Advocates in Israel Call on Health Ministry to Halt Useless Medical Experiments Forcing Cats to Remain Awake to Monitor their Brain Function

Ben-Gurion University is the key organization in question. As stated below, “The organizations said the cats in the study at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev are confined in small enclosures and force-fed food containing substances to keep them awake during testing.”

Do I even need to point out how ridiculous and useless such experiments are? What in the world could possibly gained from them other than continual funding to keep the University funded?

Humm, think we just came across the answer.

Article:

Animal advocates: Stop tracking brain waves in awake cats

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/animal-advocates-stop-tracking-brain-waves-in-awake-cats-1.306078

Four animal-rights groups call on the Health Ministry to halt a medical experiment that involves forcing cats to remain awake in order to monitor their brain function.

By Dan Even

Tags: Israel news

Four animal-rights groups have joined forces to demand that the Health Ministry halt a medical experiment that involves forcing cats to remain awake in order to monitor their brain function. The organizations said the cats in the study at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev are confined in small enclosures and force-fed food containing substances to keep them awake during testing.

Research in Israel into feline brain function is generally conducted while the cats are anesthetized. They are often killed when the experiments are completed.

The study in question, led by Dr. Opher Donchin of the university's Department of Biomedical Engineering, investigates neural activity in Purkinje cells in the animals' cerebellar cortex. Researchers ultimately plan to study at least seven cats.

A cat having its brain waves monitored.

Last month Rachel Adam, a representative for animal-rights groups on the ministry's National Council for Experimentation on Animal Subjects, asked council chairman Ehud Ziv to look into complaints that the cats were subjected to unnecessary discomfort during testing. A veterinarian and a scientific consultant who were sent by Ziv to Donchin's laboratory wrote in their report that the experiment complied with the ministry's animal-testing regulations.

In response, animal-rights activists asked Ziv for permission to visit the lab and see the tests on the cats for themselves. When their request was rejected, they decided to take up the matter with the university directly.

This week the organizations sent a letter to Ziv and to university president Prof. Rivka Carmi demanding an immediate halt to the study. "This research is being conducted on conscious felines, subjecting them to prolonged, extreme suffering," the groups' attorney, Sagi Agmon, said. He said the experiment does not comply with the 1994 Animal Welfare Law.

The letter said the suffering caused to the cats far outweighed the study's potential "negligible scientific benefit" and that nothing could justify subjecting such sentient beings to prolonged, harmful tests, confinement and surgery for the purpose of dubious scientific gain. The activists said they are considering legal action against the study's organizers.

The director of the animal-rights group Behind Closed Doors, Anat Refua, said yesterday, "A cat can't be expected to sit in confinement for over an hour without moving. It breaks the animal physically and emotionally, leading to a state of powerlessness. In such a state the cat is likely to fall asleep, and inserting food into its mouth to keep it awake is both cruel and disproportionate. We ask for proportionality to be considered before approving any experiment in Israel, as required by law."

In response, Ziv said: "After the report was submitted, it was made clear that the council's representatives from nonprofit groups are invited to visit the lab and form their own impressions. They have yet to give us a date that suits them."

He said the conditions of the experiment were in compliance with its permit and that the cats exhibited no signs of suffering. "On the contrary," Ziv said, "they were in appropriate physical and behavioral condition, showed sociability and curiosity, and their interaction demonstrated their trust in the laboratory staff."

Ben-Gurion University said in a statement that while "Society grants scientists the authority to use animals for research and teaching purposes, in the recognition that animal research seeks to advance the saving of human life," the world and the university are increasingly using substitutes whenever possible to prevent unnecessary suffering to lab animals.

In its response the university rejected the activists' accusations and noted that the veterinarian and scientific consultant who viewed the testing determined unequivocally that it met all legal all council requirements. "This is highly important research with potential long-term value for the treatment of disorders of the cerebellum like autism, dyslexia and stroke. Donchin and his staff should receive all possible praise, not complaints," the statement said.

Update: Ridiculous and Unnecessary Live Animal Pig Lab by Covidien to Take Place: How You Can Help Stop It

A couple updates. For one, it SEEMS that the event was not to take place at the hotel. I'm still not fully certain of this, but that's the information I received.

