We are volunteer advocates for the Beagle Freedom Project Identity Campaign. As such, we have “adopted” cats who are currently being used in scientific experiments at Colorado State University. These cats are Tiger (known to CSU as #4466), a 2-year-old male gray tabby, and Bobby (known to CSU as #4478), a 2-year-old male long haired orange. We have named the cats as part of the identity campaign. Documents setting forth how the cats are being used were provided to us pursuant to our information requests under the Colorado Open Records Act.
“Our” cats were bred at CSU and came to their study as eight-week-old kittens. They were initially used to test a new vaccine against Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV), a feline equivalent to HIV. The vaccine proved ineffective, and the cats were infected with FIV during the course of the study. Tiger and Bobby are now being used to test whether two feline drugs that are already on the market for regular pet cats, ATOPICA (a feline allergic dermatitis relief) and Prednisolone (a feline steroid), can safely be used on FIV-positive pet cats. Tiger and Bobby are being bled regularly, have been treated to produce excess saliva and will undergo a high pain level surgical lymph node biopsy in connection with this study. We have asked to formally adopt “our” cats at the close of the study, but we were informed that they will be euthanized and necropsied for purposes of obtaining tissue samples.
Ad
It is not clear to us why CSU could not test these drugs by partnering with a veterinary clinic that is already treating cats with FIV and obtain tissue samples when the cats die after living their normal life. This is how ethical human clinical research works, and the same principle should apply to animals.
We have additional concerns. It appears from the documentation provided to us that CSU approved this study without conducting the legally required searches to determine whether the high pain level lymph node biopsy could be avoided and whether death as a study endpoint is scientifically and ethically warranted. There are at least 10 other cats in this study group that are also to be euthanized very shortly (one of them, Matthew, a 2-year-old male grey and white, known to CSU as #4456, was “adopted” by our fellow advocate Pam Harris). Despite our best and politest efforts to communicate with the CSU legal department, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and the relevant researcher, we are receiving no further response.
We feel strongly that Tiger, Bobby, Matthew and the other cats in their study group deserve the best possible retirement and that euthanasia is ethically unwarranted as a study endpoint in this case. There are loving homes and rescue groups waiting for all of these cats. We also believe that CSU, as a public institution, has an obligation to be transparent and forthcoming with us about the ethically questionable animal research it is conducting.
Signed,
Johanna Schulte-Hillen , Los Angeles, California
Elizabeth Dixon, Seattle, Washington
In support:
Pam Harris, San Diego, California
Julie Radcliff, San Diego, California
Ad
Kerry Contini, Washington, DC
Marla Filipponi, San Rafael, California
Janice Raridon, Surprise, Arizona
Gail Manz, Rochester, New York
Joan McCune, Puyallup, Washington
Jeanette Neaves, North Bend, Washington
Christine Weinheimer, Bozeman, Montana
Mary Ann McDonald, Elkins, West Virginia
Linda Pope, Beaufort, South Carolina
Grace Jessen, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Carol Majors, Northridge, California
Barb Kahoun, Orlando, Florida
Janet Gregg, Pikeville, Tennessee
Lynne Sherer, Chandler, Arizona
Brenda Lang, Chicago, Illinois
Debra Vermaat, Cottonwood, Minnesota
Tori Carpenter, Boulder, Colorado
Mari Lynn, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Johanna Schulte-Hillen • Jun 25, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Hi Everyone, As the author of the letter I would like to point out that I had the study protocol reviewed by Dr. Paul Rousseau, MD, scientific advisor to the Beagle Freedom Project, prior to its publication. I wanted to make sure I understood the purpose of the study and the proposed euthanasia correctly, and he agreed with the facts as stated. I do not understand why twelve young cats would be killed in order to obtain tissue samples for purposes of determining whether certain drugs can be safely used on FIV pet cats. Also, two of the alternative searches required of a PI under the Animal Welfare Act were marked n/a in the study protocol instead of being filled out. These alternative searches are designed to protect research animals, and they should be thoughtfully discussed. Also, euthanasia as a study end point should be extensively justified by the PI. The NIH for one requires this of its researchers. I have asked the CSU legal department about all of this, but have not received a response.
