The news that UW-Madison researchers are testing tasers on pigs to examine their effectiveness has not been taken lightly. However, much of the disdain the news of these tests has caused can be attributed to the misconceptions surrounding ethical and procedural components of animal testing.
I have had the chance to speak with researchers, trainers and veterinarians, some of whom are directly involved in the taser project. One of the primary vets associated with the case has assured that the procedures outlined in the protocol involve proper and gentle care of the anesthetized animals and are approved and funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. The likeness of the pig's heart and skin to that of the human offers the promise that the experimental method laid out in this testing will directly correlate to probable taser reactions in humans.
Many of us have benefited from the innovative practices made possible through the testing of animals. Animal research has led to the development of a number of vaccines, given new hope to stem-cell research and has allowed us to properly make insulin, anti-depressants and anesthetics. It has led to effective treatment of neurological disorders, diabetes and cancer as well as providing new methods for surgical procedures and new information on food safety. Without animal research, we would not have access to so many of the medical breakthroughs of which we now take advantage.
For those who wonder if any other methods of research might have produced the results obtained with animals, the answer is simple. In order to identify a sound hypothesis about the reactions a human will have toward a new drug or procedure, living cells or a beating heart are often necessary. However, even animal researchers search every day for ways to reduce the number of animals used in their investigations. The cloning abilities made possible with stem-cell research and the development of helpful computer models open new doors to such a possibility. But even computers are only as useful as the data programmed into them, so some initial research is still required.
It is important that UW students and the population in general begin to understand the advantages animal testing might create for them. Any time a student receives a vaccine, they profit from animal research. In the instance they will ever need emergency surgery or an organ transplant, their lives will be saved through skills acquired during past animal surgeries. If their parents ever received treatment for a life-threatening illness such as cancer or diabetes, animal research might even have allowed the student's existence to be possible. Even our pets have benefited from the research performed on other animals.
In supporting the outcome of animal research, it might be wise to clear up some of the major misconceptions. The scientists who test on animals are not inherently cruel; many of them have children and pets of their own and are humane and ethical people. Laws and ethics are actually a critical part of the approval process on all proposed animal research. The amount of time put into the development of each individual procedure allows for a number of regulations and controls to be implemented, and torture is simply not possible. Ninety-five percent of animal research is performed on rats and mice, not larger animals like monkeys and dogs. Animals obtained for research cannot be taken from humane societies or from lost pets, as the entire history of the animal is critical to the investigation. Furthermore, using a species for animal research will not lead to its extinction.
It is obvious that animal research is crucial to a rapidly advancing scientific society. However, the continuation of such important developments is helped by the support granted by the public. Considering the many ways we have all undeniably benefited from animal testing and research, how can we possibly refuse to offer this support?
Jessica Sprang is a sophomore majoring in journalism. She can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. Her column runs every Monday in The Daily Cardinal.
