|
Point Of View! with Barb Sumner Burstyn
Of Mice and Men -
September 2002
 Sometimes
a scientific breakthrough is so remarkable it stops you in your
tracks. The announcement recently that Dr Ina Dobrinski, a researcher
at The University of Pennsylvania has created mice with fleshy
lumps on their backs is one of those. While the lumps look innocuous
they’re actually transplanted goat and pig sperm factories,
able to pump out as much pig and goat sperm a day as your average
goat or pig. Dr Dobrinski, who is planning human-mouse grafts,
is proud of her achievements and maintains the research will benefit
infertile men, especially those about to undergo chemo or other
invasive techniques. Instead of losing the change to procreate
the doctor predicts they’ll soon be storing their sperm on
the backs of their pet mice.
Relocated into a New Zealand context such genetic research is
not unusual. We have over 40 research groups, some attached to
universities, either state-owned or private companies doing all
manner of experiments on animals, including cloning and genetic
modifications. What is strange is Dr Dobrinski’ s openness
about her research. In New Zealand such openness is almost unheard
of.
Last week the state-owned AgResearch successfully appealed to
the Office of the Ombudsmen to stop the release of information
on people belonging to its animal ethics committee. In support
of the information suppression, Auckland University animal ethics
chairman Dr Don Love reassured the public that no scientist in
this country wanted to cause suffering in animals. The approval
process, he says, particularly where the animal would suffer severely,
was extremely rigorous. "You really have to go through the
mill to get the box ticked to go ahead with those ones. You always
have to justify what you are doing. It's not as if it's open slather."
Really?
Peter Wills is not so sure. An associate professor at Auckland
University's physics department, he said in a NZ Herald interview
as saying a recent AgResearch application lacked important details,
such as the effects of the research on the cows used. Boycotting
the proceedings of the Environmental Risk Management Authority
(Erma) the body that oversees applications, he said they had a
record of "rubber-stamping" research applications and
ignoring opposing views to applications.
Combine Will’s concerns with the recent report that AgResearch
effectively sidestepped scrutiny by a new ethics council for it’s
controversial work involving inserting a range of goat and human
genes into cows and you begin to wonder if AgResearch is the last
organization we should trust to behave ethically. Especially to
animals.
A well-operated ethics committee has two essential functions.
The first is to work consistently to avoid unnecessary experiments
and encourage the search for alternatives. The second is to be
transparent and accountable, both to the expectations of the public
and to the researchers.
According to animal rights activists in New Zealand our research
community is already one of the most secretive in the world. The
Chief Ombudsman’s decision will only exacerbate that and
result in accountability limited only to those with a vested interest
in the outcome. It will mean all procedures and decisions will
be controlled within the research community itself. And even if
the committees do have highly developed accountability mechanisms
they will now be incapable of hearing the public voice. While
communities will be unable to promote awareness about animal research
issues.
Of course AgResearch had compelling reasons to seek and gain
their suppression order. Citing an attack on a scientist last
year that involved acid poured on a car and threatening phone
calls they say they are simply protecting their scientists and
the people who serve on their ethics committees. The one thing
AgResearch has not realized is that people take extreme measures
in extreme situations. The knowledge that acts of cruelty are
being carried out on more than 300,000 animals each year in New
Zealand in a closed environment may be enough to make any mildly
angry activists a little agitated. Secrecy drives not only the
crown owned AgResearch and all the private institutions underground
but also the animal activists.
It’s not good enough for ethics committees to tell us they’re
being ethical and abiding by the rules. They must be seen to be
ethical as well and committee members should be willing to stand
behind their decisions. As Green Party MP Sue Kedgley said last
week, “Why is there this great veil of secrecy if there is
nothing to hide?"
This suppression order is not about protecting scientists, only
one of whom in New Zealand has ever reported an attack. It’s
a selfish desire to behave unhindered, to position the science
above all else, as if science were a morality unto itself. By
agreeing to the suppression order The Ombudsman has effectively
created an environment where the acts of cruelty can flourish
and the public imagination can run wild. If they’re openly
growing human life on the bodies of mice in America, how much
more are they doing in secrecy here?
Have your say on this column:
Barb Sumner Burstyn.
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn
August 2002.
P.O.V. with
Barbara Sumner Burstyn @
http://www.spectator.co.nz/POV
and now @ http://www.mensnewsdaily.com
|