If anybody would like to help Tiger, Bobby, Matthew and the other cats in their study group, it would be extremely helpful if you would contact the IACUC (politely, please) at 970-491-0236 and let them know that you do not support the euthanasia of these cats. Thank you so much 🙂
Lief Youngs • Jun 25, 2015 at 11:26 am
I also question why CSU is not partnering with local vets to do this research.
Kelly • Jun 24, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Although I could agree with the author of the article with partnering with another clinic, I do not think these “authors” have full understanding of the study or requirements for this research. IACUC requires a vigorous process especially when requiring euthanasia as does the granting institution. Maybe there are certain endpoints that cannot be obtained without euthanasia. Do these individuals understand the research or the study. Why is everything in quotations about adoption? Were they ever up for adoption? I commend that we should always have outside opinions that force us to reevaluate how research is conducted, but after graduating from CSU and being involved in many research products, it can also be hard to judge if you do not understand the process and or care that these researchers provide. Would these individuals be just as against a surgical biopsy if it was a cat that was naturally infected with FIV if the study needed it? What other endpoints other than a biopsy do these author’s think exist? Although natural infections are helpful, retrospective studies have their limitations as well because you don’t get to observe the disease process and it makes finding treatments sometimes more limited. Do we know that these cats are being mistreated? There are too many questions and this article,unfortunately, is one sided. Doesn’t mean that these individuals may not be right or have a point, just need more information.
Carol Majors • Jun 24, 2015 at 4:05 pm
In response to Steven B, the letter is clearly signed by Johanna Schulte- Hillen & Elizabeth Dixon with the rest of us in support. We are not an extremest group but rather tax paying concerned citizens questioning the apparent unethical treatment of animals in a public funded university. Advocating for a life after the lab to be the dog or cat that they were meant to be!.
jake • Jun 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Its organizations like yours that tends to put animal rights over human rights. This university has had huge breakthroughs that have saved countless animals in the past, and will continue to provide research that will impact the world for the better. Because people who do not understand that there is some stuff that may not seem the most ethical from the outside does not mean that it is inherently wrong. Its because of extremest organizations that claim they are doing it for animals, have actually broken into labs with very sever and contagious infectious diseases that they release into the wild, and destroy animal populations in the process. I know students that do research there and they take great care of the animals involved.
Lief Youngs • Jun 25, 2015 at 11:30 am
Is infecting an animal with a disease or doesn’t already have ever ethical?
Zenaida Herrera • Jun 24, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Infecting an animal when there are animals already suffering from this disease, makes one question the “research” behind this. This is very hard to read and not feel anger towards the university for mistreating these animals. Yes, they may be a fabulous school that does some great research. But this?! This seems a bit inhumane. I do Not agree with how they are doing their “research.” I applaud this organization for calling them out, because they deserve to be called out for mistreating their animals. Weren’t they recently held responsible for a death of an animal on one of their campuses? Yes, yes they were. So maybe CSU needs to reevaluate their “research” and their policies regarding live animals.
Steven B • Jun 24, 2015 at 9:59 am
I question the integrity of any article that is penned from a guest author and doesn’t use their real name. CSU has an outstanding vet school that does a lot of vital research. And doing research on animals instead of doing theoretical research is also vital. This is a non-issue
JSBeckham • Jun 24, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Did you miss all the names at the end of the letter?
Steven B • Jun 24, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Those were people who signed the article, not who penned it
JSBeckham • Jun 24, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Notice frequent use of the pronouns “we” and “our.” It’s pretty clear that it’s a group letter that is the product of collaboration between the signatories.
Lief Youngs • Jun 25, 2015 at 11:32 am
Why does CSU do research on an unmarked building? I know exactly where the building is. But if they weren’t mistreating the animals then they wouldn’t have to be so secretive.
LadyM • Jun 24, 2015 at 9:30 am
I support releasing these innocent cats as they deserve a life of respect , love and away from harm .
~Marina R.
Core supporter of Beagle Freedom Project