My post a couple days ago about Laurentian University’s lock-out of researchers from their animal care facility sparked some heated discussion in the comments. Also, it sparked an email from someone close enough to the situation to give me an update on the situations since December. The issue of how, ethically, to use animals in research, and of how the interests of animals and the interests of students should be balanced, seems to have touched a nerve. So, we’re going back in.
First, here’s the update, with thanks to my email correspondent:
- End of December: they approved our protocols and we were allowed to return to the facility.
- Mid-February: We are locked out AGAIN based on the allegations made by the vet and the head of the ACC that 2 of our students were conducting research not stated in the protocols.
Sadly, the situation is still unresolved.
If you’re interested, the Gauntlet will have another article on us either this week or next and I can forward it to you. CBC radio also conducted an interview on our supervisor and 3 students … it was on March 2nd.
So, it would seem that Laurentian University, its Animal Care Committee, Dr. Persinger of the behavioural neuroscience program, and the students in this program, still have some way to go to find a resolution that all the parties find acceptable.
It is precisely because there are so many parties involved, with distinct interests, that negotiations get complicated, possibly even heated. The comments to the earlier post demonstrate this pretty effectively — nice, rational people ended up kind of losing it. (To their credit, they also calmed down and made it clear that no personal attacks were intended. Have I mentioned that I love my commenters?)
Losing it, around a case like this, is often an indicator that one feels like the other side doesn’t get it. They don’t understand the importance of the interests we’re trying to defend here. They don’t understand that we’re really trying to accommodate their interests, too. They don’t understand that we’re not stupid or evil. Are they willfully refusing to understand our point of view here … or are they stupid or evil?
Obviously, these are not the conditions that you’d expect to lead to successful engagement between parties. Ideally, all the parties should be striving for a good understanding of the interests the others are bringing to the table. I don’t know, at this stage, whether the negotiations at LU can get any better than “embattled”. But, maybe we can set out some of the relevant interests here in order that future such negotiations might not implode.
The animals.
Clearly, the animals used in research count as an interested party in a situation like this. The very existence of regulations concerning use of animals in research indicates a societal commitment that the animals are owed a certain level of regard. Generally, this amounts to not causing suffering, and minimizing discomfort. As well, it usually requires demonstrating the necessity of using animals in a particular line of research (because there’s no other way to answer the research question, or because animal testing is a necessary preliminary step to planned trials with human subjects), and using as few animals as possible to get reliable results.
Of course, societies are often big, heterogeneous groups of people. Some of them will regard this level of regard as much more than animals are entitled to. Others will think that this level of care is scandalously low. At present, however, scientists are not permitted to do anything they feel like doing with the animals. And, research with animals has not been outlawed. The middle ground embodied by the regulations on animal care and use is what is supposed to guide the parties.
Of course, regulations can specify both limits (you are not permitted to do X under any circumstances) and goals (as much as possible, you should strive to do Y and to avoid doing Z). While limits are pretty easy to assess (you’re in compliance or you’re not), goals can be harder. You should strive to minimize animal discomfort. How much discomfort is acceptable, and how much is too much? How much effort needs to be directed toward minimizing the discomfort? What other interests are less important that minimizing animal discomfort, and which are more important?
The animals whose discomfort is at stake can’t answer these questions for us.
The animal care committee.
Because the animals can’t speak up for their own interests here, the animal care committee (ACC, IACUC, or the acronym that applies in your locale) is charged with applying the regulations that are supposed to embody what society views as the regard we owe the animals. This committee must make sure the hard limits are recognized (you’re not permitted to do X, so no protocols that call for doing X — or that could reasonably lead to doing X, even if it’s an unintended consequence of other procedures — will be approved). As well, when it comes to goals, the committee probably has to make a presumption in favor of the animals. Persuade us that you’ve done evrything you reasonably can to reduce animal discomfort in this experiment. Demonstrate to us that the research requires this many animals to produce reliable results.
Optimally, the committee isn’t being picky for the sake of being picky. Rather, it is acting to ensure animal use that complies with the letter and the spirit of the regulations.
