PETA complaint alleges mistreatment in UW research

[Octavo]

I've seen this link being shared around Facebook quite a lot in the last day or two.

I don't give PETA much credibility these days, but this isn't the sort of accusation you just hand-wave away - especially not if you don't want to be flamed into oblivion.

I've done some googling, but can find nothing official from UW and the only other report I can find that isn't a PETA mouthpiece is this.

Does anyone here have any insight into this complaint? Have UW been grossly violating animal cruelty laws as PETA alleges?

How do you feel generally about this sort of research and PETA's tactics?

 

[dudalb]

I would want to get it from another source then PETA before I take it seriously.

 

[Octavo]

I would want to get it from another source then PETA before I take it seriously.

Indeed - I was hoping someone here had a bit more information than I've been able to dredge up

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's something to keep in mind:

Peta has called the tests done on the cat "useless". However, PeTA is against all animal testing. So their characterization of something as "useless" is rather useless in itself.

Of course, if the topic ever comes up for discussion, you could always point out that Peta kills most of the animals that get dropped off with them. Maybe PETA is just jealous that the researchers are killing the animals rather than themselves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

 

[Stomatopoda]

Don't forget their president taking insulin to survive while condemning the research and processes that make it possible...

also PETA seems to have one of the most biased/whitewashed articles on all of Wikipedia

 

[Cain]

Don't forget their president taking insulin to survive while condemning the research and processes that make it possible...

also PETA seems to have one of the most biased/whitewashed articles on all of Wikipedia

Here's something to keep in mind:

Peta has called the tests done on the cat "useless". However, PeTA is against all animal testing. So their characterization of something as "useless" is rather useless in itself.

Of course, if the topic ever comes up for discussion, you could always point out that Peta kills most of the animals that get dropped off with them. Maybe PETA is just jealous that the researchers are killing the animals rather than themselves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

You guys are awesome. Keep up the good work.

 

[fuelair]

Here's something to keep in mind:

Peta has called the tests done on the cat "useless". However, PeTA is against all animal testing. So their characterization of something as "useless" is rather useless in itself.

Of course, if the topic ever comes up for discussion, you could always point out that Peta kills most of the animals that get dropped off with them. Maybe PETA is just jealous that the researchers are killing the animals rather than themselves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

That last sentence I will buy in bulk!!! PETA sucks (and I like animals).

 

[Kahalachan]

PETA's biggest fallacy is dismissing the fact that humans are animals. Every animal should look out for its own interests. If a symbiotic relationship is possible then so be it. If it comes down to one animal vs. another, why should any creature lay down and die and let the other one win?

If it would save just one human life I would be fine with the consumption, testing, killing or even extinction of any animal.

Should we maximize our ability to be symbiotic with as many forms of life as possible? Sure. But humans come first. Always.

 

[Octavo]

Here's something to keep in mind:

Peta has called the tests done on the cat "useless". However, PeTA is against all animal testing. So their characterization of something as "useless" is rather useless in itself.

Of course, if the topic ever comes up for discussion, you could always point out that Peta kills most of the animals that get dropped off with them. Maybe PETA is just jealous that the researchers are killing the animals rather than themselves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Don't forget their president taking insulin to survive while condemning the research and processes that make it possible...

also PETA seems to have one of the most biased/whitewashed articles on all of Wikipedia

Yes, PETA has a history of hyperbole and is incredibly hypercritical, but does that mean we can just dismiss any new claims they make? How much of a skeptic do you come across as if your response to these claims is essentially: " PETA are well known liars"? Someone not acquainted with their tactics and methods, coming across this article for the first time isn't going to accept hand-waving away of PETA's claims.

I've just come across this statement from UW:

Allegations made today (Wednesday, Sept. 12) by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals about sound localization studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are unsubstantiated. At best, they are a gross misrepresentation of the research and the care and treatment provided to the animals in the study.

One thing that I saw mentioned in previous reports was that this program has been running since 1996, which means it must have followed the regulations fairly well, because they would have had regular inspections - can anyone shed any light on how this works? Are independent animal health inspectors appointed to inspect experiments like this to ensure the wellbeing of the animals being experimented on?

 

[Cain]

I'm sure it's on the up-and-up. Why would anyone lie? (other than PETA.)

 

[Octavo]

I'm sure it's on the up-and-up. Why would anyone lie? (other than PETA.)

Well, whenever money is involved (funding, grants etc.) there is the potential for people to step over the line in order to keep that money coming in. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it has and does happen.

