When we were first alerted to the atrocities that were being committed in the name of education at Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine in St. Kitts, we sprung into immediate action through our action alert, on the streets, and in important meetings. The students there were being forced to mutilate and kill hundreds of dogs and other healthy animals each year in unnecessary, painful procedures. Thanks to public pressure, Ross University announced shortly after that it would no longer conduct harmful, invasive, or terminal experiments on dogs—although, sadly, they would continue to do so on donkeys, sheep, and goats.

Well, I'm excited to announce that today marks another step in the right direction for Ross University. While PETA protestors demonstrated outside DeVry's shareholder meeting—DeVry being Ross University's parent company—PETA Laboratory Methods Specialist Shalin Gala met with the bigwigs inside. The CEO informed him that Ross University will no longer perform terminal surgeries, full stop. Personally, I'd like to think that the giant, friendly "sheep" who were hanging around outside the meeting had something to do with that announcement! That or the thousands and thousands of messages from compassionate people that Ross University has received.

Rather than settling on this step forward, we will commit to re-doubling our efforts against Ross University and DeVry's harmful experiement. It's great that healthy animals at Ross will no longer be killed, but invasive procedures—such as severing the nerves in donkeys' toes, cutting their ligaments, inserting plastic tubes through their noses and into their stomachs, surgically puncturing their abdomens, cutting their tracheas (or windpipes), and removing fluid from their joints—will presumably continue. Every little improvement helps, of course. But c'mon, Ross, catch up with the times and cut out the cruelty.

Here's hoping that Ross University will continue to improve and eventually stop animal tests altogether. Feel free to drop them a line and tell them what you think!

Posted by Amanda Schinke

abc / CC

It's a good day for mice and rats in the Republic of China (aka Taiwan)! Thanks to a whistleblower, PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department got a tip that led us into high-level talks with National Yang-Ming University's president about her school's cruel pharmacology experiments. And what do you know—the university has decided to end not one but two of these outdated tests in less than nine days and instead use humane non-animal alternatives!

Part of the first experiment called for students to pump the chemical strychnine into the stomachs of approximately 150 mice through surgically-attached stomach tubes. That's right, strychnine—and then the students were required to observe and record the animals' convulsions. The second experiment required the students to inject pentylenetetrazol, a convulsion-causing chemical, into approximately 135 mice. The students then had to inject acetic acid into the animals, which caused their bodies to contort painfully.

Now, both experiments have been canceled—and nearly 300 mice will be spared these terrible procedures every semester. The university will still conduct experiments on animals—including one cruel blood-pressure manipulation experiment in which students slice open animals' windpipes and blood vessels—but the university has also agreed to dramatically reduce the number of rats who are used in that experiment—to just one.

These victories come after PETA successfully convinced National Taiwan University College of Medicine to end similar experiments on animals earlier this year.

This is a great start for National Yang-Ming University and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, where school officials are beginning to realize that animal experimentation is not just unnecessary—it's inaccurate and completely inhumane.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

Katherine Heigl wearing our "Have a PETA Day" T-shirt

OK, if you're like me, you cancel all your plans, shut off your cell phone, lock your door, and glue yourself to your couch every Thursday at 9 p.m. for none other than the greatest hour of television all week: Grey's Anatomy.

Well, last night was probably my favorite television night of all time, because the best show ever also brought in an important message about animal rights. (TV + AR = my life, so you can see why I was thrilled.)

If you missed it, let me catch you up. Dr. Hunt, the new head of trauma surgery, wanted to train the residents and interns on how to deal with trauma patients, and he said that dealing with live tissue was the best way to learn. So he tied down six sedated pigs and stabbed them with knives, and then he asked the doctors to perform surgery to keep the pigs alive. (Though I'm quite sure that in real life the pigs were fake, as the show had several notices that no animals were harmed in filming.)

