* I tried to search to see if this had already been posted; as far as I could tell it hasn't been.*

**Known as “Cruelty 101,” the course requires students to drop heavy weights onto the spinal cords of mice and rats, causing spinal cord injuries and paralyses. During the three-week course, which starts July 16, hundreds of mice and rats will be injured and put through painful surgeries and invasive procedures before being killed.**

Evidently this is some sort of spinal injury research. This is unnecessary and still going on, as far as I can tell, and needs to be stopped.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/release_060201.html

Ashlan

Wow... :no:

can't imagine anyone willingly signing up for this...
do they have a follow up psychiatric course?

Wow... :no:

can't imagine anyone willingly signing up for this...
do they have a follow up psychiatric course?

How terrible... :down:

Wow... :no:

can't imagine anyone willingly signing up for this...
do they have a follow up psychiatric course?

Addressed to the problems caused by being forced to torture? I doubt it.

Ash

This is horrible.

I found a forum on Neuroscience issues, and some people are busy discussing this.

http://carecure.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21110

These people obviously have no care for animals, no matter how small they may be. :(

I am mortified that such a course exsists.

But I find it very hopeful the Physician's Commitee of Responsible Medicine are the ones that pressuring OSU to abandon this course.

I think this quote sums up animal research:

“These experiments are cruel. They are also futile,” says Dr. Akhtar. “Decades of appalling animal experiments have not produced a clearly effective treatment for people with spinal cord injuries.”

This is horrible.
I found a forum on Neuroscience issues, and some people are busy discussing this.
http://carecure.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21110
These people obviously have no care for animals, no matter how small they may be. :(

This is a post from that forum, from one of those who oppose PCRM's efforts. A certain amount of his statement(s) I can follow, even agree with for the sake of debate, but the bolded section reflects his bias.

"The Physicians Committe for Responsible Medicine has sued Ohio State University, wasting much time and money, and hurting spinal cord injury research.

I don't find Neal Barnard or any of his irresponsible cohorts supporting human embryonic stem cell research, even though this would reduce animal research. They are like the anti-stem cell groups, emphasizing only negative and doing nothing to help others. It is beyond my ken why these well-funded groups make it their priority to attack scientists doing cure research.

I am not sure that PCRM cares about animals and why they are doing this. Do they sue manufacturers of rat and mouse traps and poisons, that kill so many more animals than researchers ever do? Do they attack PETA who was just found to have paid millions of their donors' contributions paying for the killing of tens of thousands of dogs in shelters? Do they picket McDonalds who has been responsible for the deaths of millions of cows (they have sold billions of burgers)?

It is not true that Neal Barnard is just suggesting more humane treatment of animals. He believes that rats should not be used for SCI research. He and his group believes that all animal research should be abolished. If he believed that pain and suffering of animals should be minimized, I would gladly work with him. It is the other way around. I can assure you from first-hand knowledge that the OSU group are very strong advocates of humane treatment of rats. It is so bizarre that PCRM is attacking OSU for their spinal cord injury course. They have picked the wrong group to attack.

In my opinion, PCRM is not doing this for animals. They are doing this against people with spinal cord injury. People who give money to these people should understand that they are not helping animals, just hurting people.

Wise.

[This message was edited by Wise Young on 05-22-05 at 02:39 PM.]"

I'm sure this man has at least one PhD in medicine, while I have a lonely BS in behabioral science; however, even I can tell that he has some kind of bone to pick with those who push for the underdog (or in this case, the under-rat) as opposed to a (perceived by me) view of 'humans first, always'.

Ash