Dog study OK'd by inspectors

[KP]

Tufts says dog study OK'd by inspectors
By Jack Meyers
Thursday, January 1, 2004

Tufts veterinary school officials yesterday said a research study in which several dogs' legs were deliberately broken was fully inspected by state and federal officials, who found no violations earlier this week.

Nevertheless, a group of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine graduate students is vowing to protect the five dogs, who are scheduled to be put to death this week.

``Regardless of the inspections . . . the experiment is unjustified,'' said Dana Zenko, 29, a Tufts graduate student. ``They are killing five dogs to test a way to make a dog's broken leg heal better. Clinical studies have already proven this.''

The research is being led by Tufts professor Randy J. Boudrieau to test a new method of healing broken bones.

This fall, Boudrieau broke both back legs of six dogs. One dog died after the operation. The five remaining dogs will be euthanized and the healed bones examined under a microscope to compare techniques of treating broken bones.

The crippling of the five dogs, which were bred for research purposes, was first reported in yesterday's Herald.

Zenko said she and the others fighting for the dogs have received a huge outpouring of support.

Dr. Angie Warner, associate dean at the Tufts Veterinary School, said officials are continuing to talk with students about concerns. A forum on research ethics is scheduled for next week, she said. But there are no plans to alter the research on the dogs, she said.

``We feel there's a significant benefit to be gained by many dogs and many veterinarians'' in improving techniques to heal broken bones, Warner said.

[KP]

Students Protest Tufts Euthanasia Research

By Associated Press

December 31, 2003, 11:00 AM EST


GRAFTON, Mass. -- About 30 students at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine are appealing to spare the lives of five dogs scheduled to be euthanized this week as part of a research study on how to treat broken bones in canines.

As part of research by Tufts veterinarians, the dogs' legs were broken surgically and then set to heal in different ways. The dogs are now scheduled to be killed to measure the results.

Dr. Angie Warner, the associate dean for academic affairs, defended the research, saying it will likely lead to faster and stronger recoveries for dogs.

She said it would help veterinarians better treat dogs hit by cars, "a situation that happens with unhappy frequency." Warner said the dogs are put under anesthesia and were given pain medication after their legs were broken.

One leg was treated with a tradition "fixator," an external device attached to the dog's leg with screws. The other leg was treated with another type of fixator that is more flexible and moves slightly. Researchers predict the dogs' bones will heal faster and stronger with the flexible fixator. The dogs are scheduled to be killed as soon as this week.

Students working on a different project in the same building where the dogs are housed learned of the study, which began earlier this fall.

"The more information we found out, the worse we found the research was," said Tara Turner, one of the protesting veterinary students.

A call to the school's spokeswoman was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Copyright

[kendalyn]

My question would be, do these research students have homes for the five dogs? What do they plan to do with them once they are "saved"? If they have five people lined up to integrate a dog into their home who has never lived in a home environment and will need a lot of training and socialization, then great! But if the researchers won't agree to release the dogs AND they don't even have homes than I don't see the point. If they really want to help five dogs, they can go to the local shelter and do so after these are euthanized. I guess it sounds harsh but why waste so much time on five dogs that probably can't be saved when there are so many that can?

[KP]

I can see what you are saying but I have a hard time dealing with those who dispose of animals just because it's most convienient. Here you have a veterinary clinic (of all places) who bred dogs...(when there were plenty already out there) specifically to brake all their legs and then kill them. How fair is that? I don't think thats right. Why not use a normal every day dog? That seems like it would be the best candidate for testing. What kind of dog did they breed that was so special that it had to be used for this type of testing? I would think the best suiter would be an everyday type of dog.

Why does the dog have to be born just to suffer and die? Why not take one from a shelter? One that has potential to possibly go back from where it came from (the shelter) and maybe be able to live in a home again instead of using needless breeding practices increasing the population?

Then again OTOH this happens all the time with different types of animals. That doesn't mean I feel its any more right in those cases. You also have to take into consideration that these dogs had their legs intentionally broken by humans. What kind of mind set are the dogs in? Are they concious of what happened and how was the proceedure done? Were they left to suffer in pain? Are they fearful or even aggressive towards humans because of this?

But back on the other hand...this clinic probably didn't issue this information or statement to the public on its own, so the information had probably come from within. From someone who doesn't aggree that the dogs are in a condition that they NEED to be euthanized. Veterinarians don't always know the most about dog behavior but I think spending this much time with these dogs they would be able to associate a truely aggressive dog who may not be rehabilitatable. They were after all specially bred so their temperament if it is bad isn't more than likely genetic.