Enter Dr. Izzy Stevens, played by Katherine Heigl. Izzy refused to do the assignment and explained how completely unnecessary it is to test on live animals when we have such advanced alternatives that don't require us to do that. She said that animals are sensitive, emotional creatures that feel pain and don't deserve to be tortured. We are so right there with you, Izzy!

When Dr. Hunt continued to berate Izzy about this issue, she stood up for herself and for animals everywhere and never backed down. She even explained that testing on animals is pointless and can sometimes even work against medical progress. Even though a test might be successful when the subjects are animals, people and animals are different species and therefore will show completely different results.

Even no-nonsense, steely Dr. Yang took a liking to the pigs and called them by name. When the surgeries finished, Hunt ordered Yang to euthanize the pigs and she refused.

What an excellent episode! I was so thrilled to step away from Meredith's whiny, self-obsessed life for a while to focus on the other characters—and such a positive message for animals.

Now, if only Ross University had seen this episode ….

Posted by Christine Doré

In honor of Halloween (and our peta2 zombie protesters), let me start this out by saying, "Braaaaaains!"

Good—now that I've got that out of my system, we can talk about the 11 awesome professional athletes who have all agreed to donate their brains to science!

That's right, these athletes—including six retired NFL players, among others—will all be donating their brains (post mortem, of course) to a study headed (tee hee) by the Sports Legacy Institute and Boston University. The study will use these oft-concussed brains to determine if there is a definite link between concussions and traumatic encephalopathy.

You might know traumatic encephalopathy better as "punch-drunk syndrome," or "boxer's dementia." Dementia and parkinsonism have long been linked to repeated concussions—such as those suffered by boxers or football players—and this study will further explore this relationship.

Sadly, studies like this often inflict head trauma on primates—only to kill them shortly afterwards—in order to simulate concussions in human brains! That's why these athletes' donations are so valuable—by donating their brains, these athletes have spared countless animals from suffering the torture of enduring repeated traumatic injuries. Their brains, by the simple nature of being human brains, will also provide science with much more reliable and conclusive results than any an animal test could provide.

That's why PETA is presenting these athletes with our Compassionate Action Award! Each athlete will receive a framed certificate and letter of appreciation—and the unspoken thanks of all the animals who will not have to suffer in the name of "science."

The awards go to retired NFL players Isaiah Kacyvenski, Ted Johnson, Frank Wycheck, Ben Lynch, Bernie Parrish, and Bruce Laird; former U.S. Olympic swimmer Jenny Thompson; Florida Panthers hockey player Noah Welch; former U.S. Women's National Soccer team player Cindy Parlow; former boxer Maurice "Termite" Watkins; and last, but not least, Sports Legacy Institute founder, former Harvard football player, and former professional wrestler Chris Nowinski.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

Four monkey-masked PETA members paid Yale a little visit yesterday in honor of National Primate Liberation Week.

As motorists passed underneath the banner-wielding monkeys, they were reminded that "Yale Murders Monkeys." Well, specifically, Yale imprisons monkeys in tiny cages, mutilates them, injects them with poison, forces drug addiction on them, and eventually kills the animals as part of the experiments—but "murders" pretty much covers it, don't you think?

That's right—the more than 160 primates who are locked up in Yale's laboratories are the subjects of many cruel experiments, several of them drug-related. Some of the more heinous abuses include injecting toxins into monkeys’ brains so that they can’t walk, move or eat, addicting the monkeys to PCP to induce schizophrenia (excuse me?) and addicting them to nicotine by giving them the equivalent of smoking 17 packs of cigarettes per day. Because, ya know, exposing a monkey to 17 packs' worth is really reflective of an average human smoker's habits. Right.

The vivisectors at Yale are even killing pregnant monkeys and removing their fetuses in order to cut out their brains. If this were happening anywhere else, it would be condemned as psychopathic, murderous behavior—but because it's done in the name of "science," we're expected to accept this.

Well, forgive me, but this isn't the kind of thing that we at PETA tend to accept—and neither, I think, would most reasonable people. These monkeys are being tortured and murdered at taxpayer expense, but who said the taxpayers approve?

