Canadian University Press Newswire
Page 1 of 5
Cruel intentions
Animals research methods have universities and federal organizations stepping into hot water
Danielle Pope — CUP Western Bureau Chief
Photo courtesy of Sarah Fleming/Flickr Creative Commons.
VICTORIA (CUP) — After 60 animal advocacy groups called on the University of British Columbia
to become more transparent with its animal research methods, many are asking what controls are even
in place to protect those creatures who can’t speak up for themselves.
It turns out, very few are.
The Stop UBC Animal Research Now campaign begun last summer, finally going public months after
the campus paper The Ubyssey, published an article on UBC’s research practices. Since then, Stop has
organized as a guerrilla initiative against UBC and has filed six Freedom of Information requests from
the university — two were rejected and are currently being appealed, while the remaining four remain
“in progress” or unanswered.
“The problem is, we have no idea what’s going on today [with UBC’s animal research practices],” said
Brian Vincent, head organizer of Stop. “We don’t know how many or what kind of animals are being
used, and there is no secure legal system in place in Canada to make this information readily
available.”
While UBC officials have stated that part of the reason the university doesn’t disclose this information
is because the public could “misinterpret” these details, Vincent believes this is just another way to say
the public wouldn’t like what it sees.
“The fact that the university thinks the public would be confused by facts is not only condescending,
it’s implying that people are too ignorant to make up their own minds about something,” said Vincent.
“The reason why this is such a problem is because this kind of release of information is already being
done in other places, like in the U.S., for example.”
http://newswire.cup.ca/articles/35947
10/26/2010
Canadian University Press Newswire
Page 2 of 5
The laws that care together, stay together
In Canada, by law all accredited animal research facilities must meet the standards of the Canadian
Council on Animal Care, the national organization responsible for “setting and maintaining standards
for the care and use of animals in science.”
The mandate states that "the purpose of the Canadian Council on Animal Care is to act in the interests
of the people of Canada to ensure through programs of education, assessment and persuasion that the
use of animals, where necessary, for research, teaching and testing employs optimal physical and
psychological care according to acceptable scientific standards, and to promote an increased level of
knowledge, awareness and sensitivity to relevant ethical principles."
The CCAC’s mandate also states that organizations must be clear in defining the benefits that can
come from the research performed on animals, and be committed to finding alternatives to animal use.
“Animals should be used only if the researcher's best efforts to find an alternative have failed.”
Most educational institutions in the country, including UBC, are members of the CCAC, which means
they follow the CCAC mandate, inspection schedules, training programs and principals.
UBC specifically holds a “CCAC Certificate of Good Animal Practice,” which is awarded to
institutions that participate fully in the programs of the CCAC, have been assessed regularly by expert
panels composed of scientists, veterinarians and community representatives, and have been found by
the assessment panel and by the CCAC Assessment Committee to have standards of experimental
animal care and use which satisfy the CCAC's guidelines and policies.
Clément Gauthier, executive director of the CCAC, says that UBC goes through a particularly rigorous
inspection process involving two teams of four researchers, who spend a full week touring the facility.
This, compared to the general one team for two to five days, is a big indicator of how seriously the
CCAC takes these facilities, says Gauthier.
“UBC has always been found to be compliant with our mandates and protocols,” said Gauthier. “Of
course, nothing is perfect, but we assess the whole program and they must open their doors all the way
to our reviewers. This means more than just repainting your walls the week before we get there. If
there is anything ever out of place, the inspectors know it instantly.”
UBC was assessed just last June — recent, in terms of the CCAC’s standard three-year testing process.
And while the institutions do get a heads-up about when the inspection will take place, Gauthier says
this is in everyone’s best interest, so that the facility can focus on what they’d like to improve upon as
well.
Gauthier also says that, despite the bad press that UBC has received as of late, they have never
received even a conditional probation that would set off any red flags for the CCAC.
“UBC has no reason to hide from the public, or even fear scrutiny,” Gauthier said. “The university
should be very proud of its practices and I have no hesitancy in telling the Canadian public that they
are a very successful institution.”
http://newswire.cup.ca/articles/35947
10/26/2010
Canadian University Press Newswire
Page 3 of 5
Gauthier says that the CCAC frequently follows up when “whistle blowers” come in with reports on a
facility, but he currently sees no reason to suspect anything is in need of further inspection at UBC,
given the recent review and long-standing history.
Too close for comfort
Yet, despite the seemingly well- intentioned mandates and confident reports, many are questioning just
how much practice goes into seeing how the CCAC’s guidlelines are interpreted and followed, even by
council organizations.
Liz White, director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, says that there is a huge conflict with the fact
that much of the CCAC is made up of council members who have a vested interest in research and not
necessarily animal care.
