PETA detective uncovers alleged animal cruelty - November 12, 2009
An eight-month undercover investigation by a leading US animal rights group has documented alleged mistreatment of animals inside two University of Utah facilities.
Officials from the Virginia-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which opposes all research with animals as well as their use in food and clothing, said they will file formal complaints to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture after the group's undercover agent, who worked as an animal support technician at the Salt Lake City University from 12 February to 29 October, gathered videos and photos that PETA says violate the federal Animal Welfare Act.
University officials defended the lab's practices, arguing that the PETA investigator does not understand routine procedures in animal research. "None of the things she alleges are substantive," said Tom Parks, the University of Utah's vice president for research. "It's a remarkably banal list of ordinary events in an animal-care facility." (Salt Lake Tribune)
The alleged cruelties that the PETA investigator observed, according to a PETA press release, include purposely paralyzing mice, drilling holes in monkey skulls, injecting chemicals into kitten brains, and giving rats epileptic seizures.
You can watch some of the undercover footage below the jump:
Comments
Quite a number of the things captured in this undercover footage appear to violate the Animal Welfare Act. Parks' statement that PETA captured "a remarkably banal list of ordinary events in an animal-care facility" suggests that these facilities have little to no regard for these federal standards that provide only minimal protections to animals in laboratories.
The footage also illustrates the extreme callousness of the experimenters and the tremendous amount of cruelty that results from excluding rats and mice entirely from regulation under the AWA.
Posted by: Jared Goodman | November 12, 2009 06:25 PM
Animal research such as this is clearly driven by greed. Institutions can get thousands, even millions, in grants, to torture animals in the name of science. This is helping no humans. Those are the facts.
Posted by: Sherrill Durbin | November 12, 2009 08:59 PM
"None of the things she alleges are substantive," said Tom Parks, the University of Utah's vice president for research. "It's a remarkably banal list of ordinary events in an animal-care facility."
Interesting, Mr Parks. Thank you for showing us all that this happens every day in every lab facility. That way the pro animal research lobby will not be able to write this one off as a few bad workers as they usually do.
Stop all animal testing.
Posted by: AR | November 13, 2009 01:51 PM
In addition to the inherent cruelty involved with animal experimentation, the use of animals in research and testing does NOT advance human medicine. Mice, monkeys, and humans are all very different in gene expression, anatomy, and disease susceptibility. The results from these inhumane experiments rarely--if ever--carry over to human health.
Posted by: Dr. Sampson | November 13, 2009 07:03 PM
There are so many alternatives to animal-based research. Ethically conducted clinical research, in vitro methods, computer simulations... and the list goes on. These methods represent the future of research not only because they're ethical but because they're based on human anatomy and are what's best for human medicine.
Posted by: Kristin H. | November 13, 2009 07:24 PM
What PETA fails to tell in their postings is that ALL animal research facilities who conduct NIH sponsored research are subject to investigation by the USDA, AND the US Humane Society. Animal research is extremely expensive and if a better model is available for current diseases it will be used. However, the best current model for the human condition is animal experimentation. Researchers who use animal models do NOT want to torture animals, and often get into the profession because they like working with animals. I would also like to point out that PETA has pulled this stunt before, published badly edited video footage of research facilities which spurned in-depth investigations by granting agencies and the USDA. These allegations were found to be false at previous institutions. So, beware of PETA's agenda, no animal research, no animal usage whatsoever. I personally feel if you do NOT like modern medicine you should go live in the woods out of the reach of medical care, and quit using up resources others need to further your own moral imperative.
Posted by: Dr B | November 13, 2009 11:06 PM
PETA's investigators have a history of staging the very acts of cruelty they wish to film. They also edit material together in a way that distorts what actually happens.
Any organization that promotes its cause with offensive campaigns such as "Holocaust on Your Plate" or by hanging around schoolyards and handing out propoganda pamphlets to young children has little credibility.
Posted by: gee | November 14, 2009 06:21 PM
There is something that is suspicious here. In fact, I would question this evidence.
Recently, on PETA's main page they have a photo of a cat that allegedly has had testing on it. It also looks like it has been blinded.
That said, the photo of the cat clearly has a photoshopped testing cap on its head (there is no fur edging around where the cap is) and the blindness is clearly inked out spots using the Paint program. You can tell this given that the edges are not smooth to the edges of the actual eye socket.
Recently, in their magazine, PETA also used a photo of a downed cow's backside and said that it was a horse being slaughtered for parts. You can easily tell this was not a horse based on the body structure of said beast.
If I were the University of Utah, I would DEMAND that they show ALL the footage - unedited - to prove their case. PETA is also infamous for editing footage to fit what they want people to believe. This is why no one takes them seriously.
Posted by: mel | November 14, 2009 07:51 PM
BTW, this is to "Dr. Sampson" in reference to: Mice, monkeys, and humans are all very different in gene expression, anatomy, and disease susceptibility.
*******************
My question is - if monkeys are supposedly so different from us, then why are "doctors" such as you and ARs say that we descend from monkeys? If this is true, then testing on them would make sense as we'd have similar reactions.
If this is not true, then the theory of evolution is discredited.
Personally, I wouldn't believe for a minute you're a doctor, but are instead an AR/PETA member trying to make one think you're a doctor to try and discredit the fact that if it weren't for animal testing in the past, you wouldn't be here.
That is... unless you're a scientologist who doesn't believe in medicine at all.
Additionally, this is to Kristin H., please give me SPECIFIC examples of humane testing that doesn't require animals that has been successful? PETA and AR members like to make this claim, yet I've never seen them give a response save "Scientists should test on themselves" or insert people who understand (not necessarily support) testing.
Come to think of it - can you say to us sincerely (any AR/PETA member) that you'd be willing to give up your health and life to be tested on for medicine? (I have BTW, so let's not try to turn this on me).
If you can't, you're hypocrites and just need to shut up.
Posted by: Mel | November 16, 2009 03:57 PM
Unfortunately many of the so called "scientific or therapeutic" need test reports to satisfy their share holders and keep processing (or rather torturing) test animals until they may find one that reacts positively. Cover ups are a daily practice and meddling with figures is all very scientific,...all for the power of the mighty dollar, no life will be spared to satisfy to make the stocks to go up.
I can name a few that are just horrible and have no respect for anything but their shares.
Posted by: Leon S | February 9, 2010 04:19 AM