Also, I have been told that the event was canceled. Again, not sure if we can trust a group like Covidien that has been cited with past animal cruelty, but that's the news. I've left the information about the event below.

NOTE: I've added more information below in addition to what was posted yesterday. You'll see new names to contact in addition to the hotel. Very easy actions that should take no more than 10 minutes.

Yes, I’m telling you the truth. This will actually take place in a hotel! The ridiculousness and cruelty never end. Please read below and see how you can easily speak up abut this issue. Turns out that the group sponsoring the event, is Covidien Electrosurgery, a company known for controversy in regard to vivisection.

Action Alerts & Updates

Stop Cruel Pig Lab
August 4, 2008

On August 7, the Omni Interlocken Resort is hosting an event in which pigs will be killed and sacrificed in a "Hands-On Pig Lab" to demonstrate electrosurgical tools.

The Pig Lab is being devised by Covidien Electrosurgery, a company that performs laboratory tests on animals in order to market its surgical tools.

Formerly known as ValleyLab, Covidien has a history of controversy, including an incident that prompted the University of Colorado at Denver to ban all non-research vivisection in 2007.

The August 7 event advertises, "Procedures that will be performed include: ureteral dissection, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, repair of simulated bowel and bladder injury, bowel resection, ureteral re-anasomosis, and liver resection."

In other words, pigs will be mutilated and cut apart at the August 7 so that Covidien can hawk its wares to buyers.

You Can Help

Please contact Covidien Electosurgery, the Pig Lab organizers, and urge them to remove live animals from their demonstration.

Bryan Hanson
President, Covidien Electrosurgery
ph: 303-530-2300
fax: 303-530-6285
e-mail: bryan.hanson@covidien.com

2. Politely contact the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists and urge them to not promote such live animal labs.
ph: 312-235-4060
fax: 312-235-4059
e-mail: sgo@sgo.org and jenna.cummins@sgo.org

3. Please contact your federal representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2193– legislation that will amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the use of animals for marketing medical devices. You can find out who represents you by going to http://action.farmsanctuary.org/legislatorlookup. The sponsors of this bill are Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) and if your member of Congress has already become a cosponsor, please thank them!

Decision by Judge Allows Medical Research on Dogs, Monkeys and Other Animals to Continue At University Of California San Francisco

Disappointing decision.

Article:

Judge tosses lawsuit against UC San Francisco

http://www.examiner.com/a-1072767~Judge_

tosses_lawsuit_against_UC_San_Francisco.html

Filed under: SAN FRANCISCO , John Upton , UCSF animal welfare lawsuit

Nov 28, 2007 4:00 AM (12 hrs ago) by John Upton, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Medical research on dogs, monkeys and other animals will continue at UC San Francisco, as a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit by animal rights activists that claimed their rights as taxpayers were violated when the university pays fines for breaking the federal Animal Welfare Act.

Attorneys for the activists had asked the San Francisco Superior Court judge to appoint an independent monitor to oversee animal research at the university, and to shut down the university’s animal research until it guaranteed that it would comply with the federal animal welfare law.

But Judge Patrick Mahoney on Tuesday sided with university lawyers, who argued that such a ruling would interfere with the agriculture department’s enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.

“The plaintiffs are essentially trying to circumvent federal law,” University of California counsel Chris Patti told The Examiner.

Dan Kimburn, an attorney for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and for the six Southern California professors and physicians who launched the court case, said he would appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has previously cited UC San Francisco researchers for violating the Animal Welfare Act.

In December 2003, researchers were cited because a monkey was not given proper painkillers after its skull was cut open, according to court documents.

The fines associated with the violations include a $92,500 settlement in 2005, court documents show.

The animal activists adopted a novel strategy in the case, according to committee spokeswoman Jeanne McVey.

“If you’re a person, you can’t sue under the Animal Welfare Act, because the purpose is to protect animals,” McVey said. “And animals can’t sue because they’re animals.”

Yerkes - National Primate Research Center of Emory University Fined $15,000 for Animal Care Problems Linked To the Death of Monkey

Here we go again with the cruel Yerkes.

