Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Psychology department should be forthright with animal testing

Development of a new primate testing lab in the Psychology building has sparked a heated debate among animal rights activists and researchers.

Recently, word has spread across the Internet about the new lab, which would use monkeys to seek out better ways to cure amnesia among epileptic patients who have a portion of their brains removed.

Rick Bogle, a representative from In Defense of Animals, said a University of Arizona employee contacted him about the experiments. The result has been a flood of letters to the Daily Wildcat - some expressing great anger about the lab, and some in defense of its existence.

While the possibility of violence toward the researchers is frightening - animal rights activists feel very passionately about the issue, and there have been attacks on such research in the past - an overt attitude and honest approach is the best way to deal with the public.

The flood of letters - some informed, some uninformed and some outrageous - make it clear that concerned citizens will find out about any such research occurring. Also, any attempt to sugar-coat the experiments or contain its publicity will only create contempt and ignorance among the general public.

Psychology professor Fraser Wilson will be holding the experiments when the lab is finished. He has expressed concern that people upset about the research are simply uninformed.

"It is a plan to confuse and harass and make an issue of something that is difficult (to understand)," he said. "People have no idea what kind of research is going on."

This may be true. But if that is the case, the best defense against such ignorance is reaching out and encouraging informed discussion. After all, they have succeeded in making it an issue without the help of anyone involved in the experiments. Since it is an issue, the department would only benefit by being blunt about the work. Publicizing what is going on at the UA - especially controversial research - will, hopefully, lead to educated discussion and awareness among the department and the university.

It has been said that secrecy is necessary to ensure the safety of animal researchers. This is a dangerous attitude, and one that submits to petty threats and fear. Assuming that researchers seek a noble cause, they should seek it with pride and acceptance of the fact that their work carries a certain risk. Terrorism of any kind should not be hidden from.

While the department has been accused of attempting to hide its research, it is unclear whether this is true. But if researchers had come out forthright with the goals, methods and unpleasant details about their work, the general public would have been better served.

Attempting to cloak harm done to the subjects with technical language only creates contempt and suspicion among the community. Researchers should inform the public and encourage discussion.

Animal research is a frightening field. Security is another issue, and extremists who would threaten scientists need to be dealt with separately. But open discourse can only help people to understand, and form an opinion of what is going on at the university.