A second federal agency charged with oversight of animal research has completed a thorough investigation of an animal rights group’s complaints about sound localization research with cats at the University of Wisconsin. Summary of the result: “there was no direct noncompliance with the PHS Policy or serious deviation from the provisions of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”
We have written previously (here, here, here) about reviews conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This time the report is from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). Once again, the complaint by PETA is based on hundreds of pages of records that the animal rights group received from the UW via open records requests. In response to these complaints both federal agencies have sent teams that include veterinarians to look at the animals, records, and research at UW-Madison.
In addition to the USDA and OLAW reviews, during this period the NIH institute funding the sound localization project, the National Institute on Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD), also took action. NIDCD suspended one part of the research— but not the entire project— from April-September 2013 when the final report was issued. Whether the suspension was the result of PETA’s allegations is not clear. What is clear is that the NIH and scientific community have long supported and valued this specific research and– more broadly– the contribution of animal models to success in this field and advances in scientific understanding and human health. The PI of this work, Professor Tom Yin, has been funded by NIH for many years. As is the case of all NIH-funded research, a competitive expert scientific panel provides rigorous critical analysis of the proposed science. Only a small fraction of proposals are identified as valuable, worthwhile, and likely to succeed. In this case, the PI’s research was deemed justifiable and worthy following scientific review, NIH review, and IACUC review. Furthermore, the scientific contributions Yin’s work is evident in many ways. For example, it is widely cited in the field (e.g., over 5000 citations of his scientific papers). Yin discusses the targeted research in these videos:
In brief, Professor Yin’s laboratory conducts fundamental basic research that has resulted in better understanding of complex brain function and how hearing works. By using a combination of electrophysiological recordings, anatomical studies and behavioral studies, the lab is studying the mechanisms used by the brain to put together inputs from the two ears to improve hearing. The scientific discoveries have public benefit because they provide foundational understanding with broad applicability. Knowing how the brain integrates sound received by both ears and how that allows for localization of sounds is an important part of work towards improving the quality of life and functioning of millions of people with hearing impairment.
Many types of research in this area require recording and studying a real functioning brain, there are no non-animal alternatives. Cats are among the best animal models for this work for a number of reasons. Among them: most of the information we have about the auditory system comes from studies in cats, they are nocturnal hunters with excellent sound localization abilities, and what we know about the cat’s nervous system shows that it is very similar to that of humans. The importance of cats and other animal models to research in this field is widely acknowledged, including by this year’s Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, and particularly the work of Graeme Clarke, which laid the foundations for the development of multichannel cochlear implants through studies in cats and rats.
As we have discussed previously, consideration of the use of animals in research includes not only weighing its potential benefits, but also evaluation of the animals’ welfare. The welfare of all of research animals is a priority and one that is ensured through the careful efforts of research, veterinary, and animal care personnel. Furthermore, oversight of animals’ care and treatment occurs at individual, institutional, and federal levels. A small number of cats (less than a dozen) participate in UW-Madison’s sound localization research. The cats are healthy and well-adjusted to their work, play, and living environments as was documented in the OLAW report. In that report, external reviewers who had thoroughly reviewed the lab and records, examined the animals, and interviewed the animal care and veterinary personnel, research staff, and scientists were satisfied with the animals’ condition and treatment. Potential for pain or suffering is minimized through careful efforts: Surgery is performed under deep anesthesia, just like surgery for humans. Infections are a risk, but they affect the animals only a fraction of the time they are in study. Furthermore, infections are caught early through extensive and careful monitoring, treated immediately and resolved quickly in all but a very small number of cases. In no cases are they allowed to be untreated or to cause suffering or unrelieved pain.
OLAW’s summary conclusion, released September 30, confirmed that the research and animal treatment were appropriate: “there was no direct noncompliance with the PHS Policy or serious deviation from the provisions of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.” Furthermore, the report concluded that PETA’s specific allegations were unsupported. The report also acknowledged UW’s efforts to continue refinement in the animals’ care and treatment: “OLAW found that while the specific allegations did not accurately reflect the entire clinical and research condition of the cats, changes were made to enhance the care of the animals and potentially improve research outcomes.” Furthermore, the report includes many extremely positive descriptions of the animals’ condition and care.
