An open letter to Vet School students

Dear Vet School Students,

As a representative voice of more than 85 Cape Cod residents who publicly support the graduate students' opposition of the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine's (TUSVM) bone healing experiment, I would like to share with you our perspective on the controversy that recently swept through your campus ("Grafton campus community deals with aftermath of controversial animal deaths" Tufts Daily, Feb. 9).

Just hours before attending a New Years Eve fundraiser for TUSVM's Oncology department we learned of the plight of five research dogs with surgically broken legs. Prior to hearing the evening news, none of us had scrutinized the kinds of research our donations might be supporting. As supporters and patrons of a school considered an ethical leader in the humane treatment of animals, we had simply taken it for granted that our dollars were being spent on the research of naturally occurring disease and injury. After hearing the news we immediately began to reevaluate our previous misconception.

Although it was learned that the Oncology fundraiser had no apparent direct ties to the experiment in question, several attendees continued to express concern that their donation's might be diverted to animal research methods that they themselves might not agree with. Consequently, the research dogs' story prompted us to begin a discussion of our views on the subject of responsible animal research.

Whereas, we are not all scientists, together we possess extensive experience caring for a wide variety of animal species with varying degrees of good health, illness and injury. Accordingly, it doesn't take a scientific degree to know that it should be possible to measure the healing of canine bones through the same methods as are used with humans, or that rehabilitation possibilities do exist for two or three legged dogs "bred specifically for research" ("Dogs now gone: Tufts destroys five research canines" Boston Herald Jan. 3).

Our perspective was expressed in a letter dated 12/31/03. In applauding TUSVM for its commitment to scientific advancement we simply explained what such a commitment means to us: "... research that does not harm or kill but rather uses already existing illness and injury or non-animal methods to uncover information that will serve both animals and humans alike." We asked those involved with the bone healing experiment to consider other options for the dogs in question. And we asked for a response.

The initial letter was signed by 85 Cape Cod residents and was sent to the administration as well as to the researchers. No reply was received. Then we learned from a Boston Herald article ("Dogs now gone..." Jan. 3) that the dog's lives had been terminated on New Year's Day. In fact, TUSVM has yet to respond to our letter, or to any of our follow-up telephone calls requesting more information about the experiments scientific validity and efficacy than has thus far been provided to the press.

We continue to be very disappointed in TUSVM's overall response to the ethical controversy your academic community is trying to come to terms with. Hence, we would like to clarify a few issues.

We do not represent the animal rights activists, the Grafton residents or the public demonstrators that TUSVM's has admitted to hearing from on this issue ("Grafton campu..." Feb. 9). We are simply a group of concerned Cape Cod citizens who share the same deep commitment to the health and welfare of animals that hopefully prompted all of you to enter Vet School in the first place. Neither our response, nor the response of the other animal advocate groups poses the security threat to your country campus that certain reactions of your University suggest.

Amongst us are past and current donors, supporters, volunteers and clients of TUSVM. We believe that as a group we comprise a legitimate representative sample of your potential future client base. We also believe that TUSVM administrators have received similar input from a significantly larger representative sample of your potential future client base than they have admitted to.

We hope that as a group of professionals in training, many of who will undoubtedly enter the business world of Veterinary medicine, you will demand that the administrators of your institution fully disclose to you the true context and extent of public feedback this controversy has generated. We also hope that you will seriously examine the manner in which the administration of TUSVM has publicly responded to this controversy.

Applause for leadership in Veterinary educational ethics aside, we think valid questions have arisen about TUSVM's leadership role in research ethics. Respect for TUSVM's receptiveness to the ideas of its students' on an internal level aside, we believe that the principles of good public relations and business practice do not include silence, secrecy, avoidance of the press and fear of public scrutiny or accountability.

To our knowledge, both TUSVM and the primary investigators have declined to speak to the press on several occasions. None of our letters or phone inquiries have been answered and none of the inquiries of several other groups that we know of have been answered. We have not heard of any reports of radical or extremist activities occurring on your campus, which would justify the institution of added security measures. And it seems that both the press and the student body have been misinformed about the context and extent of the public's interest in this matter. We therefore conclude that it has been TUSVM's own failure to provide a reasonable and accountable public response to this controversy that has served to propel whatever sensationalism might have ensued.

It is our belief that the Animals and Public Policy Graduate students have legitimately presented several clearly defined questions pertaining to the issue of responsible animal research. We also believe that the subject of responsible animal research is ultimately a public policy issue and that it was therefore very appropriate for the students' to bring an ethical issue that they were unable to resolve internally to the public's attention through the press. The four of the 30 original protestors who felt ethically bound to come forward signify a legitimate representative sample of not only a portion of your student body but also quite possibly a legitimate representative sample of Vet School student body's in general. That voice deserves to be acknowledged rather than minimized. Furthermore, we believe that because TUSVM receives state funding, the Massachusetts public deserves the right to demand public accountability as well.

This recent controversy on your campus has prompted us to sadly conclude that we are now better educated about the kinds of experiments to which animals are subjected. As such, we strongly support the Animals and Public Policy students who have joined forces with New England Anti-Vivisection Society to effect changes to animal research policies across the board. We will not be boycotting TUSVM hospitals but we will insist that any future donations are held as restricted funds as we continue to expect TUSVM, as well as all veterinarians, to show accountability to its consumer base.

We hope that you will keep our perspective under serious consideration as your educational community enters into "an honest and open dialogue...about research and research ethics." ("Grafton campus..." Feb. 9).

There is no question that many animals benefit from the expert veterinary services at TUSVM. Let this experience serve to unite your academic community as it continues to reach towards its leadership goals

Sincerely,

Betsy Erickson



Betsy Erickson is one of a group of 85 Cape Cod residents who donate money to Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine.