Editor’s note: The article incorrectly states that PCRM’s billboards contained no linked petitions or ways to take action. Some billboards and trucks driving around campus included a statement asking readers to “Help end animal testing at Macalester: pcrm.org/macalester“

On Tuesday, June 3, Dr. Neal Barnard ’75, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), filed a lawsuit against Macalester, alleging fraud. The lawsuit argues that Macalester’s animal welfare and use practices, which Macalester states live up to the highest ethical standards, do not adhere to these standards.

The goal of this lawsuit, according to the PCRM and Barnard, is to hold Macalester’s animal practices accountable to the level they advertise. The Star Tribune reported that Barnard’s lawsuit was filed in Hennepin County District Court and it alleges that Macalester’s usage of live animals in psychology class labs was incongruent with its statement that its practices fully conform to guidelines for animal use set forth by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Public Health Service (PHS) and that the practices follow the Animal Welfare Act.

The legal basis for the lawsuit rests on the $100 that Barnard donated prior to his 50th class reunion. Barnard alleges that the donation occurred under false pretenses due to the unethical practices of the psychology department, which he attempted to resolve in a conversation with former psychology chair professor Jaine Strauss. In an interview with The Mac Weekly, Barnard expressed that he did not feel as though the concerns he raised were adequately addressed. After attempting to continue his conversation with President Suzanne Rivera, Barnard was directed to send any further correspondence to the school’s attorney. If not for this, Barnard says he would not have felt compelled to file the lawsuit.

“As someone trained in research ethics, I understand the requirements for humane care and use of animals in research and teaching,” Rivera wrote in an email to The Mac Weekly. “I am confident that Macalester satisfies or exceeds every applicable regulatory and ethical requirement.”

Barnard alleges that Macalester fails to replace and reduce animal use when possible, harming both students and animals. Drawing on research that he conducted with the PCRM, personal experience and conversations with other alumni, Barnard claims that Macalester’s instructors pressure students to take part in classroom instruction and labs that harm animals by not providing adequate alternatives, such as virtual simulations, or sufficient opportunities to opt out of activities involving animals.

“This is not a statement against animal research … it’s also not a statement against science,” Barnard said. “We are very much in favor of science, but Macalester’s continuation of animal use when it’s not necessary is anti-science because it floats the fundamental ethical principles that underpin it, and it negates more modern teaching methods.”

Guidelines for ethical animal conduct were founded in the ‘3Rs’ that were first described in a book by Drs. William Russell and Rex Burch. It includes Replacement, technologies/ approaches that can directly replace the usage of animals; Reduction, using fewer animals to achieve the same experimental data; and Refinement, modifying procedures to minimize animals’ distress.

Macalester’s animal practices are overseen by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which includes researchers and veterinarians not affiliated with Macalester. The IACUC reviews and approves any instruction and experimentation involving animals and inspects the facilities that house these animals at least twice a year, according to Macalester’s animal use website.

Psychology Chair Cari Gillen O’Neel believes that the psychology department’s use of animals in both classroom instructions and labs not only adheres to ethical and legal standards but also provides students with irreplaceable experience that informs their future studies.

“When used thoughtfully and under appropriate oversight, our rat behavior lab activities give students a practical, ethical understanding of how learning and behavior are studied,” Gillen-O’Neel wrote in an email to The Mac Weekly. “They also help students develop a nuanced framework for thinking about animal use in research—something we consider essential preparation for future scientists and informed citizens alike.”

Alternatives and opt-outs

Throughout the process of the lawsuit, articles and billboards sponsored by the PCRM have drawn attention to the use of animals in “PSYC-100: Introduction to Psychology,” which the organization portrays as unnecessary for experimental and learning purposes. It claims the course labs impede on and students’ ability to opt out of activites involving animals.

“We can not put students in an impossible position where they think ‘I’ve got to kill, or I’m going to flunk,’” Barnard said. “Macalester can respect students, and I’m sure it will, the minute it employs alternatives.”

While some labs at Macalester do involve dissection, classes such as Introduction to Psychology do not involve killing animals through experimentation. Despite this, Barnard sees the course as one of the most flagrant violations of the Three R’s.

“During [the first Introduction to Psychology lab] session, we discuss the role of rodents in psychology, the federal regulations governing their use, and the standards of care they receive,” Gillen-O’Neel wrote. “We also address the broader context of the animals’ lives on campus (e.g. their access to food and water, regular changes of bedding, behavioral stimulation, and controlled temperature environments) to ensure transparency.”