“The OLAW investigation is the third review of the lab and its animal subjects by the federal government, all instigated by PETA within the past year. To date, none of the many allegations of mistreatment made by the organization to the U.S. Department of Agriculture or OLAW have been substantiated. ‘Contrary to the misleading claims made by PETA, the conclusions cited in the OLAW report reflect our view that the animals in the study are in excellent health, are well treated and cared for, and used to further important research in an appropriate and humane manner,’ says Dan Uhlrich, UW-Madison associate vice chancellor for research policy. ‘Significant university and federal resources have been repeatedly redirected to respond to these unfounded allegations. This is a questionable use of scarce and valuable public resources, which we feel damages the best interests of the public, science, affected researchers, and the dedicated animal care and veterinary staffs responsible for the health and wellbeing of our animals.”
The OLAW summary report, including 36 appendix exhibits, can be found on their website. The UW has also shared detailed information about the research, the reviews, and the animal program with the broad public via its website, release of hundreds of records, and videos in which the scientist and others speak about the value of the work and how it is conducted. In other words, as we’ve noted before, there are many venues for the public to learn more about the work, its conduct, and the detailed process of regulatory oversight.
What was PETA’s response?
Hint: It did not include acknowledgement that OLAW, USDA, and the University of Wisconsin gave serious consideration to PETA’s complaint, performed a thorough investigation, and provided a detailed, specific public response on each of the allegations that the animal rights group raised. Nor did PETA’s response include an acknowledgement that perhaps they were wrong. And nothing in their public responses indicated – front and center – that PETA’s mission and objective is to end all animal research. PETA’s position is fundamentally absolutist. Regardless of animals’ welfare and regardless of the consequences for the public that benefits from responsible, ethical and humanely-conducted animal studies, PETA is opposed to all use of nonhuman animals. Thus, there are presumably no conditions under which PETA would find laboratory animal research acceptable. (We welcome correction from PETA if this is a misrepresentation of their position.)
It is not surprising then that, as reported in the Wisconsin State Journal, PETA’s spokesman did not accept the OLAW conclusion, but rather vowed: “This campaign is going to continue until that lab is empty and there are no cats in it,’” Goodman said without specifying the group’s next steps.”
PETA’s next steps in its quest to close the laboratory will probably include some of the characteristic stunts for which they are famous. At the UW this has included small protests on campus, the PETA mobile billboard truck driving around Madison, and an actor and PETA staffer gaining media coverage for disruption and arrest at a UW System Board of Regents meeting. Review of their campaign strategy thus far provides a few other clues for what to expect at the UW and elsewhere. For example, last week PETA set up at the campus job fair to recruit for an “undercover investigator.” PETA’s Jeremy Beckham netted a local television interview with the tactic. Not a new tactic for animal rights groups, as seen in this campaign directed at Oregon Health Sciences University several years ago.
As we’ve written before however, focusing on these stunts and underestimating the broader gains that PETA has made and that negatively affect science and public interests can be a mistake. In the case of this campaign and all of the associated events, two things in particular are worth notice by the broader community. First, the way in which PETA used the openness of records and the public responsiveness of the regulatory process to feed their campaign; and second, the use of emotive tactics that encourage harassment of scientists and others in research institutions. The graphic above captures the general strategy used by many activist groups, highlights the costs, and raises a number of questions. In particular, one question that merits serious discussion is how to better assess the full range of actual costs and critical evaluation of realized benefits to animal welfare, science, and public interests.