What's bugging me is how many people are parroting this story around FB, and without some sort of credible debunking of these particular claims, any comment I may make about the veracity of PETA will be summarily dismissed.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I've just come across this statement from UW:


...snip...

Looks like these experiments are being carried out (the university after all says they are) and the picture comes from the research. That means the only part about the PETA story to be confirmed is what is reported by PETA as mistreatment and cruelty to animals.

We can assume (from the information on their website) that for PETA all such experimentation is cruel and a mistreatment of the research subjects therefore the evidence we have means that PETA is telling the truth (as far as we ascertain).

However I think the question that you are asking is a slightly different one, and that is whether the research subjects have been mistreated as such things are defined in legislation or regulations? What PETA hasn't done is provide any evidence that the research group has breached any of the regulations/laws/ethics society imposes on the use of animals such as cats in research projects.

 

[Roboramma]

One thing that bothers me is dismissing the fact that Canadians are humans. Everyone should look out for his own interests. If a symbiotic relationship is possible then so be it. If it comes down to one person vs. another, why should anyone lay down and die and let the other one win?

If it would save just one Canadian life I would be fine with the consumption, testing, killing or even extinction of anyone else.

Should we maximize our ability to be symbiotic with as many kinds of people as possible? Sure. But Canadians come first. Always.

 

[Octavo]

However I think the question that you are asking is a slightly different one, and that is whether the research subjects have been mistreated as such things are defined in legislation or regulations? What PETA hasn't done is provide any evidence that the research group has breached any of the regulations/laws/ethics society imposes on the use of animals such as cats in research projects.

Yes, that is more what I meant - thank you Darat. I'm much more eloquent and well spoken in my head than I am in reality.

 

[sphenisc]

One thing that bothers me is dismissing the fact that Canadians are humans. Everyone should look out for his own interests. If a symbiotic relationship is possible then so be it. If it comes down to one person vs. another, why should anyone lay down and die and let the other one win?

If it would save just one Canadian life I would be fine with the consumption, testing, killing or even extinction of anyone else.

Should we maximize our ability to be symbiotic with as many kinds of people as possible? Sure. But Canadians come first. Always.

My only regret that I have but one life to give for a Canadian.

 

[Segnosaur]

Looks like these experiments are being carried out (the university after all says they are) and the picture comes from the research. That means the only part about the PETA story to be confirmed is what is reported by PETA as mistreatment and cruelty to animals.

Actually the other thing to be confirmed is the accusation by PETA that the tests are "useless".

Even if an animal is treated as well as possible, most of us would prefer that the experiments will at least improve the life span/quality of life for humans, and aren't just being done for fun.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes, PETA has a history of hyperbole and is incredibly hypercritical, but does that mean we can just dismiss any new claims they make?

Yes you can dismiss their claims.

Unless of course there is some supporting evidence provided.[/quote]

How much of a skeptic do you come across as if your response to these claims is essentially: " PETA are well known liars"?

It would make you a good skeptic...

Being a skeptic means you follow the evidence, but part of that is paying attention to the quality of the evidence and its source. That's why you should pay more attention to information that appears in (for example) a peer-reviewed medical journal rather than what some actor says, or why you should give more credibility to what appears in an established newspaper rather than what some anonymous person wrote on a blog.

Someone not acquainted with their tactics and methods, coming across this article for the first time isn't going to accept hand-waving away of PETA's claims.

Why wouldn't they? If you point out other mistakes PETA has made, perhaps they'll come to the conclusion... "They're wrong before... there's a good chance they're wrong again".

 

[pgwenthold]

I would like to hear PETA explain exactly WHAT regulations are being violated?

When I read it, the only actual complaint that I saw boiled down to, "They are hurting little kitties!"

All I could think of is Bill Cosby's kids' approach to get his wife to make him stop watching Gunsmoke so they could watch Froofie the Dog.

If they allege that laws are being broken, they should be able to explain how the law is being broken, which requires a discussion of the law and not just calling the researchers meanies.

 

[Cleon]

PETA's got some ideas that are, to be kind, completely bonkers. And I think at company lunches their PR department are given an extra helping of crazy.

However, they have a pretty good track record when it comes to exposing animal cruelty in slaughterhouses and processing plants, despite the fact that they're opposed to the practice in principle. So I don't know that I'd dismiss this out of hand.

 

[mumblethrax]

I would like to hear PETA explain exactly WHAT regulations are being violated?

The Animal Welfare Act.