Ann Downing writes at Suite 101.com:

Recently, a policeman starved his wife's Dalmation Dog to death as an act of domestic violence against her, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund Action Line Bulletin. The dog's carcass was described by an investigating officer as, "basically a skelleton with a hide on it." Another lady testified that her husband, in addition to beating their children, and beating, raping, and locking her in a closet without food or water for days, hung a pet rabbit in their garage and skinned it alive in front of her and her baby, according to "Animals Escaping Domestic Violence," by Patricia Murphy. The article continues with another example of spousal abuse, in which the husband wrapped one cat with duct tape and burned the paws and broke the legs of the other cat.


Every year two million women, a conservative figure, are abused. Many of these women have pets and sometimes are forced to watch their beloved pet physically or sexually abused. Partners "use the pets to manipulate the women's emotions," according to Murphy. A women faced with abuse may stay in a relationship longer than is safe because of what the abuser may do to her animal. Joan Quacempts, a community educator, states that the abused woman's pet maybe the "only source of emotional support or unconditional love a battered woman gets." How common is pet abuse? Presently, there aren't a lot of studies to consult, but there are some.

In one study, "The Abuse of Animals and Domestic Violence: A National Survey of Shelters for Women Who Are Battered" by Frank R. Ascione, Ph D, Claudia V. Weber, MS, and David S. Wood. Utah State University, Logan, Utah, battered women shelters in fourty-nine states were surveyed. Ninety-six percent of the shelters responded and reported that it is "common for shelters to serve women and children who talk about pet abuse." However, in the admitting interview, shelters don't ask about pet abuse on a regular bases. Forty-two shelters confirmed that women stayed in their facility at least one night during the period of November 1, 1995 through May 1, 1996.

Forty-two shelters confirmed that the number of women served during a six-month period ranged from thirty-four to six hundred with a mean of one hundred eighty-six. Eighty-four percent of these shelters confirmed that women mentioned pet abuse. Sixty-three percent confirmed that children talked about pet abuse. Eighty-three point three percent agreed that based on their experience, domestic violence and pet abuse coexist. Though shelters are available for women, there are only a few safe options for pets.

Of the forty-eight shelters that responded in the survey, "only six shelters, eight percent, mentioned collaborative arrangements with animal welfare organizations or veterinary clinics to provide temporary shelters for pets, while women resided in a shelter or safehouse," according to Ascione, Weber, and Wood's study. The survey revealed that some shelters allowed pets, others arranged for housing the pet with an advocacy program, humane society, veternary clinic, or animal shelter. For more survey details, access the National Survey of Shelters Link. Though help for pet victims of domestic violence is limited, some help is available.

One organization specifically focused on helping pet victims is the Greenhill Humane Society Shelter. This organization, along with Tamara Barnes, a victim of domestic violence, created the (DVAP) Domestic Violence Assistance Program. After Barnes' cats were injured by her husband, who broke one cat's legs and burned its paws and taped the other one like a football with duct tape, she realized there wasn't any safe places to leave her cats until she could care for them again. As a result, Barnes stayed in her abusive situation an additional three years, which put her and her pets at risk. When Barnes was finally in a position to leave her abuser, she was angry, but determined to find a way to help other battered women and pets faced with her former situation. She contacted a Mr. Lewis of the Greenhill Humane Society to see if he could help. The DVAP became one of Greenhill's Humane Society's Programs in Eugene, Oregon. According to "The Latham Letter," published by the Latham Foundation, Lewis said, "The harming or killing of companion animals frequently removes a battered woman's last hope and causes physical injury to the animals. The Domestic Violence Assistance Program immediately impacts the lives of victims by providing them with a resource that assists in removing them, their children, and their animals from potential harm." For more information about this program and other similar ones in Virginia and Colorado, access the Latham Article Violence and Animal Abuse and Animal's Escaping Domestic Violence Links.

The tragedy of pet abuse and domestic violence is that not only is it a travesty against another living creature, but it perpetuates a chain of violence in the family unit and eventually society. Not only are pets battered, but so are their owners. If children witness this, they are at risk for imitating this anti-social behavior. According to the article Animal Abuse and Human Abuse...Sanitizing of Violence in Our Society, "Children in violent homes are characterized by....frequently participating in pecking-order battering."

first published March 1, 1999

From the New York Times:

By CARL ZIMMER
Published: May 6, 2008

“Why are humans so smart?” is a question that fascinates scientists. Tadeusz Kawecki, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Fribourg, likes to turn around the question.

