Newsletter #8
The Better Science Campaign (BSC) promotes ethical alternatives to animal testing, focusing on collaboration with researchers willing to transition to humane practices. Unlike some groups, we avoid confrontational tactics and emphasize respectful dialogue. Our mission is to work with ethical scientists to eliminate cruel and wasteful animal experiments, prioritizing methods that respect all sentient beings and improve human health. Currently, our efforts are focused on the University of California, Berkeley.
A Landmark Ruling for Animals: The Case Against Ridglan Farms
In 2017, activist Wayne Hsiung and two others entered Ridglan Farms, a large-scale breeding facility that supplies beagles for laboratory research. Their mission was twofold: to document the facility’s grim conditions and to rescue animals in desperate need. They recorded footage revealing the distressing reality inside Ridglan and saved three dogs—one of whom, Julie, became the inspiration for the Better Science Campaign.
For years, advocates had urged authorities to investigate Ridglan Farms, calling for charges of animal cruelty and the facility’s closure. Yet, instead of action against the breeders, the whistleblowers themselves were prosecuted—facing felony burglary and theft charges that could have resulted in years behind bars.
However, just before their trial was set to begin, all charges were unexpectedly dropped. Rather than feeling relieved, the activists were disappointed. They had hoped a courtroom battle would shine a national spotlight on the suffering of dogs at Ridglan. Undeterred, they took the fight in a new direction—suing to hold Ridglan accountable.
Wayne Hsiung, Dane4Dogs, and Alliance for Animals petitioned the court to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and press charges. In a landmark decision, Dane County Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled in their favor.
This case sets a powerful precedent in the battle for animal rights. To learn more about this groundbreaking legal challenge, click the links below:
Judge: Let special prosecutor decide if Ridglan Farms committed crimes - Isthmus.com
The (Special) Prosecution of Ridglan Farms - The Simple Heart Blog
When Words Matter: Clarifying Our Intentions in Bruce’s Story
In a recent newsletter, we shared the story of Bruce, a rat from UC Berkeley, and his journey afterwards. This story sparked a thoughtful and passionate response from a retired member of Berkeley’s research community, Dr. Gregory Lawson - Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care, who shared their perspective on the practices and challenges faced in animal research settings. The email was addressed to Diana Navon, the Executive Director of BSC.
We value open dialogue, even when opinions differ, as it helps us better understand different points of view and encourages meaningful conversations. Below is the letter we received, followed by our response addressing the concerns raised.
Letter from Dr. Lawson:
First, congratulations on being interviewed in the newsletter. I have retired and am not writing this as a representative of UC Berkeley.
However, I was sorry to see this in your newsletter.
"This young rat had been neutered by lab staff members at UC Berkeley, but unfortunately, as they admitted to us, he had not been handled much – and when he had, he was used for students to practice drawing blood. In other words, the only regular contact he’d had with humans had involved being restrained so he couldn’t wiggle and then getting painfully poked with needles."
But here are the specifics: We don't typically handle the rats much, as they are not pets and the students must learn animal restraint. We have to make sure they can handle an animal properly so that when we are not present to watch them, we can be assured they are being gentle. However, when someone adopts them, they get more and more handleable. Yes, they are used to learn injections. Each animal is only used one time per training session. Additionally, though you make it sound like getting a needle injection is a horrific act, injections are done with a sharp needle, the smallest bore possible, not a trocar. Do you get injections? What about diabetics? Many times, I don't even feel when a needle is piercing my skin. Jabbed? Really? Do you really think we would allow trainees to "jab" an animal? But jabbed is a great term to stir anger and support for the animal rights cause. So good for you - a great emotional term ! We have a veterinary technician that is our trainer and she would not allow the animals to be abused in any way. You have not experienced our training courses so you have no idea what we do - very judgemental of you.
Of course the animals wiggle when being held, especially if they are not held often. When you adopted the rat, the technician tried to inform you of this so that the new owner would know what to expect. I didn't see any "thank you" with regard to the fact that we neutered the rat before it left the facility or any recognition that we were trying to do something good in the eyes of the animal rights side. Why wasn't there some recognition of UC Berkeley Office of Laboratory Animal Medicine for working to be more transparent and work with you. When you use the word "but" it negates the good in the statement.