While this committee’s primary charge may be looking out for the interests of the animals, it must also look out for the interests of the university. In particular, it has an interest in helping the university and its researchers stay in compliance with the animal care regulations. This helps the university to stay open and funded, rather than losing funding or being otherwise sanctioned for failing to comply with the regulations. As such, the committee has to be ready to demonstrate to folks on the outside (whether uber-regulators or interested members of the public) that the regulations really are being taken seriously. Sometimes, this may mean that they have to send protocols back for revision.
The committee ought, of course, to make it very clear what kind of changes need to be made to bring a rejected protocol into compliance. Probably, it ought to be willing to assist the researchers in making the necessary changes. Issuing a flat rejection of a protocol without providing the information necessary to fix it is not a good way to serve the interests of the university or of the animals in its care.
Conceivably, the committee might end up with a member who believes that there shouldn’t be any animal research at all. Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs. However, the job of the committee is not to impose the personal beliefs of its members on the researchers; it is to make sure the researchers are in compliance with the existing regulations. If one thinks the existing regulations are too weak (or too strong), advocating for different regulations is the thing to do. Regardless, the committee is supposed to be guided by the regulations already in existence.
The researchers.
The researchers want to do research. They want to get to the answers to their scientific questions. For some of these questions, research with animals is a necessary part of finding the answers.
Some researchers may take the interests of animals very seriously independently of animal use regulations imposed on them. Others might be the sort who, in the absence of any regulations, would be open to just about any treatment of animals that would yield the desired knowledge. All of these researchers, regardless of personal inclination, are bound by the animal use regulations.
Producing new knowledge can be a very good thing, not just because it satisfies the scientist’s curiousity or advances her career, but sometimes also because it leads to tangible benefits for others — which might include medical treatments for ailing humans or animals. In putting forward their protocols, scientists are supposed to point out the expected benefits of the proposed research. In designing their protocols, they are supposed to do everything they can to minimize the harm to animals that is necessary to produce these benefits.
While they can make their best case for the importance of the anticipated benefits, researchers need to understand that other people — including the people on the committee checking the protocol — might disagree about how to weigh these benefits against harms to animals. Nonetheless, the researchers have a reasonable expectation that the potential benefits of the research will not be rejected out of hand. And, they have a reasonable expectation that their serious efforts to comply with the regulations will be met with real guidance about how to bring their protocols into compliance.
The students.
The students are here to learn. Not only do they have an interest in learning how to conduct scientifically sound research, but they also have an interest in learning how to conduct research that complies with the existing regulations. Learning how to write a good protocol, and how to shepherd it through the approval process, is a useful life skill for the scientist in training. So is learning how to work with people who come at an issue from a different point of view, charged with protecting interests that may pull in a different direction than yours.
The university.
The university has an interest in serving its students. It has an interest in being involved with knowledge production, and being a place that can attract serious knowledge producers. It also has an interest in being a good neighbor, living by the regulations it is supposed to live by and taking the concerns of the community seriously.
What seems to be happening at LU is the opposite of each party taking the interests of the others seriously.
The ACC seems inclined to smack down protocols, but disinclined to work closely with researchers to develop protocols that can be approved. Also, there seems to be a general suspicion about the scientists — they’re trying to get away with stuff!
The researchers seem inclined to view the ACC as ridiculously picky, ill-informed about the requirements of good scientific experimentation, or possibly even anti-animal experimentation and anti-science. How can you do science if you’re in the thrall of this bunch of stupid ninnies?! (If that were the prevailing attitude, it might not be surprising if PIs and students started sneaking around and doing what they — the reasonable people here — judged as appropriate. This, of course, might leave the ACC pissed that its concerns were being ignored.)
The university doesn’t want to lose funding or get a reputation as a place where pointy-headed scientists think rules are for little people and do whatever they damned well please. They may be frustrated with both researchers and ACC, but compliance is the side of their institutional bread that is buttered — so they lie in it. As it happens, this might make life hard for certain students, but they’re collateral damage — the smackdown is really directed at their troublesome advisors.
Reasonable people ought to try to work reasonably with each other, even when the interests they are representing are at odds. The alternative is to fight openly or to lie to each other. (And, in one’s professional capacity at a university, being reasonable is part of your damn job!) When people decide that it’s just fine not to engage each other reasonably, not to show each other regard or to take each other’s interests seriously, bad things can happen.
Pre-emptive reasonableness and regard might be the way to go.
