Image taken from animal equality.net
Readers of the Queen’s Gazette may have noticed an article last week featuring neuroscience research at Queen’s focused on identifying the mechanism in the brain “responsible for interpreting how visual input from a scene determines where we look. This mechanism, known as a visual salience map, allows the brain to quickly identify and act on the most important information in the visual field, and is a basic mechanism for our everyday vision.”
But these same readers might be astonished to learn that this research, which “opens up opportunities” in fields such as visual robotics, advertising, and diagnosis of neurological disorders, is conducted using monkeys who are housed in barren cages in the windowless basement of Botterell Hall, where they live out their profoundly impoverished and miserable lives. During the research, the monkeys are immobilized in restraints for hours at a time, and ‘motivated’ to work by being denied liquids prior to work time. Before the research, they undergo surgery to implant electrodes in their brains, and screws in their skulls to hold a metal halo apparatus that supports the camera that tracks their eye movements.[i] They are given antibiotics because of persistent infections caused by these implants, often leading to chunks of skull necrosis and collapse, which can lead to death. All of this surgery and restraint is required because the monkeys don’t want to do this work. They have to be forced to sit still, to hold their heads still, and to look at the stimulus.
Queen’s Animal Defence, with the Food Portfolio of Queen’s Engineers Without Borders, is excited to announce the launch of a new initiative: the Queen’s Vegan Pledge. This initiative has its own dedicated website, Facebook page and Instagram profile.
What is the Queen’s Vegan Pledge?
There are lots of good reasons to go vegan. People variously change their diet for the planet, for human health and, of course, for the animals. Inspired by the success of initiatives like Veganuary and Animal Aid’s Great Vegan Challenge, the Queen’s Vegan Pledge encourages Queen’s – from students to staff, from societies to departments – to go vegan for the month of March. The Queen’s Vegan Pledge will provide the encouragement people need to take a manageable step towards veganism in a supportive environment, and a voice in support of vegans at Queen’s University. We hope that many of our pledgers – after seeing how easy and enjoyable veganism can be – will choose to stick to a vegan diet after the completion of the month. Continue Reading
In QAD’s latest poster series, animals contact the ‘barbaric practices snitch line’ to speak out about the terrible things that happen to them in the biomedical labs at Queen’s.
Generally, when people talk about ‘cruel’ or ‘barbaric’ practices inflicted on animals, they are thinking in terms of actions that reflect a deviant individual personality (as in sadistic acts of torture), or practices of foreign or minority cultures (such as cockfighting). In Canadian law animal cruelty is defined in a way that exempts “generally accepted” cultural and economic practices. This means that animal farmers, trappers, slaughterhouse workers, scientific researchers and countless others can harm animals in horrific ways, while enjoying complete legal impunity, because their actions are classified as “generally accepted’ instances of animal use. If I, as an ordinary individual, sever a cat’s spinal cord to render her lame, or strap a monkey in restraints and deny her water to make her work for me, or deliberately induce bleeding in a hemophiliac dog, I am guilty of a crime. If a Queen’s researcher does these things, it’s considered a generally accepted scientific practice, or business as usual.
The goal of the barbaric practices poster series is to redirect the language of barbarism/cruelty away from minority practices, and aim it where it belongs, at routine, institutionalized violence against animals.
A new research study published in ALTA underlines the stark gap between expectations and reality when it comes to animal research. The study surveyed members of the public, medical students and researchers, and found that overall their expectations of human health benefits, of animal welfare measures, and of methodological rigour vastly exceed the empirical reality of animal research (AR). For example, on the expectation of translation of AR to human health benefit, 86% of the members of the public surveyed thought “it was ‘often true’ that a treatment discovered through the use of AR leads to direct or indirect benefits for humans”, despite the reality that the actual translation rate is 0-5%.
The researchers note that “the general public and medical student expectations of the methodology and translation of AR are far higher than the empirical data show to have been achieved: there is a disconnect between these expectations and the empirical reality of AR”. This dramatic discrepancy presents an important opportunity for animal advocates. As the researchers say: “if the general public were better informed, then they would likely withdraw their conditional support for AR, or at least seriously re-consider such support.”