{"id":773045,"date":"2023-07-15T08:14:02","date_gmt":"2023-07-15T12:14:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=773045"},"modified":"2023-07-15T08:57:37","modified_gmt":"2023-07-15T12:57:37","slug":"whats-worse-than-a-cruel-animal-experiment-a-cruel-and-fake-animal-experiment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=773045","title":{"rendered":"WICKED LIES: What\u2019s worse than a cruel animal experiment? A cruel and fake animal experiment"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

When a top primate researcher is allowed to keep experimenting on monkeys after falsifying data, it sends a message to everyone in the research community that recklessly handling animal experiments, while temporarily embarrassing, may not be that big a deal.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

MARINA BOLOTNIKOVA:<\/strong> Experimentation on live animals is a divisive, morally charged subject. Slightly more than half of Americans say they oppose using animals in scientific research, according to a 2018 Pew survey, but it depends a lot on how you phrase the question and who is asking. When asked by the biomedical industry whether they support \u201cthe humane use of animals\u201d to develop \u201clifesaving medicines,\u201d many more people say they do, or aren\u2019t sure. These gaps reflect the public\u2019s lack of understanding of how vivisection works in general: Most people don\u2019t know whether animal testing is humane, effective, or necessary, nor do they always know how to define those terms.<\/em><\/p>\n

Not everyone will agree… that vivisection… is unjustifiable in nearly all circumstances. But… most people will agree that animal experiments should have to clear an especially high bar \u2014 that they have to be truly necessary for saving human lives and irreplaceable with non-animal methods.<\/em><\/p>\n

That is, unfortunately, not how animal testing in the US works at all. Scientists harm and kill animals for all sorts of studies that have nothing to do with saving human lives. Researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, for example, have forced prairie voles to drink alcohol to test whether it makes them cheat on their partners. A Harvard neuroscientist recently came under fire for separating caged mother monkeys from their babies and giving them surrogate stuffed animals to bond with, thus demonstrating, she wrote in a top scientific journal, that \u201cinfant\/mother bonds may be triggered by soft touch”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Animal experimentation is also not immune to outright fraud, a problem that\u2019s \u201cdisturbingly common\u201d in science… Federal investigators found that William Armstead, a former professor at the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s medical school, had faked the results of multiple federally funded studies that involved cutting open piglets\u2019 skulls and inducing brain injuries. The studies were meant to test drugs for treating brain injuries in humans. (Armstead left the university while he was under investigation for this misconduct.) Some of Armstead\u2019s fabrications, which included relabeling results from past studies as new ones, appear designed to make a drug his team was studying look more effective…<\/em><\/p>\n

Last year, a pivotal 2006 mouse study, which had been thought to shed light on the pathology of Alzheimer\u2019s disease and shaped years of federally funded research, was credibly accused of being fraudulent and remains under investigation.<\/em><\/p>\n

Also last year, federal officials found Deepak Kaushal, then-head of the federally funded Southwest National Primate Research Center in San Antonio, to have falsified results in a published study of a tuberculosis treatment tested on monkeys, and used those results in two NIH grant applications…<\/em><\/p>\n

All these revelations should raise alarms about how misconduct is handled in research involving animal testing. When a top primate researcher is allowed to keep experimenting on monkeys after falsifying data, it sends a message to everyone in the research community that recklessly handling animal experiments, while temporarily embarrassing, may not be that big a deal.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe NIH tends to give anybody on their pay line the benefit of the doubt,\u201d neuroscientist Katherine Roe, who worked at NIH for more than eight years and is now chief of PETA\u2019s science advancement and outreach division, told me. (PETA, despite its reputation, has a top-notch team of scientists challenging unethical animal research). \u201cThe penalties for research fraud are not what they should be”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Right now, the consequences for misconduct in federally funded research don\u2019t take into account whether the work involved animal testing, Roe said. Federal research regulations could be amended so that scientists found responsible for misconduct in work involving vulnerable populations, including non-human animals, be permanently barred from testing on them in future federally sponsored research, a change that\u2019s been proposed by PETA, explained Emily Trunnell, a senior scientist for the organization…<\/em><\/p>\n

On a higher level, we have to start seeing it as the public\u2019s right and duty to make democratic decisions about whether and how animals are used in scientific research, especially when our money is paying for it… Ethics belongs to us all. And the public expects a much higher bar than too many animal researchers currently set for themselves. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n