To the Editor:
I applaud The Herald for bringing to light the University's animal research programs and the important ethical questions associated with them ("A look at the University's animal testing," Feb. 12). We have a responsibility to keep a critical eye on animal testing at Brown and to demand that the University be as open as possible about these activities. Satisfying or even surpassing animal welfare standards does not necessarily ensure ethical practices, especially when the standards come from the very organizations with an interest in the experiments. For example, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act was largely designed to appease animal sympathizers while including sufficient loopholes so as to allow most animal tests to continue unhindered. The act explicitly excludes anything that happens during an actual experiment and leaves out the most commonly vivisected animals, such as mice and rats.
Experimentation on animals can only be justified if we have good reason to believe that the research will ultimately relieve more suffering than it causes. Researchers should ask themselves whether they would be prepared to perform the same experiment on humans with an equivalent capacity to suffer, were that the only way to achieve their ends. If not, then the experiment is probably unnecessary.
I do not ask for the absolute abolition of animal experimentation, at Brown or anywhere else. But I am confident that only a small percentage of current tests are ethically justifiable. We should listen carefully when an organization like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals raises doubts about our practices, for unlike Brown researchers, they are the ones whose chief concern is the animals, not the benefits they might bring us.
Adam Hoffman '10Feb. 12