If you don't approve, please write the National Institutes of Health and ask them to end their policy of funding animal experiments like these.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

Michael B. Hennessy
carleton / CC

With Halloween this month and scary B movies certain to flood theatres (and the U.S. Postal Service via Netflix), we're going to honor October's worst vivisector with a special honor: the Frankenscience Award. We'll serve up two "scientists" with horrendous records of drugging, isolating, and otherwise torturing animals and allow you, dear readers, the honor of telling us who makes you gag the most.

Michael B. Hennessy, a psychology professor at Wright State University, spends his time tormenting baby guinea pigs. With help from over $350 thousand in funding from taxpayer dollars, Hennessy has learned a lot about sickness and stress in laboratory animals, but he himself isn't confident that the results can be safely extrapolated to humans.

Hennessy takes guinea pigs from their mothers when the newborns are less than 1 month old to observe the resulting "stress-induced sickness behavior." To worsen things, the babies are injected with a behavior-altering substance to see how it affects them. They are forced to endure invasive surgeries, including having their heads cut open, tubes stuck inside, and various chemicals and agents injected into them—including E. Coli bacteria!

To make matters worse, even Hennessy himself sees the obvious problem with his methods—the fact that guinea pigs aren't people. In a recent paper, he concludes that "caution is required in generalizing from studies of sickness in laboratory animals to depression in humans."

Owen Floody
bucknell / CC

Owen B. Floody, a psychology professor at Bucknell University, came to our attention after a concerned alumnus contacted us. We learned that Floody has spent more than 30 years performing deadly sexual and reproductive studies … on hamsters.

Floody starts with healthy female hamsters, carves into their skulls, damages their brains, and then examines how this affects their sexual behavior. To assess this, he drops them in a box with a male hamster or "manually stimulates" them (you don't want to know). At the end of this bizarre ordeal, the animals are killed and their brains are dissected.

Floody even gets his students involved in these experiments, allowing undergraduate students in his physiological psychology course to help with this torture. PETA has already expressed its concerns to Bucknell, and you can chime in to help end these experiments by clicking here.

What'll it be? The Wright State professor who grasps the underlying problem with vivisection but does it anyway? Or the Bucknell professor who "manually stimulates" then kills female hamsters? Leave a comment to let me know!

Posted by Sean Conner

In 2007, PETA received a call from a whistleblower who tipped us off to a Cleveland lab, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), that performed a fatal brain surgery on a dog for a useless medical-device sales demonstration.

Fast forward to 2008. PETA has received yet another tip from a whistleblower because of yet another alleged unnecessary dog death at the CCF—and this time it appears to be a violation of federal law.

The whistleblower alleges that a healthy dog—who had undergone an experimental transplant in which a heart was inserted into her neck—was killed after surgeons discovered that her airway was blocked by hay. Sadly, the whistleblower says that the dog was knowingly allowed to eat the dangerous hay from the pens of other animals while roaming around the laboratory and disturbing other animals who were recuperating from painful surgeries. I'm pretty sure that the surgeons needed that extra heart, not the dog…

PETA has filed a complaint against the facility with the USDA, and we are asking for an immediate investigation into alleged violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act. The potential violations include failure to ensure proper nutrition for dogs (at least one was apparently allowed to eat hay) and failure to ensure adequate veterinary care for animals used in experiments, just to name a couple.

Many Cleveland residents, especially those who frequent the Dawg Pound, would be horrified to know that a lab in their city might be guilty of repeatedly killing healthy dogs who are used in useless experiments. The CCF needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for its apparent disregard for animal welfare, and we hope that the USDA will do just that.

If you want to help, please politely contact the CCF using the information below and ask that it conduct a full and thorough investigation of this matter and take all appropriate corrective actions.

Please send polite comments to:

Paul E. DiCorleto, Ph.D., Chair
Lerner Research Institute
Cleveland Clinic
Mailstop NB21
9500 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44195
216-444-5849
dicorlp@ccf.org

Sad news—House Peters Jr., the man we all know and love as Mr. Clean, passed away yesterday at the respectable age of 92.

