gossipcheck / CC

Since Michael Jackson's passing on Thursday, there have been hundreds of news stories ranging from how he influenced just about every musician performing today to how he's responsible for the Academy's recent decision to allow 10 nominations for “Best Picture” (no, really!). It got us thinking: What if Michael's music could be used to help animals?

We've written to Michael Jackson's estate asking for the rights to the singer's first solo hit, "Ben," which was written for the 1972 film of the same name. This beautiful song is about the friendship between a lonely boy and a rat named Ben, and we're hoping to use it to raise awareness about the plight of rats and other animals tormented in laboratory experiments.

Mice and rats make up the vast majority of animals used in experiments, but because they are excluded from the federal Animal Welfare Act, they are denied even minimal legal protection. Part of the message of "Ben" is that rats are frequently misunderstood. (For example—did you know that rats and mice are fastidiously clean, intelligent, and highly sociable animals—they even giggle!) In the song, Jackson sings:

Ben, most people would turn you away
I don't listen to a word they say
They don't see you as I do
I wish they would try to.

We hope we'll be able to use this song to inspire people to understand rats a little better and to join our campaign to stop cruel and archaic animal experiments on them.

Posted by Amanda Schinke

abc.net.au / CC

All this week, Slate has been running a five-part series on animal experiments. The series starts out by telling the story of a dog named Pepper who was stolen in 1965 and who "changed American science." As the author, Daniel Engber, points out, the fall-out from Pepper's story led to the 1966 passage of the Animal Welfare Act—the first federal law protecting animals in laboratories.

In today's installment, Engber describes the time he spent as a grad student working on a macaque named Clayton in a university laboratory. He describes how he returned to the lab years later to find that, while his life has moved on—and out of the laboratory—Clayton is still imprisoned, his whole world limited to just two rooms:

In all the time I'd been gone, Clayton had lived in the same room, on the same feeding schedule, and with many of the same neighbors. … Every day or two, he's carted off to a room painted all in black, and his head is fixed in place by the post that still protrudes from his skull. He sits there as always, staring at targets on a computer screen. When he moves his eyes the way he's supposed to, he gets a droplet of Tang as a reward.

Engber also talks about PETA's famous Silver Spring monkeys case, which was the impetus behind sweeping changes made to the Animal Welfare Act in 1985, including the creation of oversight committees that we are currently hounding to do their jobs.

While the series of articles focuses on the use of dogs in experiments, it also describes what is done to rats and mice. That's because no discussion of vivisection can rightly avoid the elephant (or, in this case, mouse) in the room—which is the fact that most of the whopping number of animals used in experiments are these small mammals, who, for no reason other than prejudice and convenience, are still specifically excluded from the Animal Welfare Act.

We strongly recommend taking a minute or two to check out the series—and don't miss part IV, which talks about PETA's undercover investigation at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.

Posted by Alisa Mullins

chiefproperties / CC

Yep, rats and mice are finally having their day. Saturday's Wall Street Journal (the second-largest paper in the country and the most respected) features a front-page article about the work of PETA and others to gain protection for rats and mice in laboratories.

Shockingly, even though rats and mice comprise more than 95 percent of the animals used in experiments, they are specifically excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only federal law that protects animals in laboratories. According to the U.S. government, in its infinite wisdom, rats and mice (as well as birds and "cold-blooded" animals) are not "animals." (It's nonsensical, we know.)

That's why PETA has been doing end-runs around the worthless AWA by going straight to the companies that are required to test their products and pointing out the benefits of using effective and humane alternatives. We also monitor the various government agencies' testing programs and object every time we learn about a proposed test on animals that is redundant or for which non-animal alternatives are available. By doing this, we have been able to get dozens of tests on animals stopped (or the number of animals used greatly reduced), which has saved tens of thousands of animals' lives.

We think it's about time that our elected officials thought about rats and mice, don't you? Send a message to your members of Congress demanding that rats and mice be treated like the sensitive animals (not vegetables or minerals) they are.