Gillen-O’Neel clarified that students have the ability to choose not to participate in labs involving animals in Introduction to Psychology, and no rodents are killed during Introduction to Psychology courses.

Rhys Winchester ’26, who has participated in experiments involving rodents within the biology department that involved dissection and euthanasia, shared that professors who oversaw animal use in her classes consistently had conversations regarding the ethics and processes of their work.

Barnard, however, believes that providing an alternative option may not be enough for some students to feel comfortable opting out. He cites PCRM’s recently conducted survey, with a case size of 1,043 randomly-selected undergraduates, which indicated that “the vast majority [of students] believe that animals should not be used in classroom teaching laboratories if the animals are killed afterward and if other methods can teach the same material without using animals.”

Furthermore, the survey also reported, given a hypothetical scenario of participating in an experiment that involved killing animals afterwards or requesting an alternative activity, 44 percent of respondents indicated “not wanting to participate, but doing so anyway to avoid problems, or feeling nervous about requesting the alternative activity.”

Winchester’s own experience at Macalester differs from PCRM’s findings.

“Professors, in my experience, have always [expressed] ‘if you don’t feel comfortable with this, please come talk to me and we will find a solution,’” Winchester said. “Maybe there are students who don’t feel comfortable with [animal experimentation] and who don’t feel comfortable with talking with their professors, but I think the faculty has made it as open as possible to express concerns.”

PCRM also argues that the use of animals in Introduction to Psychology not only fails to reduce animal use in classroom settings, but also lags behind common practices at colleges and universities such as Stanford and Yale. In his interview with The Mac Weekly, Barnard stated that other liberal arts colleges in Minnesota, such as Carleton and St. Olaf, also do not use rodents in Introduction to Psychology. The Mac Weekly was not able to independently verify these claims.

Gillen-O’Neel feels that, given the conversations that faculty and staff have with students prior to working with animals, Macalester’s use of animals in classroom lab sessions and research stands out from other institutions in a positive light.

“At Macalester, our classes are intentionally small, and we take pride in offering a more personalized, hands-on education, even at the introductory level,” Gillen-O’Neel wrote. “The opportunity for students to learn through direct, carefully supervised experience with animals is part of what makes a Macalester education distinctive.”

Barnard feels that this approach does not provide Macalester students with valuable resources. Rather, it strips them of the ability to consider alternatives and fully evaluate the Three R’s.

“The point is that, in psychology and neuroscience research, it is important to really explore our options, and that is often the most exciting part of the scientific process, because ethically conducted human-based studies are always better and often very sophisticated and empowering,” Barnard wrote in an email to The Mac Weekly following his interview. “It is often surprising to hear people say they could not find an alternative when, in fact, they were not really trying very hard.”

Winchester views the research she participated in as essential for scientific advancement and preparing for future careers. In research in an immunology lab in the biology department, Winchester investigated how certain chemical compounds influenced vulvodynia, which is a condition involving prolonged chronic pain throughout one’s vulva.

“This research is really important because many, many people with vulvas experience this condition, and it may be due to a common preservative in beauty products, which is what we were testing,” Winchester said. “It’s not that we’re just doing it for shits and giggles—it is an important question that we were seeking to answer in my immunology and research in immunology classes.”

Some groups that have come forward in support of PCRM, such as the Animal Rights Coalition of Minnesota, feel strongly that attitudes toward animal experimentation exemplify greater societal exploitation of animals.

“With a vegan philosophy, we believe that we don’t use animals for food, clothing, entertainment, transportation, experimentation, et cetera, and so there would be no justifiable reason anyway, even if it did benefit humanity, it’s still not necessary when we have alternatives,” Teaching Compassion Campaign Manager of Animal Rights Coalition on Minnesota Amy Leinen said.

Experimental methods

Some take issue with more than the fact that animals are used in courses and claim that the labs using rats in Introduction to Psychology also use outdated and harmful experimental environments. Namely, these critics take issue with the use of an updated form of ‘Skinner boxes,’ named for its inventor psychologist B.F. Skinner.

A Star Tribune article explains that, in these boxes “animals are deprived of food or water beforehand and may receive a reward, like food pellets,” and incorrectly implies that animals at Macalester may receive “a punishment, like an electrical shock, for pushing the levers.”

Gillen-O’Neel confirmed that rats in the psychology department do not receive “shock-based procedures or other punishments,” and explained that the boxes are used in Introduction to Psychology to teach students about how behavior changes in response to environmental conditions and highlight how these behaviors can give insight into human conditions and behaviors.