I pretty much love the character of Mr. Clean. In a world of cleaning-product commercials featuring only women, Mr. Clean's gender-stereotype–defying presence was always refreshing. (Plus, he had an earring, which is cool—and pretty progressive for the 1950s, when the character premiered!)

What I don't love, though, is the company responsible for the product Mr. Clean—Proctor & Gamble (P&G), the infamous maker of animal-tested Iams! PETA's problem with P&G goes back pretty far—far enough, in fact, for us to have parodied Mr. Clean's image on a 1998 protest door hanger.

But that wasn't enough to convince P&G to stop abusing animals in the name of "research." While P&G has developed non-animal testing methods and worked to end much of its outdated testing program, even today, eight years later, P&G–owned Iams continues to keep up to 700 dogs and cats locked inside hidden laboratories.

So as we say goodbye to Mr. Clean, we urge you to honor his memory by, say, wearing white T-shirts and gold earrings—not by purchasing Iams.

For a list of dog and cat food brands that are not tested on animals, click here.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

If you've been on planet Earth in the last 24 hours, you've probably heard the phrase "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig" more times than you can count. Well, we at PETA would like to put our own spin on this phrase and let everyone know that there should never be any real reason for lipstick on a pig unless it's because you've just given a pig a big kiss for being so darn cute.

Next time you do your makeup in the morning, ask yourself, "Who was my lipstick tested on?" Rats, mice, and bunnies are still exploited in the world of product testing, and pigs are used for cruel experiments as well. And yes, pigs still suffer from abuse in the factory-farming industry.

We've thrown our own spin on this whole "lipstick on a pig" media frenzy and created the following two ads to make people think about where their cosmetics and their food come from. Check out our new ads, and please vote for your favorite by leaving a comment below!

iStockPhoto.com/Christian Lohman

Posted by Christine Doré

Anyone planning to visit the Caribbean this season who comes across our new ad taking aim at the St. Kitts tourism board's promotional campaign will probably choose to visit another island—any other island. That's because PETA's poster shows a man splashing in a blood-red sea and carries the tagline "Deplore St. Kitts." PETA's poster explains that St. Kitts is home to the Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine—the cruelest such institution of its kind in the Western Hemisphere.

Try to guess what the original slogan was.

As loyal readers of The PETA Files know, PETA has been urging Ross to join other veterinary schools in using only modern teaching methods that do not harm healthy animals. In response to PETA's campaign and a student's lawsuit, Ross announced earlier this year that it would end invasive and terminal surgeries on healthy dogs, but the school continues to require students to cut up and kill healthy donkeys, goats, and sheep.

PETA also recently purchased stock in Ross' parent company, DeVry Inc., in order to use its position as a shareholder to increase pressure on Ross to make these much-needed reforms.

If you now deplore St. Kitts because of our enlightening ad, go ahead and do the animals justice—give Ross University a piece of your mind!

Posted by Carrie Ann Harris

David Gozal
louisville / CC

It's time once again for my favorite PETA Files feature: our Vivisector of the Month contest. Each and every month, I read up on two of our nation's most vile vivisectors and let you, our dear readers, decide who is the worst by voting.

Let me begin by recognizing Marina Picciotto, whose primate addiction studies and mouse torture won her the undesirable title of Most Vile Vivisector last month. Her competitor was much-derided Allyson Bennett. Congrats, Marina—I'm certain Yale and all of New Haven are glad to have you!

This month, we have another two truly bizarre candidates … just see for yourself.

David Gozal of the Kosair Children's Hospital Research Institute in Louisville has a bit of a problem. He is fascinated by erections—mouse erections, to be exact. He passes his days in the lab getting up close and very personal with little boy-mice, studying their erections and even severing their spinal cords so that they cannot move while experimenters observe their penises.