Despite the conclusion of multiple federal reviews that failed to support their allegations, PETA is continuing to smear the research and to promote petition and email campaigns to the NIH, UW-Madison, and others. As one of the exhibits in the OLAW report shows, the NIDCD received 562 phone calls and approximately 190,000 emails about cat research. While that represents a tiny fraction of the American public and likely includes many form messages, its inclusion in the OLAW report suggests it may have been relevant to the NIH’s response. No doubt that number increased after PETA linked a form email to its mixed martial arts assault on scientists videogame in order to encourage players to complain to NIH about the UW research. Of course the game also encourages players to entertain the idea of harming scientists. As we’ve seen before, these highly emotional tactics can have the general effect of eliciting threatening and disturbing messages from those who follow PETA. For example, this recent tweet:
The PETA campaign and response following the USDA and OLAW reports makes their objective clear once again: to end research and close labs. Nothing new there. The question to ask now however, is how research institutions, scientists, federal agencies, and the public should respond to campaigns like this. In particular, this set of events provides additional strong evidence that there is little broad value in engagement with groups that have a singular agenda and little interest in serious dialogue, accuracy, or acknowledgement of the complex issues and choices in animal research conducted for public benefit. For scientists and research institutions interested in dialogue and better understanding of animal research, using that time and energy to communicate directly with the public about their research, why they are doing it and what it involves makes more sense.
7 thoughts on “Animal welfare inspectors clear UW-Madison cat research of PETA allegations, important hearing research continues”
I think this is so funny. It’s not being said there are no infections but that they are treated properly. I think you, like many, think any experiements on animals is wrong. And that is your opinion. But stop grossly throwing this out of proportion. PETA, like it says, just wants to stop everything. And where does that lead us? I am sorry, yes we have come a long way in technology but not enough to do everything without actually testing. Stop throwing around that it’s some big government conspiracy. If we let the public decide everything we did, then we would never get anywhere. These kinds of research are making miracles happen. I am sure some of the medications that you or your family takes, has been created due to experiments. If there was any type of abuse, then the lab would be shut down. And as stated, they were told to make changes so it’s not like they arent working on it. But as with everything, it’s trial and error. Just like humans when they go in for “experiement treatment” at hospitals to try and make something good happen.
Here is one of the things those experiments do for us…
UWM is part of the government bureaucracy. Can you expect any truth to come from them? These idiots have no idea how intelligent and emotional cats are. If they want to experiment on something, use convicted murderers and rapists…or better yet, volunteer themselves…or maybe those in government….wait, sorry, they don’t have brains.
If everyone here believes so absolutely, that the ends justify the means, I wish they would show some courage, and just say so, in plain language, instead of hiding behind long, elaborate gibberish.
One of the problems is that the system is easy to exploit. There is little cost to PETA other than gathering the animal records, which requires a minimum amount of legal work. They simply have to write a letter to the institution citing federal or state freedom of information laws and making a blanket request for all animal protocols and records. The university is obliged to respond.
Then PETA writes to the USDA, NIH or other agency, or members of Congress with a list of alleged protocol violations. These letters can contain false statements. You might think that making false statements to the government would be against the law, but “whistleblowers” are given a wide berth. It’s not like an affidavit where false statements constitute perjury. As long as PETA can vaguely support their statements, they are in the clear. Again, the government is obliged to respond to allegations of abuse in one way or another.
At some point, PETA’s behavior may rise to the level of libel or making false accusations. My guess is that their lawyers have already calculated exactly where this line is. If PETA crosses that line, it would be up to the university to pursue civil litigation. It is very unlikely that the government would do anything.
As for inciting violence, this is a game that PETA loves to play. There is a very high standard for proving that an act of violence was provoked by a third party. You practically have to hand them the weapon. Again, I’m sure PETA’s lawyers know exactly how far they can go.
In short, PETA has found a low-cost way to create a civil nuisance. They don’t have to deal with any court, just some government agencies that have a minimal burden of evidence for initiating investigations. On the other hand, their strategy is unlikely to shut down any labs or affect funding. The USDA already conducts regular inspections and only issues citations when there is real evidence of abuse.
It is remarkably sad how much PETA is disconnected from reality. They want to think of each animal as if they were sentient, conscious, emotional and human-intellectually complex individuals. They aren’t. They are simply animals. They don’t need an individual purpose, a family history, or freedom to explore the world. As long as they are being fed, taken care of, given a place to live, and activities to do, they will be happy.
Rafael – If, as you indicate, animals aren’t “conscious” or “sentient,” then how can they be “happy?” I personally think you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Question to Professor Yin and the University of Wisconsin: What happens to these cats when these experiments are over? I haven’t seen any mention of that.
Comments are closed.