Recently, a Macalester alumnus made serious and unfounded allegations about the use of rodents in Macalester’s psychology classes. While he is entitled to his opinion about animal use in science, neither his preferences nor his pressure campaign should dictate instructional decisions made by faculty who are experts in their field. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that a member of our community would choose to harm an institution he claims to love because he disagrees with a curricular decision.

The psychology department uses rodents in a small number of introductory and neuroscience lab activities. In these labs, animals are cared for humanely, never subjected to painful procedures and help students learn about behavior and research ethics. In response to Dr. Barnard’s ’75 concerns, our faculty carefully reviewed our practices and reaffirmed that using a small number of rodents in animal behavior and observation activities is appropriate, humane,ethical and fully consistent with all regulatory standards.

After asking the college to re-evaluate its practices and being unsatisfied with the result, Dr. Barnard filed a lawsuit against the college (for “fraud,” not for animal cruelty). Then he used funds from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization that he founded and has been president of for 40 years, to pay for the design and rental of billboards around Saint Paul, to hire trucks to circle campus on Reunion and Move-In days and to place full-page and half-page ads in the Star Tribune — actions all designed to harass the college and tarnish its reputation. PCRM also mounted an email campaign that has drawn attention to the campus by people totally unaffiliated with the college. At a time when politically-motivated violence is on the rise, this is especially worrisome.

Although the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety on Oct. 28 — with the Court finding that no set of facts could be found under which Dr. Barnard alleged a viable legal claim against the College — we would like to address a number of additional unfounded claims. Dr. Barnard has gone beyond merely expressing a personal opinion; he has made misleading claims about Macalester’s current practices by conflating alleged memories of his experience working with animals as a student in the 1970s with current practices. For example, he describes methods of animal disposal that may have taken place 50 years ago, but are not permitted today. Animal care and use in science has evolved, and Macalester upholds current regulatory and ethical standards. Claims that the rodents are treated cruelly are simply untrue. Another claim is that Macalester is “behind the times” because large universities no longer use rodents in introductory psychology courses. This is misleading because large universities often enroll 200-300 students per course, making animal work logistically and financially challenging. Our smaller class and lab sizes intentionally introduce interested students to ethically engage in animal research, preparing them for success in advanced courses and post-graduate opportunities.

Dr. Barnard further alleges that Macalester harms students by forcing them to participate in “unethical practices.” To support this claim, he cites a survey his group conducted. However, the survey is deeply flawed. There is no evidence that respondents represented college students in general, Macalester students in particular, or those enrolled in the relevant classes. Indeed, only 8 percent were psychology majors. Furthermore, the most frequently cited item (reported as “83 [percent] of college students oppose animal research”) came from this question: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 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.” This question actually asks about two issues at once, making it impossible to know to which part(s) respondents were reacting. It also uses emotionally charged language and makes assumptions about what material is or isn’t being taught, both clearly designed to push participants toward a particular response. These are basic survey design flaws we explicitly teach students to avoid when conducting research.

Some in our community oppose any animal use on principle, and the psychology department respects that view. Because “Introduction to Psychology” is, by definition, an introductory course serving students with a wide variety of interests and future plans, students are allowed to opt out of any lab sessions involving rodents without penalty. In “Introduction to Psychology,” when students ask questions about the use of rodents in science, we welcome discussions about the ethics and choices involved. Regardless of the issue at hand, Macalester’s faculty should not be expected to adjust their teaching or research because someone personally objects to a book, a technique or an idea presented in class. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of higher education. We cannot permit personal preferences to interfere with the thoughtfully considered and expert judgements of faculty regarding curriculum, nor to prevent our students from getting access to ethically engaged and informed teaching methods.

• [email protected]

• [email protected]