“This process is analogous to using a quiet room to train your dog to learn a trick—it provides a controlled and distraction-free environment so the animal can focus on the task at hand,” Gillen-O’Neel wrote.

Quality of life concerns

An open letter, published by the PCRM on Sept. 4 and addressed to Rivera, Provost Lisa Anderson Levy and Gillen-O’Neel, alleges that several practices of the school are in violation of animal ethical care standards. The letter, which includes signatures of a variety of veterinarians, medical professionals and five Macalester alumni, focuses on the use of rats in the psychology curriculum and alleges that these rats are “confined for life in small shoebox-style containers, unable to move freely, socialize normally, or exert other natural behaviors.”

Gabby Simpson ’25* worked as an Animal Handler, providing enrichment and regular interaction to prevent distress for both rats and students in lab activities, and later as an Animal Caregiver, providing wellness checks and cleaning cages on weekly or biweekly occasions. In her final months working as an Animal Caregiver after graduation, Simpson helped assemble an enclosure for rats that provided enrichment activities such as cardboard tubes and hammocks.

Simpson, who has owned rats, acknowledged that standards of care for experimental animals differ from those of pet companions, a sentiment echoed by Winchester.

In a Star Tribune op-ed co-authored with Barnard, Clark Gustafson ’75 shared his frustration about the ways that animals were disposed of after their usage in psychology labs. Gustafson shared that his work-study in labs involved depriving rats of food and water and killing them after experiments by dumping large quantities of rats into a trash can at once before pouring chemicals into the bin.

Gillen-O’Neel confirmed that rats are not currently euthanized this way and was not able to respond to past departmental practices that occurred before current faculty came to Macalester. She further explained that rodents used in experiments typically live two to three years and are euthanized using gradually introduced carbon dioxide.

Simpson separately confirmed that rodents were not euthanized after individual experiments, unless it was necessitated by experimental design, but typically lived to take part in multiple experiments. Simpson and other Animal Caregivers were never asked to take part in euthanasia.

“I personally have conflicting opinions about animal testing, and I see it as both really important for science, and also I sometimes get sad when I think about the ethics of animal testing,” Simpson said. “But I appreciated my job because it made me feel like the rats used in the experiments were as best taken care of, and as healthy as possible and lead the most fulfilling lives they could as lab rats.”

Academic freedom

Anderson-Levy sees the lawsuit against Macalester and similar developments as an encroachment on academic freedom. In a letter to the editor published in the Star Tribune, Anderson-Levy references a commitment to “not allow external parties to interfere with or dictate our curriculum.”

While Barnard acknowledges the importance of academic freedom, he does not see the concept as applicable within the context of his lawsuit. 

“Academic Freedom doesn’t let you hurt somebody, it doesn’t let you kill animals, it doesn’t let you break the law,” Barnard said. “There’s limits to your freedom, and if your freedoms are abusing somebody else … at that point the President has to intervene.” 

The PCRM’s efforts to change Macalester’s animal use and experimentation practices did not begin with his lawsuit, and they haven’t stopped there either. During the summer, PCRM paid to install a billboard on the corner of Selby Avenue and Snelling Avenue, which depicted a rodent in a Skinner box and referred to Macalester’s psychology department as “outdated” and “unethical”. PCRM also paid for trucks to circle campus displaying similar messages on their sides. 

Winchester finds these interventions antithetical to Barnard’s goal of encouraging the Macalester community to focus more on alternatives to animal use, and instead sees it as detracting from her studies. 

“The way that this lawsuit is being done … almost like a public shaming of the [psychology] department is completely unnecessary, and I think it needlessly makes STEM students feel bad about what they’re doing instead of valuing what they’re learning,” Winchester said. 

Moving forward, Barnard maintains hope that he will come to a negotiation with the college outside of court. In an email to The Mac Weekly, Rivera clarified that the college “has retained counsel to defend us in the suit.”

“People are entitled to have different points of view about matters such as the use of animals in teaching and research, whether to wear leather or fur for clothing, and whether to eat animal meat,” Rivera wrote. “No Macalester student is required to use animals as part of their studies.  Respectful disagreement is legitimate, but harassment, baseless litigation, and application of pressure to intimidate people into changing their behavior, or interfering with another person’s learning, are unacceptable.”

*Gabby Simpson is a former Media Editor for The Mac Weekly

• [email protected]
• [email protected]