Interview

Interview: Richard Marrocco

Dr. Richard Marrocco, a professor at the UO's Institute of Neuroscience is a frequent target of the anti-animal research crowd, including a recent issue of the Insurgent. Brandon Oberlin sat down with him to explore his side of the debate.

Oregon Commentator: Dr. Marrocco, could you tell me a little about yourself?
Marrocco: I'm a professor of psychology and neuroscience and I've been here at the UO for about 27 years. I got my undergraduate degree at UCLA and, among other things, did some post-doctorate work at UC Berkeley. After that I came to Oregon.

OC: What type of research goes on in your lab?
RM: The research we are currently doing focuses on the neurobiology of attention. You could consider this part of cognitive neuroscience. My lab has focused on the biology of attention. We study the biology of attention on several different levels; using not only humans for their behavioral responses, but also primates for their behavioral as well as the electrophysiological analyses of attention, and rats for their behavior as well as the pharmacology of attention. Those are the types of things that we do.

OC: What specifically has your lab contributed to science and medicine; and what specific scientific advancements do you see coming out of your lab?
RM: One of the things, as I already mentioned, is that we have been looking very carefully at the pharmacology of attention. One of the things we have been interested in for the long term is Attention Deficit Disorder; this is sometimes called ADD or ADHD, depending on its exact makeup. The "H" stands for hyperactivity. We are looking at the neurotransmitters in the brain that mediate attentional behavior, and the corresponding clinical question of which neurotransmitters are malfunctioning and causing these conditions. So what have we learned? The most popular treatment for ADD kids, and adults, turns out to be Ritalin. Ritalin is a drug that affects the brain neurotransmitter dopamine quite a bit. It has much less effect on the other major neurotransmitters like acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. What we have found is that there are two neurotransmitter components to normal attention. One certainly involves norepinephrine and dopamine, but the surprising finding was that there was a second neurotransmitter involved: acetylcholine. What we are suggesting from our research is that there is an important component that is not treated. This may account for why the typical success rates with Ritalin are about 60 percent. We suggest a two-part approach that addresses also the cholinergic component. Other research done in this field agrees with this hypothesis.

OC: This seems very significant: the fact that Ritalin ignores fully half of the problem with ADD. This research was done in your lab at the UO?
RM: Yes. I am told that there are clinical trials in progress that are investigating this very thing, but I have only heard this secondhand. This would be very good news for us as this is what we've been strongly suggesting needs to be done.

OC: What kinds of animals do you have in your lab?
RM: Right now we only have rats. We are between monkey studies, so we don't have any of them here now. We have worked with monkeys in the past, and will again in the next couple of months.

OC: How are the animals in your lab treated?
RM: They are treated now as they have been all along. Not only is the letter of the law being observed here, but it's important to recognize one fact that animal rights activists never seem to acknowledge, and that is that monkeys are sensitive and intelligent creatures that simply won't cooperate unless they have a successful working relationship with their handlers. I guarantee you that they won't perform the visual attention tasks unless they feel good. They have to be in good mental and physical health, and simply wouldn't get into the chair if they were traumatized or in pain. In my experience, the only way to get reasonable results from these animals is to have a relationship based on mutual respect and kindness. The claim that these animals are in constant pain from the surgical procedures that we've done is simply not possible. Not possible.

OC: What restrictions do you think should be placed on animal testing?
RM: First of all, I think there are different kinds of animal testing. Testing for commercial purposes, makeup, cosmetics, and that sort of thing doesn't affect me and if there was a ban on it, well I guess I wouldn't care. If it can be done in a humane way, I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it. It really doesn't mean much to me one way or the other. Biomedical testing, on the other hand, is a different story. There really aren't any substitutes for it at this point. If we can agree that there is a value in being able to provide better lives for human beings, and I realize that this is arguable, then I think that it is justified to use animals. Having said that, we have a responsibility to make their lives just as happy and healthy as we possibly can. Especially when working with primates because they are such a valuable resource. They're smart creatures...and they're sentient. This means that we don't take animals from their natural habitats. It means that they must be raised in captivity and it means that we have to make their lives as good as possible. It means pairing them if possible, so that they have social contact. It mean providing entertainment for them. We have a radio for the monkeys that they can turn on and off. We will change the station for them sometimes...they seem to like country music. The cages here are oversized so that they can get plenty of exercise, they have toys and swings. Those are the conditions where I think it's permissible to use animals.

OC: So, in your opinion, animal testing would not be permissible under inhumane conditions?
RM: Right.