“We’re lead to believe that the CCAC is there to protect the animals, but I would argue that it’s really
there to protect the researchers,” said White. “The only way the system can be transparent is for them
to open up the doors and allow us all to see what’s going on inside, but there is a huge unwillingness to
do this.”
Of the 25 organizations that make up the council, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is the
only animal rights-based member. Other members include the Department of National Defence, the
Canadian Bioethics Society and the National Research Council.
White believes that while many institutions are following CCAC protocols to acceptable measures,
there should be a clearer understanding of what those measures are, and how it translates.
“You really have to ask these places, what have you got to hide? If they are following all the
guidelines, what is it they don’t want us to see?” White said.
She’s afraid that once the doors open, which they will inevitably have to, the results will be terrifying
and force change. Forcing that eventuality is now her goal.
White and the Animal Alliance recently concluded an animal rights case with the University of Guelph
earlier this year, when live “purpose-bred” dogs were being used for castration and euthanization
practices. The university eventually agreed to stop all live terminal surgeries for third- year veterinary
students.
“It was a huge achievement, and we’d been working on that case for over 20 years,” said White. “The
university made the right decision, but it took a lot of public exposure to get the matter recognized and
cared about.”
Vincent and Stop acknowledge that, in a general sense, animal research can often fall at odds with
public compassion. But he says there could be a good reason for this.
“The current system doesn’t allow for public oversight to determine who we can hold accountable,”
said Vincent. “I think it’s a very secretive process because they realize that people wouldn’t like what
they see — it’s too disturbing. But now it’s time for a change.”
http://newswire.cup.ca/articles/35947
10/26/2010
Canadian University Press Newswire
Page 4 of 5
The good-looking mandate
John Hepburn, vice-president of research at UBC, says that the university does stick to the CCAC’s
mandate of using research animals when there is no human or mechanical alternative. He also points
out that the use of animal models in human health research is essential for the medical advancements
we appreciate.
“Without animal research, we wouldn’t have many of the life-saving cures and treatments we do today.
Polio would kill or cripple thousands each year. Smallpox would spread unchecked. Insulin-dependent
diabetics would die. Millions would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure,” Hepburn
said.
“And thousands who are disabled by head and spinal cord injuries would not be rehabilitated. Animal
research has played a significant role in these and virtually all major medical advances of the 20th and
21st centuries.”
Hepburn also says that UBC research studies are thoroughly reviewed by internal and external panels
before they are undertaken. The studies are then published in publicly available academic journals.
That said, currently there are few alternatives to animals for research, he says.
“We are committed to reducing the use of animals as much as possible. However, federal law
mandates that studies be conducted in animals before approval can be given for clinical trials involving
people,” Hepburn said. “We first try to seek non-animal alternatives, such as the use of cell cultures
and computer simulations, for many fundamental and applied studies. However, particularly in disease
research and the development of new medicines, scientists need to mirror the complicated processes
that occur in living systems.”
While Hepburn did not get into specifics, he says that research done on animals at UBC ranges from
non- invasive techniques, such as blood-work analyses, to “more invasive surgical procedures.”
Hepburn said that, where required for humane purposes, the animals are anesthetized before and during
the procedures, and some are euthanized. He also said that the vast majority of animals involved are
rats, mice and fish.
Behind closed discussions
The University of Victoria is another CCAC-approved university in B.C. that came under scrutiny last
year when a group of students wanted to investigate its animal care facilities and practices. Last April,
the Martlet reported that UVic’s Animal Care Services was one of the more respected care facilities in
the province. Their methods are, however, are all approved under the same set of rules.
At UVic’s program, all research involving animals must be approved by the care committee, which is
made up of a veterinary director, a specialized wild life veterinarian from the province, one researcher
who does not use animals and two members of the community. Its goal is to ensure that research
procedures are ethically acceptable and that the animals are humanely treated throughout the course of
the research. The committee tours UVic’s facilities every second month.
“We work hard to maintain transparency while always keeping the animals’ interests in the
foreground,” said Michele Martin, the veterinary director for UVic’s Animal Care Committee.
http://newswire.cup.ca/articles/35947
10/26/2010
Canadian University Press Newswire
Page 5 of 5
“Because we are smaller and very engaged with the community … we have earned trust for our
processes and policies around animal care.”
But, advocates like White are saying we’re still not getting the full story, or the answers that citizens
deserve.
“For a national body to defend the practices of an institution, and cover it up with ‘approved policies
and protocols,’ there has to come a point when we realize they’re still not telling us anything — they
aren’t answering our questions,” White said. “What aren’t we being told here, and why? … The best
we can say is ‘We don’t know,’ but there should be broad public discussion about this. And the
universities don’t want it.”
-30-
http://newswire.cup.ca/articles/35947
10/26/2010