Posted by Alisa Mullins

personalbrandingblog / CC

Hold onto your hats, folks. The University of Michigan has been forced to pay back $1.4 million (yes, that's with seven digits) after it "accidentally" used federal grant money for experiments on animals that it continued long after its approval had lapsed.

The massive refund came to light after PETA filed a Freedom of Information Act request and uncovered documents indicating that U-M had violated federal regulations and guidelines on numerous occasions, including allowing animals to die from starvation and dehydration, performing unauthorized surgeries, and "inadvertently" throwing dozens of animals into a trash compactor.

One U-M experimenter injected a rabbit with an unauthorized anesthetic, which meant that the rabbit had to be euthanized after suffering necrosis of ear tissue and trauma to the eye. In another incident, half a dozen animals died when the chamber in which their cages had been placed caught fire. Some of the animals died of smoke inhalation, while others drowned as their cages filled with water from the sprinkler system.

Most importantly costly, as it turned out, U-M was charging the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the care of animals who were no longer enrolled in approved experiments. In a March 2007 internal investigation ordered by NIH, U-M determined that over a period of six months, there were 33 incidents in which experimenters continued to test on animals even though the experiments did not have the required approval from the oversight committee.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when the folks who are supposed to implement universities' so-called "animal care and use programs" just … well … don't, and when big, bloated bureaucracies like NIH—which gave U-M $423.2 million in 2008 alone—throw money at guys in white lab coats without bothering to check and see what they're actually doing with it.

We're now calling on NIH revoke the University of Michigan's "assurance," which allows U-M to receive federal funding to perform experiments on animals. Hey, it never hurts to ask, right?

Posted by Alisa Mullins

blogs.mianinewtimes / CC

Well, it's taken 10 years of pressure and an exposé in The Washington Post based on a PETA report to get there, but it looks like the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) might just finally start to do its job.

ICCVAM recently signed an international agreement with Europe, Canada, and Japan stating that these countries will work together on the creation of non-animal testing methods. To do this, they will begin sharing scientific recommendations on alternative toxicity testing methods.

It's about time.

Although ICCVAM was created by Congress specifically to implement modern, reliable, non-animal chemical-testing methods, it has instead proved to be a major obstacle to its very mission. In the 11 years since its inception, ICCVAM has validated just one non-animal test method that originated in the U.S. By contrast, the European Union's counterpart agency has validated a dozen.

ICCVAM still needs a major overhaul but hopefully, this new agreement will get the wheels turning worldwide and help speed up the process of developing and implementing new non-animal testing methods.

Posted by Shawna Flavell

babble / CC

Ahh, we love Gillian Anderson. Ever since The X-Files, she's stolen our hearts. So when I found out that Gillian had sent a letter on behalf of PETA Europe to every single Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in aid of the 12 million animals suffering in European laboratories, I couldn't help but smile a lot.

Right now, MEPs are considering a proposed law that could improve conditions for tens of millions of animals who are experimented on and killed in laboratories across Europe each year. In a vote that will take place next week, the politicians can change this proposal for better or for worse, so Gillian's help has come at just the right time.

Of course, this isn't the first time that Gillian has spoken out in behalf of animals. The award-winning actor has taken action for animals time and time again. Recently, she narrated a video of undercover footage taken inside rabbit fur farms—it was part of PETA's campaign to pressure Giorgio Armani to stick to his fur-free pledge.

Go, Gillian! Check out her letter. And please speak up for animals by pledging to be cruelty-free.

Posted by Shawna Flavell

"World Week for Animals in Laboratories" means demonstrations against animal testing around the world. At UCLA on Wednesday, hundreds of activists from PETA, Last Chance for Animals, In Defense of Animals, Orange County People for Animals, and Stop Animal Exploitation Now banded together and descended upon the campus to speak out for animals in laboratories.

There was no way that drivers could have missed these passionate people or PETA's posters.

These people caused quite a stir with the pro-vivisection rally happening at UCLA on the same day.