As stated below, “The macaque — a short-tailed monkey — died from emphysema and from an absence of gas in the lungs... The death was related to incorrectly assembled anesthesia equipment…”

Unfortunately, Yerkes is “… one of eight federally funded national primate research centers [and] has about 3,400 primates at two locations.”

Article:

USDA Fines Animal Lab After Monkey Death

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-9H-tT3h83s_oxPm4-eZjdn3XlgD8S0RUEG1

By MIKE STOBBE – 13 hours ago

ATLANTA (AP) — An animal research center was fined $15,000 for animal care problems linked to the death of a monkey, federal authorities said Monday.

Yerkes National Primate Research Center, part of Emory University, denied any willful wrongdoing, but agreed last week to pay the penalty, said U.S. agriculture department spokeswoman Jessica Milteer.

A Yerkes spokeswoman noted the research center reported the monkey's death, and said the center is committed to humane care for animals. "We deeply regret that an animal died," said the spokeswoman, Lisa Newbern.

Yerkes, one of eight federally funded national primate research centers, has about 3,400 primates at two locations. Its scientific contributions include new understanding of monkey and chimp behavior and development of an experimental AIDS vaccine.

The fine stems from findings from two inspections. The USDA reported unsanitary conditions during a January inspection of its 117-acre Lawrenceville field station.

A July inspection confirmed inadequate training and veterinary care at its Atlanta campus, after the macaque died there.

The macaque — a short-tailed monkey — died from emphysema and from an absence of gas in the lungs, Newbern said. The death was related to incorrectly assembled anesthesia equipment, she added.

The equipment has been relabeled, staff members have been retrained, and sanitary conditions at Lawrenceville have been improved, she added.

The fine is not enough, said Michael Budkie, executive director of Stop Animal Exploitation Now, an Ohio-based animal rights organization.

Yerkes received about $40 million in 2006 in federal animal research funds. "Why should Emory care about a $15,000 fine?" Budkie said.

One of the Largest Animal Research Facilities in the Country Will Open in Truckee Meadows near Reno, Nevada

An unfortunate act in a very beautiful part of the country. Sadly, this facility will be large.

As stated below, “The Reno Planning Commission approved Charles River Laboratories' new 450,000-square-foot [facility].

Article:

Animal testing lab's move to Reno spurs outcry over planning
policy

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071002/NEWS10/710020337/1016/NEWS

SUSAN VOYLES RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL DUNN/RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

Heather Singer, left, Kathy Parker and Florence Abel on Monday protest the nearly completed Charles River Laboratory on Maestro Drive at Longley Lane.

One of the largest animal research facilities in the country will open this fall in the heart of the Truckee Meadows, and the only planning approval required -- a special use permit -- did not go to the Reno City Council.

The Reno Planning Commission approved Charles River Laboratories' new 450,000-square-foot, preclinical research center at 6995 Longley Lane adjacent to residential property in February 2006.

Since no one filed an appeal, that stood as the final decision. The same thing occurred when a new minor league baseball stadium was approved in downtown Reno in August.
Councilwoman Jessica Sferrazza, who fought for a new regional animal control center, said projects of a certain size should trigger a City Council hearing. Sferrazza lives within a few miles of the research lab but didn't learn of it until last week.

"We're the elected body. I respect the planning commission for what they do," Sferrazza said. "But it should come up to the council for review."
Mayor Bob Cashell agreed.

"There are special occasions," he said. "It's something we should look at."
Councilwoman Sharon Zadra said there was more discussion about parking than animal testing when two neighborhood groups reviewed the project in January 2006. No one seemed to be alarmed about the project, which lies within her ward, she said, noting that the council can't favor some legal businesses over others.

"You can't make judgment calls," she said.

Reno lab
The Reno facility will be among the five largest labs in the country, said Greg Beattie, the center's executive director for operations. Charles River is a public company with headquarters in Wilmington, Mass.

The company is relocating from Dunn Circle in Sparks to Reno and will be phasing in employees to the new facility over the next six months.