“If it’s so great to be smart,” Dr. Kawecki asks, “why have most animals remained dumb?”

Dr. Kawecki and like-minded scientists are trying to figure out why animals learn and why some have evolved to be better at learning than others. One reason for the difference, their research finds, is that being smart can be bad for an animal’s health."

read more ...

from Michael Hill, Associated Press:



Jan. 28, 2008 -- The lab rat of the future may have no whiskers and no tail -- and might not even be a rat at all.


With a European ban looming on animal testing for cosmetics, companies are giving a hard look at high-tech alternatives like the small, rectangular glass chip professor Jonathan Dordick holds up to the light in his lab at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.


The chip looks like a standard microscope slide, but it holds hundreds of tiny white dots loaded with human cell cultures and enzymes. It's designed to mimic human reactions to potentially toxic chemical compounds, meaning critters like rats and mice may no longer need to be on the front line of tests for new blockbuster drugs or wrinkle creams.


Dordick and fellow chemical engineering professor Douglas Clark, of the University of California, Berkeley, lead a team of researchers planning to market the chip through their company, Solidus Biosciences, by next year. Hopes are high that the chip and other "in vitro" tests -- literally, tests in glass -- will provide cheap, efficient alternatives to animal testing.


No one expects the chips to totally replace animals just yet, but their ability to flag toxins could spare animals discomfort or death.


"At the end of the day, you have fewer animals being tested," said Dordick.


Medical advances ranging from polio vaccines to artificial heart valves owe a debt to legions of lab rats, mice, rabbits, dogs monkeys and pigs. Animals -- mostly mice -- are still routinely used to test the toxicity of chemical compounds.


Animal testing also still has an essential role in making sure new pharmaceutical products are safe and effective for humans, said Taylor Bennett, senior science adviser to the National Association for Biomedical Researchers. Animal studies generally are needed before the federal Food and Drug Administration will approve clinical trials for a drug.


"The technology is not yet there to go from idea to patient application without using animals," Bennett said.


Animal testing can be slow, though, and some researchers question how well an animal's response to a chemical can predict human reactions.


In addition, the public is increasingly queasy about animal testing, especially the idea of inflicting pain for products like new lipsticks or eye shadows. The movement against animal testing has been especially strong across the Atlantic, where the European Union is set to enact its ban on animal testing for cosmetics in March 2009.


Cosmetics companies have greatly reduced animal testing, though they still may use it to test the safety of a new ingredient, said John Bailey, executive vice president of the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group.


Alternatives to animal tests include synthetic skin substitutes and computer simulations. But in vitro products show the most promise because they can are efficient, fast and easy to manipulate, said Dr. Alan Goldberg, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University.



"There's no question that it's the strategy of the future," Goldberg said.


Bailey agrees that in vitro chips hold the most promise, but said the chips still need to be validated before companies can have more confidence in them. He noted that chips have limitations when it comes to risk assessment, such as determining if particular doses of a substance pose a cancer risk.


The product developed by Dordick and Clark consists of two glass slides. The first, called the MetaChip, has rows of little blots containing human liver enzymes. The other slide, the DataChip, contains an identical array of blots which, depending on the test, could be live human bladder, liver, kidney, heart, skin or lung cell cultures. Sandwiched together, the two chips mimic the human body's reaction to compounds.


If the cells die or stop growing, it's a sign that a toxin was present.


Troy-based Solidus has received about $3 million in federal money, including grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Dordick said a pharmaceutical company and a cosmetic company are testing the chip and they hope Solidus will have a product on the market by late 2009.


Goldberg notes that the movements toward in vitro and away from animal testing is incremental -- even optimistic assessments measure progress in decades. But he still believes there may well be a day when the lab rat becomes a thing of the past.


"At some time in the far future my suspicion is yes," he said, "because we're doing it stepwise by stepwise."

from Mutts, a blog by John Woestendiek of The Baltimore Sun...