September 26, 1997

Recognizing researchers who care for their animals

David Neil lives with constant conflict.

The University of Alberta veterinarian keeps an eye on all the animals used in research experiments and reports back to the University Animal Policy and Welfare Committee. "I became a veterinarian because I'm very interested in animals. I enjoy animals. I want to be a healer," says Neil.

The conflict within him first arose when he joined the army and started to work with laboratory animals.

"I was shocked. We made the animals healthy, so that we could find out why. But we also made animals unhealthy, so again, we could find out why. This is not why I went to vet school," explains Neil.

But whenever Neil questions why humans use animals in their research experiments, he comes up with this answer: "Historically, it's been very worthwhile. It has produced an enormous amount of information . And it has improved, not only the longevity of human life, but also the quality of life," says Neil.

Yes, but is it ethical?

That's the question scientists will debate and discuss at the Louis D. Hyndman Sr. Lecture and Award event on September 30, 1997.

The award and lecture were established by the late Hyndman Sr., who had a keen interest in animal welfare. He left a grant at the U of A to highlight and award people who have given exemplary care to animals used in research on campus. Since 1994, a researcher and technician have been honored each year for contributions to improving the comfort and care of animals. They are nominated by their peers in the research community and selected by the University Animal Policy and Welfare Committee (UAPWC). This year, researcher Douglas Scraba in the Department of Biochemistry won. Two others won in the technicians category: Paul Hansen and Jack Welch, both in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutritional Science.

Welch and Hansen work in the Rangeland and Wildlife Research Unit. One of their nominators wrote, "They do not care for animals because they are told they have to, but because they are compelled to."

This nominator writes the actions of these two technicians move far beyond their required responsibilities, working extra hours and sacrificing their private lives, particularly during calving season at Kinsella and Ministik research stations.

In addition, both Welch and Hansen have adjusted the living environment for these cattle and wapiti.

Welch added a maternity pen to the main facility and a remote pen to house and treat animals. This reduces stress levels for the animals and minimizes exposure to disease for cows and newborn calves.

Hansen constructed a deer handling facility that comes with a custom designed squeeze to enable blood sampling. Furthermore, Hansen built a loadout chute that decreases the stress level when animals are being loaded for sale.

Overall, the technicians have contributed to a more comfortable environment for animals, which makes it safer for their handlers as well.

Douglas Scraba won because he completely restructured the review process of experiments using animals, changing it to a yearly procedure. Previously, it was every three years.

Scraba decided the review should be a time to ask some tough, specific questions. It looks at the progress of the experiment, what results were obtained, how they were obtained, what the mortality rate was, whether it was higher or lower than expected and if so, why?

This way, says U of A vet Neil, the UAPWC has a clearer idea of what is happening with the animals at various stages of experimentation.

At the 1997 forum, Bernard Rollin, the first Louis D. Hyndman Sr. guest lecturer four years ago, will speak on the ethical issues surrounding cloning and xenotransplantation. Rollin is director of bioethical planning in the Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University.

Folio front page

Office of Public Affairs

University of Alberta