In addition to mice and rats, cats, dogs, monkeys, and many other animals experience unimaginable pain in the name of "science."

To all the folks who showed up to express their disapproval of UCLA's abuse of animals in laboratories, thank you. You guys rock our world.

Posted by Karin Bennett

On the "even the little guy sometimes gets a break" front, we recently received news that nine monkeys had escaped from the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC). The monkeys apparently made a break for it when a laboratory worker left their outdoor cage unsecured (great idea—lab workers reading this please take note). Sadly, all the monkeys were eventually captured, but freedom tasted good while it lasted, didn't it, guys?

Perhaps those monkeys were reading The PETA Files? Just last month, we reported that ONPRC had been cited for three violations of the Animal Welfare Act and slapped with a formal warning from the USDA, which told ONPRC that if it didn't shape up, it could face civil or criminal penalties. This after PETA repeatedly brought to the USDA's attention abuses such as botched surgeries, the forced separation of infant monkeys from their mothers, and the deaths of monkeys who had been denied veterinary care. PETA also told the USDA about how monkeys at ONPRC were forced to eat food out of waste-filled trays, blasted with high-pressure hoses in their cages, and much more.

Other Viewing Options

Even though we were rooting for the escaped monkeys to catch a freight train out of there forever, we have filed yet another complaint with the USDA. We pointed out that the USDA had told ONPRC that if it screwed up again, it was going to be in serious trouble. So, USDA, please stand by your word. ONPRC has been given more than enough opportunities to clean up its act, and it has failed. If only the 4,000 monkeys who are imprisoned at ONPRC could receive as many "second chances." There is nothing good in their future, we fear.

Posted by Alisa Mullins

kyecha / CC

Finally. After PETA has spent the past 10 years hammering away at the Environmental Protection Agency over its absurdly archaic, repetitive, and wasteful—not to mention cruel—chemical-toxicity tests on animals, the agency has at last released a strategic plan for improving toxicity testing that basically says, "Yeah, what PETA said."

OK, that's not exactly what it says, but the report is very encouraging, nonetheless. What it does say is that the current testing programs, which rely largely on animal tests, are costly, time-consuming, and basically not up to the task of accurately and adequately assessing the toxicity of tens of thousands of chemicals.

Um, duh.

As the Boston Globe wrote just this week, even many researchers are now acknowledging that animal research "isn't even the best science" and that "[r]eplacing animals with human tissue has already proven to be [a] good business bet."

So, the EPA is now proposing a new "paradigm" that focuses on computer models, molecular biology, and cell cultures, using data from the human genome project, clinical trials, exposure assessments, and other technologies that the EPA calls "new"—even though many of them have been around for more than a decade now. Some of the technologies are even being developed at the EPA!

Here's a direct quote from the report: "The overall goal of this strategy is to provide the tools and approaches to move from a near exclusive use of animal tests for predicting human health effects to a process that relies more heavily on in vitro assays, especially those using human cell lines."

Can I hear an "Amen"?

The new EPA report is based on the findings of a National Research Council report released in 2007 that said essentially the same thing. This makes sense, because the EPA actually commissioned that report—though it's taken the agency nearly two years to evaluate the report's findings. What can we say? The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Now, if we can just get all parts of the EPA to act on its own report, we'll be getting somewhere. I say that because, just yesterday, PETA research associate Joe Manuppello testified at a hearing (which we called for) about proposed high production volume chemical tests that would kill another 10,000 animals. The proposed tests involve 15 chemicals, including sorbic acid (a naturally occurring fatty acid), castor oil, and oxalic acid, all of which are already known to be either safe or extremely toxic, based on years of experience and existing data from previous tests. At that hearing, we pointed out that the tests contradicted the EPA's own strategic plan as well as the basic animal welfare principles that the agency put into effect 10 years ago (under pressure from PETA). Those principles state that chemicals should not be retested if sufficient data already exist concerning the safety or toxicity of a chemical. According to all reports, the EPA officials found Joe's testimony riveting. (You have to wonder—if PETA can find the data, why can't the EPA? Is it just a matter of caring enough to find it?)