In his most recent study, "Erectile Dysfunction in a Murine [Mouse] Model of Sleep Apnea," which was funded in part by the federal government, Gozal measured the number of erections and ejaculations in dozens of mice after placing them in a chamber to deprive them of oxygen. Some mice were also given tadalafil, an erectile dysfunction drug. They were then killed by puncturing their hearts with a needle, and their testicles and penises were cut out of their bodies for examination. Gozal concluded that oxygen deprivation makes it more difficult to get an erection and that tadalafil, which is already prescribed (as “Cialis”) for humans with erectile dysfunction, works in mice.

Experiments on pigs

Daniel Traber of the University of Texas Medical Branch Department of Anesthesiology has made a living for almost three decades by burning animals' skin off. In a recent experiment, he either torched mice with a Bunsen burner until more than 40 percent of their bodies was charred or forced them to inhale smoke. A few select mice got the full treatment—they were both burned and forced to inhale smoke. Some died during the experiment, and survivors were subsequently killed.

In another study, Traber heated an aluminum bar to nearly 400 degrees with a Bunsen burner and roasted the skin of live pigs on it for 30 seconds, creating a series of deep burns that covered 15 percent of their bodies. In order to repair the deliberately injured animals, Traber and colleagues then removed skin from the pigs' legs to graft over the areas that had been burned off. After living through all this torture, the pigs were killed. Again, this is only his most recent work—Traber has been burning, mutilating, and killing sheep for years.

Who should win? The Children's Hospital Vivisector or the Bunsen Burninator? As always, let me help you decide by posing a question: Would you rather be molested, stabbed in the heart, and have your genitals torn out, or would you rather be roasted alive over a Bunsen burner, forced to inhale the smell of your burning flesh, and then killed?

It's a burning question, isn't it?

Posted by Sean Conner

msnbcmedia1 / CC

You know those commercials we all laugh at? The ones for whatever weight-loss pill, claiming something to the effect of "It's SO easy! You don't have to exercise OR change your diet"? The ones that you laugh at with your friends and that make you say, "Yeah, right"?

Get this—the vivisectors at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences have announced a new wonder drug, a magical pill that would, they say, mimic the effects of exercise. Just swallow a little pill, their report says, and experience increased muscle endurance and doubled fat-burning muscle. It's SO easy!

The mice who were subjected to the drug apparently showed a decrease in fat and an increase in oxygen consumption—but not any of the other benefits from exercise. People are asking serious questions about the "just like exercise" claim.

It seems to me that the vivisectors at Salk got vaguely promising results from the mice and decided to cash in on America's fascination with weight loss and reluctance to exercise—not to mention all the Olympics-related fitness hubbub that's going on right now!

But come on, we really shouldn't be surprised that these "scientists" are grossly exaggerating their lab results in order to make headlines—think about all the other "scientific breakthroughs" that have been "proven" by mouse vivisection. As Yale University's Dr. David Katz writes, "Extrapolation from rodent research to outcomes in people is notoriously uncertain and fraught with danger. Basic science studies and animal experiments have resulted over the years in headlines about cures for cancer, a definitive obesity gene and effective AIDS vaccines, to name a few. None of these has yet to materialize, and early hyperbole in each case gave way to disappointment."

Well, I'm sure people will be disappointed—disappointed that animal testing is still going on, despite its cruelty, its inaccuracies, and the better alternatives that exist.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

paddleasia / CC

Charles River Laboratories has finally had to own up to killing 32 monkeys under their "care." The monkeys were baked alive when a thermostat malfunctioned; no alarm system was in place to alert staff to save the monkeys. Nobody even knew about the deaths until the following morning.

Charles River's announcement follows a string of contact with PETA from a whistleblower claiming to be a Charles River employee, who was concerned about what appeared to be gross negligence. We immediately followed up with a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the body charged with enforcing the minimal standards of the Animal Welfare Act), which subsequently opened an inquiry into the lab.

