Of Mice and Labs

Did someone forget to pay the Pied Piper? Palmer Chiropractic University System, Davenport, Iowa, has come under fire by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Norfolk, Va, for conducting invasive spinal experiments on rats. Correspondence from Peter Wood, PETA research associate to Guy F. Riekeman, DC, president of Palmer, asked to confirm or deny whether the school planned “to expand its use of animals in its research program with the introduction of subluxation experiments on cats.”

Palmer’s response (found on their website: www.palmer.edu) was: “[William C. Meeker, DC, MPH, vice president for research] said that a PETA assertion that Palmer would extend the same research experiments to cats was inaccurate. Current research using cats, a different [National Institutes of Health] NIH-supported project, involves studying the effects of certain stimuli including a chiropractic adjustment on the cat’s nervous system. The animals in both projects are thoroughly anesthetized using humane standardized protocols.”

Palmer expands on the rat experiments: “During a surgical procedure in a sterile operating room, specific segments of the rats’ spines are fixated using small, metal implants. During specific time periods, the effects of these vertebral fixations are observed and recorded.”

These research projects are being conducted by the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research (PCCR), which was created in 1995, according to documents provided by Palmer. In fall of 2000, the NIH’s National Center for Research Resources awarded PCCR a $1.3 million grant. “This key program is geared toward basic science-oriented studies relevant to chiropractic theory and practice, especially subluxation and the chiropractic adjustment,” said Meeker. “Studies in this program attempt to model and test hypotheses with respect to the biomechanical and neurological mechanisms underlying chiropractic concepts and procedures.”

This is a great coup for the chiropractic profession. Especially combined with the establishment of the Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research in October 1997, in which the NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) awarded a $2.5 million grant “to evaluate the potential effectiveness of chiropractic therapies, provide clinical and scientific technical assistance to chiropractic investigators, and aid in the development of individual research-initiated projects...(accessed on the CCCR website: www.c3r.org).

To legitimize chiropractic in the eyes of the medical community seems to be one of the project’s ambitious objectives. Riekeman’s responded in a letter to Wood: “As president of the largest and oldest chiropractic college in the world, I would hope that you understand the competing interests I must consider for a profession that has been under attack for its 107-year history...I have, along with our board, administration, faculty, and students, considered the potential good that would come of our research efforts...and we are continuing with our plans. As you would expect, we meet or exceed all of the legal and regulatory requirements to conduct our research.”

While I applaud the steps Palmer is taking to defend the profession, I have begun questioning whether animal experimentation is necessary to validate chiropractic. Will the testing on animals prove the subluxation theory? Does chiropractic want to embrace this method of research? Are there other options or solutions to animal experimentation?

Wood said in a telephone interview, “I was surprised to hear that a chiropractic college was planning to conduct studies using rats and cats. This was first brought to PETA’s attention from an anonymous source at the school. Almost everyone here at the organization visits chiropractors, and they were also puzzled to hear that a noninvasive profession would use invasive methods to prove the subluxation theory.”

To be candid, the extent of my experience on the debate on animal rights and welfare is limited to the exposés on national TV news magazines and the stories of PETA, people wearing fur coats, and paint. Also, a friend of mine told me of her experience chopping off heads of mice in a mini-guillotine for research while in medical school. After the initial shock and disgust upon hearing or reading about these incidents, I have not taken action. Like many, I find it difficult to dredge up any sympathy for vermin, especially after weighing the life of a human being with that of a rat. Does that make me or us inhumane and apathetic? Or does that make me naive in thinking that all animal research is for a life-saving drug or noble cause?

After more research on the topic, I found numerous instances where animal research is unnecessary and cruel. Take for instance, while studying the cardiovascular system, Harvard medical students would cut open dogs to observe the beating heart, rather than observing actual heart surgery on humans. And the only reason for doing this is because it has always been done!

When I first began talking to Wood after visiting PETA’s website and receiving their press releases, I braced myself for a passionate hard-sell against Palmer & Co. Instead, Wood was extremely helpful, informative, and proactive. He offered to send information about options and/or solutions to using animals. My opinion about PETA being an extremist organization has also changed. The press coverage they receive never really mentions the solutions they offer for animal research. Throwing cans of paint or breaking into laboratories probably sells more papers and raises the ratings than does cold, hard facts on how to save rats. Meeker said of PETA: “Animal rights organizations, such as PETA, have served an important, positive function in raising the standards over the past several decades...raising standards of care for animals bred for and used in research projects to their current levels.”

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org) and Americans for Medical Advancement (www.curedisease.com) websites listed suggestions for alternatives to animal experimentation: in vitro research, epidemiology, computer and mathematical modeling, genetics, clinical research, autopsies, postmarketing surveillance, and technology. Other organizations I found helpful were labanimalissues.org, Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternative to Animal Testing (http://caat.jhsph.edu), and Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (www.frame.org.uk).

Should the chiropractic profession explore these options? To take liberty with Albert Einstein: Technology can validate and remind us of our humanity. CP

The best laid schemes o’ mice and me,
          Gang aft a-gley;
And leave us naught but grief and pain
          For promised joy. —Robert Burns

Miwon Seo
mseo@medpubs.com