EPA, you're moving in the right direction. Now we just need all parts of your agency to walk the talk. Until you do, you can bet that we'll be pushing you every step of the way.

Posted by Alisa Mullins

therockhandle / CC

The following is a guest post from peta2's Ryan

As those of you who have been keeping up with your NCAA "March Madness" brackets will know, this year's college basketball championship series is down to the final four schools, all vying for the top spot. Unfortunately, they're all losers.

I say this because, in a tragic irony, the universities that have the most talented athletes also seem to hire some of the cruelest animal abusers in the nation.

Need proof?

Villanova University vs. University of North Carolina

Villanova experimenters inject methamphetamine into rats' stomachs to determine whether the drug influences the rats' response time in behavioral tests (gee, I wonder). Unfortunately, as you might have seen in our "Who Cares?" video, this kind of pointless and cruel test on rats and mice is still legal—in fact, no experiment on them, no matter how painful, is against the law.

Maria Boccia, a vivisector at UNC–Chapel Hill, removes rat pups—at 2 to 14 days old—from their mothers for extended periods of time in order to induce a deep depression in the mother rats. She then places the mothers in cylinders of water from which they can not escape in order to see how quickly they are overcome with a sense of helplessness and stop swimming.

University of Connecticut vs. Michigan State University

At University of Connecticut, experimenters implant steel rods into rabbits' spines to keep them immobile. They then shock the rabbits with electrodes and measure the animals' brainwaves while they are still awake.

Not to be outdone, the returning "champion" from last year's contest, MSU vivisector Arthur Weber has continued his "work" removing the eyes of cats while the animals are still alive. Weber attempted to justify his cruel and pointless experiments last year; on Weber's behalf, an MSU official stated, "The animals are completely anesthetized, receive painkillers, and once the animals come out of the anesthesia, 10 minutes later you can't tell the difference." Yeah, you're probably right. I'm sure eyes are overrated anyway. What?! And don't forget the part where you keep them alive for a week after the operation and then kill them—I'd be willing to bet my March Madness pool money that they notice that too!

Of course, it's not the basketball players' fault that their schools hired such colossal creeps—animal experimentation is big business. As shown above, though, no amount of money can keep animal abusers from being morally bankrupt.

Posted by Ryan Huling

Longtime PETA supporter Judith Yeargin fought hard not only in her 30-year battle against breast cancer but also against the use of animals in experiments. That's why Judith, who died on March 2, left her body to the New York University Langone Medical Center (NYUMC) She hoped to spare some of the countless animals who are sickened and maimed during painful, deadly, and wasteful experiments.

Judith was a tireless crusader for animals. She attended countless protests and helped raise money to build a low-cost spay-and-neuter clinic. Everywhere she went, she always kept an eye out for animals in distress. She rescued several strays during her travels, including a cat in France who had been hit by a car. Judith rushed the cat to the vet for immediate care while Judith searched for her guardian. While on vacation in Italy, Judith rescued a dog and wouldn't rest until she found the animal a good home. In France, she rescued another dog named Lucky, who accompanied her back home to Manhattan and lived to a ripe old age. When her elderly dog, Daffodil, was ill, Judith even managed to drag herself out of her sick bed just two weeks before her death to take Daffy to the vet. Daffodil was another of Judith's many rescues, adopted as a puppy from a local shelter after Judith heard on the news that Daffodil had been thrown into a trash compactor.

By donating her body to NYUMC, Judith not only promoted awareness about the suffering endured by animals in laboratories but also contributed to legitimate scientific research into breast cancer. Experiments on animals are not an accurate reflection of the effects of cancer in humans. It's bad science, and cancer patients deserve the best that medicine can offer.

"Judith never turned her back on any animal in need," says her dear friend, Lia. "[S]he just felt it was unethical to use animals and better if the science community could learn something from her body rather than cause pain and suffering to animals."

A great way to honor Judith Yeargin and other cancer victims is by refusing to support cancer charities that fund animal experiments and by purchasing only from companies that refuse to test their products on animals.