Sparks city officials, health officials, company officials and animal rights advocates say the plant has operated in the Sparks industrial area without incident for 15 years. Beattie said the 6995 Longley Lane site was chosen because it is closer to where its employees live.

Beattie said the company will greatly reduce research involving macaque monkeys at the Reno facility. In Sparks, he said the monkeys made up the "vast majority" of its research.
He said that means most of the research in Reno will involve rodents and a small percentage of dogs and monkeys. He said the federal government requires nonrodent testing before new drugs can be released on the market.

Activists picket

Animal rights protesters have been at the Reno site in recent months.
"I'm totally against it because of the animal testing they do," said Tania Tavcar, who lives nearby. "Every day I drive by that place, I feel like I'm driving by a pet cemetery. I may move. But I'm going to stay here and fight for a while."

"I don't think people realize what's happening in the middle of town," said Florence Abel, 78, a resident of the Quail Manor Court senior complex, northwest of the building. "I don't think what they are doing is illegal, but it's immoral."

Beattie said research will continue to involve testing new drugs on animals to find any side effects. A new drug for HIV, for instance, would be tested to see whether it causes tumors or other side effects.

Initial testing to see whether the drug is effective against the HIV virus would be done elsewhere, Beattie said.

For the company to handle deadly substances, he said, the building would have to be rebuilt to higher standards. At other locations, Charles River has done preclinical testing for drugs to counter anthrax, nerve gas and the sometimes fatal Dengue virus, according to the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

The new Reno laboratory building is rated as a Biosafety Level 2 facility, the same rating given to hospitals.

Charles River purchased the former State Farm building on Longley Lane and has spent $107 million renovating it, city and county records show. Millions more have been spent on lab equipment.

Animal research will be done on the 50,000-square-foot second floor and a large chemical laboratory will be on the first floor, Beattie said.

Beattie said the Sparks center employs 400 people who will be transferred to Reno. And the Reno lab will to grow to 900 employees over the next several years. Half of the jobs require a college degree, he said.

'No environmental hazards'
The plant, he said, will not create any environmental hazards, and the building did not flood in either the 1997 or 2005 floods. Inside the plant, a pretreatment tank will dissolve acids from the laboratories before the waste enters the sewer system. A station is set up for city officials to monitor that, he said.

Beattie said the only thing coming out of the large vents on the rooftop will be air. He said the plant will have no incinerator, and carcasses are hauled away to approved sites, which he did not want to specify.

Records show the labs are built with one-hour fire safety walls and fire officials have lists of the chemicals used and amounts that will be on site.

Coral Amende, a founder for Reno Outreach for Animal Rights, contends the government doesn't have enough inspectors to oversee the laboratory, contending the U.S. Department of Agriculture has only 101 inspectors for 13,000 laboratories.

The facility is inspected by the USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beattie said.

Beattie said inspectors from these agencies have been through the facility dozens of times and have reported only a few "housekeeping" items. He said the last inspection was about a month ago. The company prides itself on maintaining higher standards than the federal government requires, he said.

He also said the lab is monitored by an institutional animal care and use committee. It includes a local resident, but he declined to name that person.
John Hester, Reno community development director, said the city does not regulate the care of animals in the facility. That's up to the federal government.

He said it's up to the council to change the city's code to require special use permits for larger projects.

The council in 1995 gave the planning commission the final say on special use permits unless there's an appeal. The practice is the same in Sparks and has been since 2000.
Questions were raised about animal testing at a joint meeting of the southwest and south ward neighborhood advisory board on Jan. 5, 2006. Notices were sent to residents within 750 feet, and the company also sent a letter to the Quail Manor Court, a senior citizen housing project next door.

All of that, city officials said, goes beyond legal requirements.

Bob Fulkerson, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada executive director, said major projects that affect citizens should go before the city council.

The staff report reviewed by planning commissioners included a single mention of testing on animals on its fourth page.

Fulkerson said the city should consider requiring a summary statement of a project in common language "so people know what the heck is going on."

Pending cases

A case against Charles River Laboratories is pending before the New Mexico Supreme Court. The case was dismissed by a lower court that said its chimp facility was exempted from the state's animal cruelty law. The facility was included in an exception for the practice of veterinary medicine.