"This is a terrible and unfortunate tragedy," the company said in a statement released to the media. The monkeys were slated to be used in preclinical drug experiments, so Charles River's concern is quite curious. The deaths were written off as the result of "several human errors"—unlike the frequent and intentional monkey murders that preclinical testing laboratories voluntarily participate in.

This accident is only one disgusting incident among many for Charles River's abysmal record. They were cited for 22 violations of the ever-so-minimal standards of the pitifully limited Animal Welfare Act in 2005 alone, and they netted 20 violations (as reported to federal officials) in 2006 and 2007.

Stay tuned to this spot. More's afoot on this front.

Posted by Sean Conner

It's time once again for my PETA Files feature: our Vivisector of the Month contest. Every month, I read up on two of our nation's most vile vivisectors and let you, our dear readers, decide on who is the worst by voting.

Before we begin, I would like to congratulate Michael Weed at Johns Hopkins, who won last month's contest by a landslide. May he forever be recognized for his brilliant work creating a primate crack house—complete with residents infected with the simian form of HIV. Bravo!

What will 17 packs of cigarettes a day do to a monkey? Just ask Marina Picciotto!
CC / My Barina

This month's all-girl lineup will be a very tough call, as both vivisectors torture monkeys, mice, and rats. Who you pick will reflect what you think is worse: being tortured like a prisoner of war until your desire for freedom is crushed or being an adolescent alcoholic with no mother to cry to? Please choose wisely!

New Haven, Connecticut, local and Yale professor Marina Picciotto spends her days hidden away in a university laboratory, drugging and tormenting monkeys, mice, and rats—often with the aid of your federal tax dollars! Her chemicals of choice include nicotine, cocaine, morphine, and alcohol—all of which she either feeds or injects into animals before scoring them on bizarre "behavioral assessments," sometimes with the stated goal of making them suffer.

In one study, Picciotto measured despair in mice by making them swim in pools of water with no resting platform or by hanging them from their tails with tape. For each group, despair was measured by how little they were still willing to struggle for self-preservation. In another study, she bored holes into rats' skulls so that she could directly inject chemicals into their brains; she then decapitated the animals and froze their heads. In yet another study, this time on learned helplessness, she exposed mice to 360 inescapable shocks.

Her most stunning experiment involved giving monkeys Kool-Aid mixed with liquid nicotine as a sole source of fluid, with the amount of nicotine ingested by one monkey nearly reaching the equivalent of smoking 17 packs of cigarettes per day. Picciotto conducted this experiment to determine how long one should wait after ingesting nicotine before brain imaging is done, despite the fact that researchers went on to take brain images of human smokers in another experiment that could have provided information without caging and drugging monkeys.

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, resident and Wake Forest assistant professor Allyson Bennett is known for her egregious cruelty to monkeys, but she has also dabbled in torturing rats and mice, making her a great match for Picciotto. Lucky for Bennett, Wake Forest now houses nearly 1,500 monkeys and receives loads of federal funding, so she's unlikely to run out of victims to torment or cash flow to drive her operations.

A queen of seemingly pointless research, Bennett has deprived rats of food for up to two days to observe their consequent behavior in an arena of both food and nonfood objects. To her surprise, food deprivation led animals to come in increased contact with food, despite also inspecting nonfood items out of curiosity. This genius study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and conducted at an NIH Animal Center.

In another study, she took baby monkeys away from their mothers and forced them to grow up without parents—causing them emotional distress just so that she could see how this affected right- or left-hand preference. She's even broken new ground in the research world by investigating whether or not adolescent binge-drinking might be bad for you—if you happen to be a monkey, that is.

Will it be Miss Mouse Depression or the Mistress of Starvation? Leave a comment to let me know!

Do you know the saying "Don't steal—the government hates competition"? I was reminded of it recently when news broke that the U.S. Army is shooting live pigs in an open range with high-power rifles at a training camp in Hawaii. The Army says it's teaching combat medics how to treat battlefield injuries, but here's the thing: The Army is required—by its own regulations—to use alternatives to animals in any kind of experimentation or training when scientifically valid and comparable alternatives exist. And guess what? Those alternatives exist.