Posted by Liz Graffeo

One of the monkeys who was abused for experiments at ONPRC

It's been awhile since we last mentioned the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC). But even though ONPRC hasn't been in our blog, it's been very much on our minds, and there are encouraging new developments to report.

For those of you who have hit-and-miss memories like mine, here's a quick recap: Our 2007 undercover investigation at ONPRC found that monkeys were tormented by laboratory staffers, forced to eat food out of waste-filled trays, denied medical care or pain relief, and driven mad by horrific laboratory conditions. Still, despite undeniable video evidence, the USDA somehow didn't see anything wrong at ONPRC.

At that point, ONPRC may have thought that it had won and that we would slink away. But, hey, this is PETA, after all, so think again, monkey abusers!

This past fall, we obtained new internal documents from ONPRC that detailed further abuse and neglect, so we submitted a new complaint to the USDA. In it, we outlined the following incidents:

• A sick, pregnant monkey was denied veterinary care and pain relief because the experimenters "didn't know the signs of animal pain and distress" (the mother and her unborn baby both died).


• A surgical sponge was left inside a baboon and was only discovered after the monkey was killed for an experiment.


• ONPRC experimenters accidentally performed surgery on the wrong monkey.

Wow. Cold-hearted and inept—a deadly combination.

Based on our complaint, the USDA inspected ONPRC, and this time, it confirmed our allegations. So ONPRC was cited for three violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including causing monkeys trauma, stress, harm or discomfort and failing to adequately monitor and provide veterinary care to animals.

And the agency didn't stop there: In December, the USDA issued an "official warning" to ONPRC that it may face civil or criminal penalties if additional violations are found in the future.

It's a hopeful sign of progress, but we're hardly done with ONPRC. After all, these incidents are only a small part of the cruelty still being inflicted on the more than 4,000 primates there.

Posted by Jeff Mackey

In case it's never been said before, I'm going to go ahead and say it: Colorado activists rock!

Activists in Colorado Springs showed that they are fed up with Fort Carson for stabbing and reportedly burning and shooting live goats in bloody trauma-training exercises that attempt to mimic human battlefield injuries. They staked out a busy intersection near Fort Carson and got busy alerting commuters that the exercises are not only cruel but also archaic and unnecessary.

PETA "troops" expose Fort Carson's dirty little secret.

An activist makes darn sure that no driver gets by without getting the message.

PETA signs caught the attention of many military folk on their way to the Fort Carson base.

Oh, did I mention that some of the activists in attendance were ex-military? You know that things are shady when even former soldiers start breaking rank. (I can think of a few other soldiers who would probably agree.)

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky

Back in December, we announced the winners of our annual "Proggy" awards, which recognize animal-friendly people, companies, and products. One of those companies is CeeTox, a Michigan firm that develops humane alternatives to cruel and archaic animal tests. Well, the good folks at the Kalamazoo Gazette just did a nice story about CeeTox and the award. Check it out here.

What CeeTox does is so great because many chemical-testing methods still involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. CeeTox, by contrast, uses in-vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. This enables research and development organizations to assess the toxicity of chemicals using pioneering and humane cell-based technology.

Besides being kind to animals, these modern, non-animal tests are cheaper, faster, and more accurate. What's not to like? Well, unfortunately, the wheels of progress grind slowly at the EPA, which lags far behind European authorities in validating modern test methods. But thanks to the work of CeeTox and other companies like it, it's becoming obvious that animal testing is long overdue for the old heave-ho.

Posted by Alisa Mullins

court-records / CC

Our awesome friends over at PETA Europe have some exciting news! With their help and funding, new skin irritation tests that do not use animals have been successfully validated to replace the use of rabbits completely! This will save thousands of rabbits.

This wonderful news means that animals will not be used in the overwhelming majority of such tests in the future in Europe. The MatTek Corporation announced yesterday that the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods' Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC) has formally endorsed the scientific validity of the company's Modified EpiDerm Skin Irritation Test as well as L'Oreal's SkinEthic test. I know those are an awful lot of big, impressive words, but it basically means that the big men and women on campus are totally down with these new processes, which do not involve animal testing.