The criminal charges related to two chimpanzees that died overnight when only security guards were on duty. One was injured by other chimps and bled to death and the other didn't regain consciousness after being anesthetized for an exam.

Amende said researchers can find other ways to find cures without doing research on animals.

"Out of every 100 drugs tested, we get just one that is safe and effective," she said.

Beattie said testing on animals is required by the federal government before new drugs are allowed to be put on the market. "There's not a single medical advance for humans or animals that has been done without this kind of research."

Groups Gather to Remind World that Novartis Supports Animal Testing and the Cruel Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS)

Article:

Anti-vivisection demonstrators target Novartis

http://www.24heures.ch/pages/home/24_heures/english_corner/news/news_detail/(contenu)/139423

Activists accuse Novartis headquarters in Nyon of collaboration with animal-testing company

Fifteen activists demonstrated in front of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis in Nyon on Monday afternoon denouncing animal-testing methods. Participants carrying placards saying “Animal Murderers” or “No to Vivisection” gathered for three hours. Although animal-testing is not conducted at the Novartis factory, the demonstrators accuse Novartis of collaborating with British company, Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), which they claim uses “cruel and doubtful” animal-testing methods.

The aim of the activists, who call themselves “Stop Huntingdon Animal cruelty”, is to force business partners to discontinue dealing with the British lab. “We have already managed to make them lose SFr90 million since 1999,” says one demonstrator.

According to Paul Herling, head of research for Novartis international, animal experimentation is a useful support for in-vitro methods. The pharmaceutical company says it regularly scrutinizes partner companies and established the Novartis Animal Welfare service two years ago to assess the treatment of animals during experimentation.

In Belgium, Number of Animals Used in Animal Testing Increases Considerably: A Total of 756,715 Animals Were Used in Tests in Belgium

How tragic. Shows that much work is yet to be done in ending vivisection. The number just in that one small country is staggering. Not surprisng though, as Belgium is also a country that loves to eat horses.

Sadly too, animal testing is not necessary.

For information on alternatives to animal testing, see

http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html


Article:

More animals used for tests

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=426888

August 2007

BRUSSELS – A total of 756,715 animals were used in different types of tests in Belgium last year.

This signals a slight increase in the number of test animals compared to 2005, the animal welfare department of the federal ministry of public health, safety of the food chain and environment announced on Wednesday. Animal rights organisation GAIA says this is the fourth consecutive year showing an increase in animal testing.

The animals are primarily used in the development and quality control of medicines and medical material. Last year a total of 37,739 more animals were used in experiments, an increase of 5.2 percent compared to the year previous. There was an especially marked increase in the number of mice (up 28,023), rabbits (up 9,359), birds (up 2,861) and fish (up 5,099) that were used in experiments, GAIA points out.

The number of cats used in experiments also increased significantly – by 32 percent – from 81 in 2005 to 107 last year. That is unacceptable, says the animal rights organisation, which is sounding the alarm. GAIA blames the increase on a failing government policy.

Mice Hung by Their Tails with Tape, Subjected To Electrical Shocks And Forced To Swim Until Nearly Drowning at University of New Mexico

Need I say more?? Well, one thing – it’s obvious the ridiculous cruelty here, but to then see the school say this was to study depression is just insane. To me this is a study in torture. Let’s put it this way – if you did this in your home, you’d be arrested for animal torture and everyone who found about what you were doing would say you are crazy. Instead, because this was at a university, they somehow are able to rationalize it.

Article:

UNM criticized over use of mice in study

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070521/ap_on_sc/animal_research_1

Mon May 21, 4:28 PM ET

ALBUQUERQUE - Mice were hung by their tails with adhesive tape, subjected to electrical shocks and forced to swim until nearly drowning during experiments done at the University of New Mexico.
ADVERTISEMENT

University officials say there was nothing wrong with the research that helped a high school student study hopelessness and depression for a science fair project. But the former lab veterinarian at the university called the research "torture," and an animal protection group said it was a perversion of science, the Albuquerque Journal reported in a story published Sunday.

"To me, it suggests inadequacy of faculty guidance," said Randall Lockwood, senior vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "This has been against the rules for science fairs for a quarter-century."

