easy to get people who work in the areas that are most likely to be targeted to admit that it could happen to them or to recognize the urgency of the issue.” He estimates that only about 25 of the society’s 14,000 members have been targeted like Lisberger, but many more are affected indirectly. Even those scientists who work on the cellular and molecular levels should realize they are affected by the campaign against using laboratory animals, notes Morrison. “They won’t want to abscond with your cells, but they are absconding with your money, he says of the activists. His comments refer to estimates that compliance with more rigorous animal welfare regulations could cost universities as much as $1 billion. Despite their increased awareness of the issue, scientists at the meeting discovered that they still have more to learn about presenting their case to the public. On the first day of the meeting, 20 protesters from the Concerned Arizonans for Animal Rights and Ethics and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine picketed the Phoenix Civic Center, where the meeting was held. The society’s officers, involved in an all-day meeting, didn’t realize what a mistake their absence was until they saw the one-sided coverage of the protest that evening on television. “I knew there were protestors there, but I didn’t realize there would be. reporters as well,” says Hubel.

Neuroscience Society Fights For Animals In Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of