My colleague Shalin Gala rattles off these humane alternatives like nobody's business: the Combat Trauma Patient Simulation System, Simulab Corporation's TraumaMan system (insert superhero figure with a T on his chest), partnering with trauma centers for real-life experience, and Dr. Emad Aboud's "living" cadaver perfusion model. Shalin also tells me that he regularly receives calls from whistleblowers in the Army and the Navy telling him about the use of pigs, goats, and monkeys for trauma training and chemical casualty training—all in apparent violation of regulations.

Kathy Guillermo, the director of PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department, had this to say: "In order to effectively save our soldiers' lives, Army medics should be trained with human trauma patients and advanced simulators that mimic human responses. Shooting and maiming pigs is as outdated as Civil War rifles."

I agree, but I'm kind of stuck on the fact that the horror of the Army's pig shooting in Hawaii goes way beyond just that. Readers of The PETA Files are well aware that you don't have to be Einstein to get your head around the few paltry regulations intended to protect animals in laboratories, but even so, violations of these regulations are rampant. A recent audit noted that nearly a third of U.S. laboratories are failing to search for alternatives. Is it any wonder when the government—charged with ensuring that laboratories comply with the law—doesn't seem to have its own house in order?

Posted by Grace Friedan

Quick, what happens when you throw a stone in a pond of water? That's right, ripples form. Don't worry, we're not revisiting Physics 101, but that metaphor describes how phenomenal it is to see our actions generate positive consequences.

Check out this stone-skipping scenario: Last fall, an Israeli group videotaped hideously cruel experiments on monkeys and cats that were taking place at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, in which the animals were kept hungry and thirsty so that they would "work" in exchange for a few drops of water. Vivisectors drilled holes in the animals' skulls, inserted electrodes in their brains, and then strapped animals into restraint chairs, where they were kept entirely immobile for hours at a time while data were recorded. These experiments have been going on for more than 20 years, and get this: Our tax dollars—right here in the United States—have been paying for them, courtesy of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

When PETA received the video footage, we sprang into action, writing to the NIH, identifying influential friends who could nudge the Weizmann Institute, and setting up a petition so that concerned people everywhere could tell the Weizmann Institute what they thought.

And now, thanks to the massive outpouring of concern, Israeli academics opposed to cruelty to animals have started organizing and speaking out. Operating under the banner "Academics for the Protection of Animals in Labs," three hundred professors at Israeli universities have signed a petition calling for greater accountability and transparency for animal experimentation. In the words of one organizer, "What I am proposing is that there should be more transparency and supervision, and yes, also fewer experiments ...."

They're not monkeying around, and those are some serious stones!

Posted by Grace Friedan

Gordon Ewy
uanews / CC

Time for another installment of my favorite PETA Files feature: Vivisector of the Month. I like to take a little time each month to step back, look at two of the country's most vile vivisectors, and let you, our dear readers, vote on which one is the most hideous.

First and foremost, I'd like to congratulate Jason Cromer, who won last month's contest by a single vote. I'm so happy to see that the competition was heated last month, and I hope that you'll agree that this month's contestants are equally well matched.

If you love word association, then you're certain to love the conveniently named Michael Weed. His interests include alcohol, morphine, cocaine, ecstacy, and the simian equivalent of HIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, or SIV). And he generously bestows all these wonderful gifts on his monkey friends, who can't fight back.

In one particularly gruesome study funded by the National Institutes of Health, Weed trained monkeys in a basic motor task, infected them with SIV, then checked how they performed the task—while on cocaine. He has also studied SIV in monkeys without going the extra mile of giving them cocaine. One time, for example, he assessed 10 monkeys' performances on memory tests before and after they were infected with SIV. He concluded that his findings matched what was already known from human AIDS patients. Brilliant work, Weed! Even if he'd made stunning new conclusions, would it mean that we should start giving cocaine to people with HIV or that we should warn people with HIV that the white stuff ain't the right stuff?