Then-La Cueva High School student Sarah Founds conducted the research in 2003 and 2004 for a science fair project, which was disqualified after national science-fair officials said it violated standards on the ethical use of animals. The research also led to the resignation of the lab's research veterinarian, who said he didn't know about the experiments until after the fact.

"I have defended animal research, stating that we do not abuse animals. Then, this slapped me in the face," said Daniel Theele, who had been in charge of the welfare of lab animals at UNM.

Theele complained about the project and now is suing UNM over the treatment he says he received after being forced to resign in October 2005. An internal investigation at UNM concluded that the experiments violated federal guidelines and had not been properly approved.

A report on the investigation also expressed great concern about exposing a high school student to experiments inflicting pain on animals.

Theele said the experiments were inappropriate even for medical students to conduct.

"I can provide no justification for a high school student being exposed to those kinds of experiments," he said.

However, UNM continues to defend what happened.

"No illegal, abusive or inappropriate conduct or research occurred," an attorney for the UNM board of regents, wrote in a response to Theele's lawsuit.

Terry Yates, vice president for research at UNM, and other university officials could not be reached for comment.

Founds, who did the research in conjunction with a graduate student in 2003 and a medical student in 2004, said the project at UNM was worthwhile and did no harm.

"I thought it was awesome. I had a lot of fun working on it," said Founds, who now is studying nutrition at the University of Idaho.

She said the project "wasn't overly painful."

"I'd encourage other students to do that kind of research," she said.

UNM has between 7,000 and 8,000 animals for use in teaching or research. Most of the animals are mice or rats, but there are other creatures such as hamsters, frogs, fish, rabbits and snakes, said Susan McKinsey, communications director for the university.

Elizabeth Jennings, executive director of Animal Protection of New Mexico, said the experiments on mice raise questions about "what the thousands of other animals on campus are being subjected to, and if anyone is paying attention."

Ray Powell, a veterinarian serving as the regional director of the Jane Goodall Institute, said greater openness about research "would set our university apart and be a beacon for the rest of the country."

"I would hope the state's premier research facility — the University of New Mexico — would see this as an opportunity to set a new standard for openness and humane treatment of animals," Powell said.

Medical Doctor Speaks Out: Dissection and Live Animal Labs Are No Longer Required or Even Hailed As Superior Teaching Tools

This is an excellent article that truly shows that medical schools that require live animal labs like dissection or vivisection are using outdated, inferior and wasted resources that are not producing good results. In essence, dissection and vivisection are not necessary parts of a good medial schools curriculum.


Article:

Animals are not meant for medical research

http://www.tribune-georgian.com/articles/2007/
03/02/news/opinion/letters/4letter3.2.txt

Dear Editor, As medical advisor for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, I'd like to clarify some misleading statements made about our efforts to promote humane alternatives to animal dissection in a recent letter ("Much ado about nothing by animal rights activists," Feb. 23).

Contrary to Dr. Paul Cosenza's letter, PCRM is a respected nonprofit health and research advocacy organization and is led by physicians, dietitians and scientists who publish their work in peer-reviewed academic journals, present their findings before scientific conferences and serve as consultants on government panels.

For more than 20 years, we have worked to educate the public about the need to move away from using animals in medical research and education.

Most physicians, like me, complete their medical education without ever cutting into an animal. In fact, more than 85 percent of U.S. medical schools have eliminated live animal labs in favor of more effective and humane teaching methods, such as human patient simulators, virtual computer programs and physician mentoring and observation.

The America College of Surgeons no longer uses live animals in its clinical training programs and has endorsed the use of simulation technologies to replace live animal use in surgery training programs.

I almost did not pursue medicine because I thought I might have to dissect and harm animals in the process. I am now a double-board certified neurologist and public health specialist.

Unfortunately, I do know many people who considered pursuing careers in biology and medicine, but chose not to because they believed they might be required to dissect animals. Today, dissection and live animal labs are no longer required or even hailed as superior teaching tools. To imply that dissecting animals is a necessary part of any education is simply wrong.

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H.

Senior Medical and Research Advisor

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Washington, D.C.