When you and I had a conversation, I told you the reasons why no one wants to work with animal rights groups. You came across as someone that wanted to see both sides. But, the way that bio was written, I can see that either there was no sincerity in our conversation or that it was important for you to make sure the animal rights groups understand that you are still on their side. Why do we have to take sides? Why can't we see that there are strong points on both sides and have conversations that will lead to the middle of the spectrum? Bipolar opinions lead to a tug of war not transparency and working together.
I feel that what was written sets all of the veterinary staff in a bad light because we oversee the entire program, and I am sorry to say that it is not likely you will ever be contacted again for animal placement - Berkeley will take care of that without your help. I realize you are just trying to promote your cause by building emotion and a contempt for animal based research, but in doing so you have also shed a negative light on those that work hard to ensure that the animals used in research are well treated and cared for. It is these kinds of statements that stop institutions from trying to bridge communications with the animal rights groups and why those that work in the field don't want to talk to you or your colleagues. I don't work there any longer otherwise I would still be willing to have the research side heard, but those that are there now will not be willing.
Good luck in your endeavors and I hope that you and your colleagues think through your actions a little more before being so judgemental and making statements like this regarding people that are trying to make things better.
I would like to end this by addressing the veterinarians that were on your panel as well as any others in your organization. You have the option of being on an IACUC to voice your opinions. Additionally, if you think that the use of animals in research is not justified, please feel free to search out and shed light on systems that are better and don't use animals. And don't just say "use a computer model" - develop or come up with a computer model that will mimic the body. In doing so, remember that a drug circulates throughout the body and hits all organs. So if you develop something in the lab, make sure it has target receptors that only release or only has an impact on the organ you study. I look forward to hearing about all of your advances.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Greg Lawson
————————
Our Response:
Dear Dr. Lawson,
Thank you for taking the time to share their perspective and for engaging in this discussion with us.
We’d like to address a few key points raised in the letter:
On Handling and Procedures:
We understand that animals in research settings are often handled differently than companion animals and that certain procedures are necessary to achieve scientific goals while prioritizing safety. Our intention in sharing Bruce’s story was to explain why he required extra time and patience to build trust in his new environment. While these procedures may be routine in research settings, it’s important to recognize how repeated interactions of this nature can influence an animal’s emotional and physical well-being.On Language Choices:
We recognize that certain words we used may have come across as overly critical of research practices. Our goal was to convey Bruce’s experiences in a way that resonated with our audience, but we regret any unintended negativity that this may have conveyed. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our intentions and will take this into consideration in future communications.On Recognizing Efforts by UC Berkeley:
We absolutely appreciate the neutering performed by UC Berkeley staff before Bruce’s adoption and their willingness to share information about his background with us. This step was an important part of Bruce’s care and reflects a commitment that we respect. We regret not expressing this in the original story. Building positive relationships with research institutions is important to us, and we will continue striving for respectful partnerships.On Reducing Polarization:
We believe that meaningful change comes from conversations that allow for differing perspectives. While we advocate for reducing the use of animals in research, we also recognize the dedication of researchers working within existing systems while striving to improve practices. We are committed to fostering understanding and collaboration to find solutions that benefit both science and animals.On Advancing Alternatives:
We understand the complexity of developing effective non-animal methods that replicate the intricacies of living systems. Our work is focused on supporting innovations that help reduce or replace the use of animals in research. We appreciate the encouragement to keep pursuing these advancements and welcome collaboration with researchers to strengthen these approaches.
Moving Forward:
The response to Bruce’s story reminds us of the importance of fairness and balance in how we share these stories. We will continue to share the experiences of animals like Bruce while striving to reflect the care and efforts of those working in research settings.
Thank you Dr. Lawson, for your thoughtful contribution to this conversation. We are grateful for the opportunity to reflect on how we can communicate in ways that bring people together. We invite continued discussion with anyone who loves science and loves animals.
The Better Science Campaign Team