In another hideous and meaningless study, Weed decided to create opiate dependence in monkeys by giving them a tasty orange-flavored drink spiked with morphine every six hours for several months. Monkey-lovers and M.A.D.D. members alike, please vote for Michael Weed!

If you ever find a pig in cardiac arrest and need to perform CPR, Gordon Ewy would be the man to call. Occupying an endowed chair and serving as director of the University of Arizona's Sarver Heart Center, Ewy has dedicated much of his life to saving pigs' lives (for a brief while, anyway)—after he induces cardiac arrest in them via asphyxiation or other methods.

Ewy's heart-stopping modus operandi typically involves letting his victims sit at a cardiac standstill for eight minutes or more before trying to resuscitate them via different combinations of "chest compressions and assisted ventilation" (i.e., experimental CPR). The success of his methods is measured by the number of pigs who survive, and the number of surviving pigs who retain full brain function after their near-death experiences. In one particularly revealing experiment, Ewy assessed whether chest compressions using stacked hands or side-by-side hands would significantly affect survival. Lo and behold, they did not.

Who will you vote for? Weed, for his extensive work at creating a nonhuman primate crack house, or Ewy, for his life-threatening, "lifesaving" work on pigs? Leave a comment to let me know!

Posted by Sean Conner

foe / CC

Wow, this is huge! Seriously, you may want to sit down for this one.

In a historic first, the Spanish Parliament is expected to pass legislation that will extend rights to great apes. Yes, you read that right. The resolutions bringing Spanish law in line with the recommendations of the Great Ape Project will not only outlaw experimentation on apes but will also make it illegal to exploit them for films and TV. Boo-ya! The new legislation has been approved by Parliament's environmental committee and has strong enough support that it is expected to become law within a year.

Woo-hoo! Way to go, Spain! Come on, America, what's the dealio?

By the way, if you want to do something for apes and other primates in the U.S. of A. (since we're not going to be able to get them all Spanish visas), be sure to tell your senators to support the Captive Primate Safety Act. Really. Go.

Posted by Jeff Mackey

The Guardian, a U.K.-based newspaper, was recently "granted exclusive and unfettered access" to a super-secret primate testing facility at an undisclosed location and operated by the staff of an undisclosed university. This facility works on marmosets, drilling "tiny" holes in the monkeys' skulls and injecting "minute" amounts of "liquid toxin."

Basically, they—whoever they are—open monkeys' heads up with a drill and pour in some poison. But hey, don't worry about the monkeys—Guardian blogger James Randerson claims they aren't "noticeably affected" by the holes and poison in their heads.

While you can read the whole article here, I would suggest you better spend your time checking out what PETA Europe's Alistair Currie had to say in his response letter:

When James Randerson was shown around a primate laboratory (Report, May 31) did he ask why he was being shown this particular laboratory—and whether his "unfettered" access was the same as seeing what goes on in his absence? Undercover investigations into primate laboratories consistently reveal animal suffering far in excess of what he saw on this official tour, and the research conducted was itself far from typical—most monkeys in the UK are used in pharmaceutical toxicology research. Nor is the attitude of technicians or scientists the point. Whether they are or are not "caring", monkeys don't belong in cages, their brains are not ours to interfere with and this PR exercise was a cynical misrepresentation of a far uglier reality.

And if you're actively searching for a reason to be seriously frustrated for the rest of the day, The Guardian was nice enough to post this audio slideshow in which the tiny monkeys cling to the bars of their cages. Listen closely for the bit about how research staff consider themselves "compassionate professionals"—aren't you curious to know what their definition of a sadist is?

Posted by Sean Conner

If you've idly tossed around the idea of expatriation, this news item will surely send you packing—and practicing your Italian. We've received news that the independent state of San Marino, located entirely within Northeastern Italy, has formally abolished all animal experimentation within its borders. The bill, supported by citizens' signatures and a local animal protection group, was presented in February of this year and has now been signed into law.

Although San Marino is a small s