From SFN

Animal Research Must Be Protected

The Society for Neuroscience (SfN), as a professional society comprised of

basic and clinical researchers in neuroscience, supports the appropriate and
responsible use of animals in biomedical research.  SfN is committed to a
high standard of conduct for neuroscience research, and has adopted the
Public Health Service and National Institutes of Health policies and
procedures for the humane and appropriate use of live animals as the
minimum standard for biomedical research.  

While animals are protected, often the scientists engaged in research are
not.  In recent years, animal rights groups have sponsored increasingly more
violent acts against the research community. In fact, many of these groups
are on the radar screen of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
have been classified as domestic terror groups. Congress is also becoming
increasingly aware of the illegal activities of certain animal rights groups,
and has introduced the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (H.R. 4239/S. 1926)
which would allow federal authorities to help prevent, to better investigate,
and to prosecute individuals who seek to halt biomedical research through
terrorist acts of intimidation, harassment, and violence.  SfN fully supports
passage of AETA and has written to Congress to voice our support.  Yet, in
the absence of such law, domestic terror activities are taking a toll
on dedicated scientists committed to research employing both appropriate
federally and institutionally approved procedures that will form the
foundation for future medical breakthroughs. Also, SfN opposes motions that
have been simultaneously placed before the European Parliament, other
European governing bodies, and the US House of Representatives calling for
an end to experiments on non-human primates.

On August 6, 2006, one such researcher who is a member of SfN and

has been a target of such attacks, decided to discontinue animal research.
This decision was the result of being terrorized in his home and hearing of an
activist attempt to ignite an incendiary device at the home of a colleague.
These terrorist activities have taken place over a number of years. He feared
for his life and for the lives of his family. The loss to research and medical
progress due to this resignation from animal research is impossible to
quantify.  What is decidedly true, however, is that research in the area of
neuroscience will endure a setback each and every time animal rights groups
who engage in domestic terror succeed in intimidating scientists into leaving
their labs and giving up on their efforts to further our understanding of the
brain and our ability to treat brain disorders.  The crimes perpetrated by
certain animal rights groups are exactly that--illegal crimes that warrant
harsh penalties under the law.  The people engaged in these crimes should
not be seen as a fringe, heroic element, but rather as terrorists - nothing
more, nothing less.  The nature and frequency of these criminal, domestic
terror activities deserve to be treated as seriously as if they were hate
crimes perpetrated against a particular sect of the community.  These violent
and psychologically damaging domestic terror crimes do not greatly vary
from those employed by hate groups.

SfN wholly opposes all criminal and terrorist acts against the research
community and their families, including this incident at the University of
California at Los Angeles.  Further, SfN supports the enforcement of all
existing laws that protect scientists from such acts.

Animal research has led to important advances in understanding the nervous

system and its disorders.  Among these are the developments of: a vaccine
against polio; medications for the effective treatment of depression,
schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder; advances in the treatment
of Parkinson's Disease, stroke, sleep disorders, and hearing; and new drugs
for the treatment of pain and epilepsy. 
 
The Society believes that continued progress in understanding the brain and
nervous system requires the investigation of complex functions at all levels
in the living nervous system.  Because no adequate alternatives exist, much
of this research must be done on animal subjects.  All research must be
approved by Institutional and Animal Care and Use Committees prior to their
initiation.  These committees are comprised of veterinarians, researchers,
ethicists, and laypersons.  SfN feels strongly that neuroscientists have an
obligation to contribute to this progress through responsible and humane
research on animals.  Such research should be allowed to progress without
the threat of criminal, domestic terrorism directed at those scientists seeking
to find answers about the wonders and ailments of our biological systems. 

Finally, SfN would like to continue to serve as a resource for both

information and support to our own members who are conducting
responsible animal research, should they wish to prepare themselves in
advance or if they find themselves a target of these heinous crimes. 
Researchers who need help should contact Mark Cason, Government and
Public Affairs Manager at mcason@sfn.org.
My Opinion About Animal Testing: Although it is true that no one should act
violently and cause terrorist acts against anyone, I am completely against
the use of animals as test subjects. Why would a so called humans with
higher brain power or in other words with the “ability to think” should harm
or use another living creature for their greater benefit? Isn’t that a sin?
Would you use your own family member as a test subject of an experiment?
Would you inject some unknown or known substance into your family
member and see how he/she would react? I don’t think so. It is said that
“appropriate and responsible use of animals in biomedical research” in the
article. But what exactly is appropriate? By harming innocent animals? Some
may argue that most or almost every modern medical discovery has been
made through animal testing. However, how many animals have suffered in
pain during this period? How many animals have died during this period
because of those testing? Is it fair to do those to another living being? Aren’t
they having feelings just like us? In my opinion, human beings who have the
“ability to think” should not harm another animal for their greater good.
Every living being has the equal right to live. If you don’t want someone to
cause you pain, then don’t do it to other people. Simple as that.

From PETA

Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses
and zoos. Many of us bought our beloved “pets” at pet shops, had guinea
pigs, and kept beautiful birds in cages. We wore wool and silk, ate
McDonald’s burgers, and fished. We never considered the impact of these
actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking
the question: Why should animals have rights?

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality
does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an
important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals
should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live
their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the
reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s
rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they
suffer?’” In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital
characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for
suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher
mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same
degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and
motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their
needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value
completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature
with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not
just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that
all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has
said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a
boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves.
Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally
unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same
capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one
animal as a companion and the other as dinner.