This will allow manufacturers worldwide to use these exciting new non-animal methods. It will also help manufacturers test cosmetic ingredients humanely, which is especially important because animal testing for skin irritation and most other purposes will be banned in Europe as of March 2009. Tens of thousands of rabbits have been used for skin irritation tests each year in the past, but we say, "No more!"

The validation of these tests is an important step in adopting cruelty-free scientific methods that are effective and humane, and PETA Europe should be so proud to have played a part in that. You can read more about this whole situation here.

On another totally not surprising—but totally awful—note, the U.S. still does not accept these tests. We are, of course, writing the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle (read letter here), to tell him to get the U.S. to stop stalling!

Posted by Christine Doré

ucdavis / CC

This is an awesome year for many reasons (have you seen our slideshow?), and a great one has to be today's victory over cruel animal tests! Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed with PETA and ruled that no further animal testing is needed to declare that a natural plant-based sweetener derived from stevia is safe for use in food and drinks. Why is that so great? Well, before today's decision, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) was pushing for more animal tests on the herbal extract, even though it's been widely recognized as safe. I mean, stevia has been used safely for more than 400 years! It's bad enough that it was tested on helpless rats in the first place, but they wanted to test it on even more animals? Come on!

Everyone knows how animals in laboratories suffer, so why would anyone knowingly choose to inflict pain on another creature for the sake of unreliable and cruel animal testing, especially when there are so many cruelty-free alternatives? CSPI tried to say that they needed to test on rats and mice because the rats they used before weren't good models for the substance's toxicity in humans. Hang on, what? That's right, they know that the tests on rats don't work, but they want to repeat the tests on rats and do even more tests on mice. Anyway, the FDA finally did something right and approved the substance without the additional animal tests. Score!

Unfortunately, there is still animal testing going on, and the CSPI is still pushing for more and longer animal tests. You can help by sending a polite letter to CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson asking him to focus CSPI's work on safe and effective non-animal testing methods.

Posted by Lianne Turner

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

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

It looks like scientists do sometimes spend time on worthwhile projects and have now found that being caged, having your bone marrow sucked out, and being used for bioterrorism research is torture—no matter whom it's being done to.

A recent study showed that 95 percent of 119 chimpanzees who had been used for "research" exhibited the same symptoms as humans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone—I mean, chimpanzees and humans share the same blood types and have at least a 98 percent genetic similarity. Why wouldn't they have shellshock and nightmares if we do?

This study is being presented today at a primate conference in Edinburgh—I hope it shakes things up in some rigid minds!

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

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

A not-so-stunning discovery was published in this month's volume of Nature: Mice and men aren't really the same.

In "Regenerative Medicine and Human Models of Human Disease," Kenneth Chien aptly states that much of what we know about human disease has come from animal models—genetically altered mice in particular. This is a worrisome practice when you consider that the goal isn't to cure genetically altered mouse baby boomers but rather genetically not-so-altered humans. "[G]enetically engineered mouse models ... do not necessarily mimic human physiology or precisely recapitulate human disease," Chien writes.

If you had to read that sentence more than once (as I did), here's the idea: mice � humans.

The article then goes on to discuss human models of disease, including human tissues and adult stem cells. This sort of work would completely bypass the classic question that vivisectors have always had to answer: "Sure, you've drugged/cut up a lot of animals, but what good are you doing for people?"

—Sean

Posted by Sean Conner, Laboratory Investigations Special Projects Coordinator

From the category of "No Shit, Sherlock" experiments comes this gem from Yerkes National Primate Research Center. A posse of animal-experimenters, led by vivisector Mark Wilson, has concluded that female monkeys who experience psychological stress will eat excessive amounts of fatty foods.

