Scientific testing is one of the many things this university excels at. We are currently ranked among the top research universities in the world, and overall, the efforts of our researchers are deserving of the highest praise.
But we should always make the institutions we admire accountable to outside criticisms and investigations. The University’s decision to hide behind a horrendous law designed to curtail investigations to protect research facilities from investigation is disappointing.
Chancellor Carol Folt has been named in a lawsuit for using the law, which prohibits the use of recordings in businesses like day cares, nursing homes or agricultural and farm venues, to block investigations of animal treatment in UNC research facilities.
The University should allow any investigators full access to research facilities in the interest of transparency, not take advantage of a bad law meant to curtail the work of investigators and journalists.
It is ironic for a university with such a proud School of Media and Journalism to use this new law to threaten journalists or other investigators who investigate the possibility of wrongdoing at this very institution. It is basically saying the University supports teaching students how to investigate an organization, but then refuses to allow investigators to do it when it could potentially hurt the University.
We cannot abdicate our responsibility to do this research ethically — animals used for testing should be treated with respect and within the guidelines laid out by the University and by the law. We have no evidence of wrongdoing in animal treatment, and we should not assume that our researchers have done anything wrong. Nonetheless, we need to make sure mechanisms are in place to allow external investigators posing as employees and real employees within the University to call out the University when it does not live up to its standards.
Sadly, due to HB 405 this outside investigation could be punishable in court.
The University should open itself up to external review by animal rights organizations and journalists, not stand behind a bill designed to curtail transparency. This editorial is not calling for the end of animal testing nor necessarily aligning itself with all of the positions taken by animal rights organizations — animal testing can be incredibly useful — we ask instead for openness and accountability.
This university is coming off of years of secrecy and rule breaking, and publicly announcing a commitment to transparency would be an easy step to reassure people that this university has moved past previous mistakes.