We also house a lot of dogs in shelters who probably don't belong in them anyway. They are too aggressive and unable to rehabilitate....What if these dogs died and didn't have temperament problems and those dogs lived?
Why fight for anything in life?

[kendalyn]

Why not use a normal every day dog? That seems like it would be the best candidate for testing

In doing research every possible variable must be controlled. The dogs must all be of the same breed and probably the same litter to rule out variables for breed related differences. They could also do a round of clinical studies where the different procedures are done on dogs out in the public and the results recorded.

Why not take one from a shelter?

The researchers need to know the exact lineage and breed of the dogs. How would they know anything about the animal? It could even be possible that a dog from a shelter had already had damage done to his/her leg and that could effect future breaks or healing. There are just too many uncontrolled variables.

I have a hard time dealing with those who dispose of animals just because it's most convienient

It's not out of convenience. The researchers want to examine the broken leg under a microscope. Either they would have to amputate the dog's leg or euthanize it. Examination under microscope will tell the scientists exactly how well healed the leg is. An x-ray wouldn't give as much information. This is the argument that the grad students are making. They don't believe that examination under microscope is necessary.

You also have to take into consideration that these dogs had their legs intentionally broken by humans. What kind of mind set are the dogs in? Are they concious of what happened and how was the proceedure done? Were they left to suffer in pain? Are they fearful or even aggressive towards humans because of this?

My best guess was that the researchers did not leave these animals in pain unnecessarily. It does state in the article that the dogs were given pain medication. The legs were most likely broken surgically so they could control the kind of break. Sort of like when you break your nose or a finger and it has to be rebroken in order to set properly. I'm sure psychologically this isn't much fun for the dogs. It would be nice if after the research they could go to nice homes, but sometimes the kind of research requires euthanasia. The aim though is not to torture dogs, it is to help other dogs in the future by using better procedures to heal a break. There are laws requiring certain ethical treatment of the research animals and the second article showed that the researchers are abiding by them.

[KP]

very well thought out kendalyn :wink:

[KP]

Research dog killed despite uproar

By Elisabeth J. Beardsley / Boston Herald
Saturday, January 3, 2004

BOSTON -- Five Tufts research dogs were destroyed on New Year's Day and their leg bones removed for a controversial study, dashing the hopes of students who had mounted a last-ditch effort to save them.

"I'm kind of in shock here," said activist Tara Turner, a graduate student at Tufts' veterinary school. "I'm sad that (Tufts) didn't take this opportunity to move forward in a more humane manner."

The animals were put to death after a months-long study at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, which aimed to find better ways to heal dogs' broken legs.

The dogs were given lethal injections, in accordance with guidelines laid out by the American Veterinary Medical Association, said Tufts spokeswoman Barbara Donato.

"The dogs were euthanized in a humane manner...the same methods veterinarians would use in their own clinics," Donato said.

Researchers had deliberately broken each dog's hind legs, and then fixed one leg with pins-and-rods -- the current treatment for such injuries -- while installing a newly developed flexible bone brace in the other.

In a statement to campus employees, Tufts Veterinary School Dean Philip C. Kosch said researchers received final approval to destroy the dogs Wednesday from the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, a federally mandated internal watchdog board.

A post-mortem analysis will allow researchers to "maximize the scientific value" by running the dogs' bones through machines to test the strength of the healed bone fractures, Kosch said.

"If successful, this research will offer thousands of dogs with tibial fractures a new treatment for faster and stronger bone healing," Kosch wrote.

Activists had asked researchers to use high-tech bone scanners to achieve the same data without killing the dogs, but Donato said the university determined the suggestions were "not superior."

Adoption was not a viable option for these particular dogs, which were bred specifically for research, in accordance with the law, and lacked the socialized behavior typical of pets, Donato said.

The dogs' demise disappointed officials at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which had called on Tufts to find a "non-lethal" way to conclude the research.

"It's a really unfortunate situation," MSPCA spokeswoman Kara Holmquist said. "We can prevent this from happening in the future."

But vets defended the importance of medical research, which has yielded "incredible results" for animal health, said Susan Weinstein, director of the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association.

"Certainly, most veterinarians are supportive of finding new and better ways to extend animal lives with good quality and to provide treatment options to owners," Weinstein said.