Really? I wouldn't have guessed that from the way I reach for chocolate peanut-butter brownies instead of broccoli salad when I'm stressed from a looming deadline or a crazy busy schedule. But unlike Yerkes' Wilson, I don't receive grants (read: taxpayer dollars) from the National Institutes of Health to come up with the groundbreaking conclusion that stressed females eat and that the foods we eat when stressed aren't the best for us.

Wilson is right at home at Yerkes, where his coworkers also receive tax dollars up the yin-yang to imprison and abuse monkeys for equally revelatory results. Yerkes' Maria Sanchez removes baby monkeys from their mothers and concludes that the babies become extremely depressed, Stuart Zola has shown that baby monkeys who are taken away from their mothers are more likely to become addicted to drugs, and Michael Davis has proved that motherless monkeys are more prone to feeling fear and anxiety. Your tax dollars hard at work.

—Alka

Posted by Alka Chandna, Laboratory Oversight Specialist

What's up PETA Files readers! You may be familiar with our recent University of Washington action alert (made by yours truly, so you know it's a good one). Well, PETA recently threw a demo in regards to this alert causing an attention-grabbing article to come about.

Nearly 100 PETA supporters gathered in front of a University of Washington animal research laboratory last week for a very compelling protest. So compelling, in fact, that it persuaded Seattle-Pi columnist Robert Jamieson Jr. to write this excellent article, comparing the torture that primates go through in labs to the horrors of Abu Ghraib.

Check out the article here and if you haven't yet, please take action on this important campaign here and ask the National Eye Institute to stop funding these cruel experiments at the University of Washington and everywhere.

Truly,

Christine <3

Chimps share 96 percent of their DNA with humans.

There is a groundbreaking legal case happening in Austria right now, in which a judge is being asked to rule on the "humanness" of a chimp—specifically, over whether he deserves a legal guardian.

The animal in question is called Hiasl (pronounced Hazel). He was born in the Sierra Leone jungle in 1981, captured by animal traders, and illegally shipped to Austria, destined for a vivisection lab. Luckily, customs officials intercepted the crate and Hiasl was placed in an animal sanctuary. Now, 20-something years later, the sanctuary has gone belly up and Hiasl is slated to be sent to a zoo. There are European activists and lawyers trying to keep him out of the zoo, so the trial is on.

Obviously, there has been a whole lot of back-and-forth over this case in Europe, and you can google it if you want the full deal, but suffice to say that primatologists and legal experts have spoken up in support of Hiasl's having legal human status, which is amazing. Even more amazing is that Volker Sommer, a primatologist at London University, says chimps are not just one of the homo genus—he believes they should be considered as the same species as contemporary humans. In the end, however, a judge will decide. . . . This story is so powerful, and the fact that it’s even in court shows both how far the animal rights movement has come, and how far we have to go.

I just heard about it the other day, but my boss, PETA Prez Ingrid Newkirk, has been following the case closely for a while now, and weighing in where she can. There was a story in The New Scientist the other day, and some of the online comments—many from vivisectors—were absolutely appalling. But, as usual, Ingrid’s response to them was just perfect:

"The level of knowledge about this case as expressed on various blogs is bleak and seems to show that what humans have in common with chimpanzees is that they have learned to throw their faeces (we do it via the Internet) when threatened. There is no need to be threatened by a kind person's attempt to protect an ape from having his head opened up and electrodes put in it, and from spending his life banging his body against a steel cage. This reminds me of how insecure men reacted to the idea in the '60s that women might be entitled to the same wage as they were and perhaps shouldn't always be the ones bringing the coffee to everyone's desks. If you see the movie Amazing Grace (or read about the Abolitionist movement), the human slavers and those who benefited from slavery - and the ignorant defenders of the status quo, used variations on the same theme to defend themselves from the "threat" of any rights for African humans. Same song, different year. What we need is less defensiveness and more compassion in the world. As for the chest-beaters, another thing they have in common with chimpanzees, if only they could see beyond themselves and lament that their empathy gene is obviously deficient.”

True dat, Ingrid. I’ll keep everyone posted as the case progresses.