OC: Can biomedical advances be made without animal testing?
RM: Yes, some can. You can certainly test drugs on humans. (Editor's note: this is done in phase 3 clinical trials with new drugs before they get FDA approval.) Sometimes this can raise certain legal issues. This is necessary with certain surgical procedures that will be used mainly on humans. So certainly there are some areas that do not require animals, but again, the issue of looking at behavior and it's underpinnings in the brain...there's no substitute. I'll tell you, if there was some magic computer that would give us the answers to these sorts of things, I'd be the first one to use it.

OC: Would you tell me a little bit of the history of conflicts you've had with the animal rights activists here at the University?
RM: Sure. Clear back in '86 there was a break-in here. At that time we had the animals in Pacific Hall. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility. Typical "trash the lab" job. They really bashed everything up. It was a complete disaster. They painted the walls with spray paint and wrote "ALF" and ALF slogans and so on. The funny thing was, at this time we had some large, fierce male monkeys. They were all full of testosterone, you know, and they would do these displays of aggression. When anyone would walk into the room they would jump up to the front of the cage and bare their teeth and shake the bars. You'd be a fool to try to take those animals. So they left those. They stole 150 or so animals, most of which were not recovered. There was a very revealing picture printed by the Register-Guard of eight white rabbits that had been dumped beside I-5 huddled together, confused, cars whizzing by. Apparently a lot of them where just dumped. I guess this is what "animal liberation" really means. Since then there's been a constant low-level and sometimes high-level activity. The most recent stuff happened a couple years ago when a demonstration got out of hand. Fifteen or 20 protestors were gathered outside of Huestis Hall dropping leaflets. All at once, a bunch of them grabbed signs and sticks and ran toward the entrance. I tried to lock the building, but was unable to because of the computer security system. So I locked the front door and stood in front of it to block their way. Josh Harper, an activist, got in my face and was yelling, "You have no right to keep us out of this building." I wouldn't let him pass, so he pushed me and I pushed him back. So they got discouraged and went over to another building and made some fuss, but that was the pretty much the end of it. Some of them have protested my house and stuff like that...

OC: Would you tell me a little about that?
RM: About a year ago, I guess, there were about eight of them wearing masks and carrying placards. My wife and daughter were home, but I was gone and unaware of what was happening. They pretty much just stood out there and held signs, but there's not much traffic on that street, so not many people come by. At various times they tried to put signs and things on my lawn, but both my wife and daughter would take the signs and give them back to them. At one point my wife tried to leave in her car to go to work, but the protestors got into their car and blocked her. She ended up getting out and onto the road, with the protestors following. They tried to pass her and just generally obstruct her way. Nothing that serious, just mischief really. Oh yeah, a few shouting matches with Josh Harper on a few occasions. One time they were demonstrating outside of Huestis and I was trying to get back into the building without a confrontation, but they spotted me across the street and said, "There he goes!" A couple of them came over and hassled me, but nothing came of that. Another one of them who tried to follow me into the building had to be stopped by the police.

OC: Other than those incidences, were there any other personal attacks on you as a result of your work?
RM: Well, I've had a lot of hate mail, death threats, and things like that...which is never pleasant.

OC: In your opinion, do campus publications have the right to furnish professor's personal contact information?
RM: Yes, yes they do. It's all public information. On the other hand, in the context of this article (Insurgent's ALF primer) saying, "here are the targets of this illegal activity," that's not right. I'm pretty sure that this is not protected by the First Amendment, although that's arguable of course.

OC: What action, if any, should the UO administration take in response to this article?
RM: Number one, I would like to see a vote of confidence and a statement of support by our president, who's been remarkably silent on this issue thus far. Even if he doesn't talk about the legality, I think the principle here is an important one. If there were a radical group out there that published a flyer like this that had some other call for illegal activity, like targeting people: say abortion, for example, or had some sort of minority hate list. If it said, "go out and kill lesbians and gay people," I think the response would've been strong and immediate on the part of the president. I don't know why it's taking so long for him to say something about this. That's the first thing. I think some sort of consequence has to occur as a result of publishing that ALF thing. Frankly I don't want to comment on it. There are a number of options that people are considering at this point. Some censure has to occur. Let me make it perfectly clear that it's not the Insurgent, per se, that I am against, but it's the judgement of those who decided to publish an article like this. I think it is completely inappropriate for a university newspaper. It may, in addition, be illegal.

OC: Are you personally going to take legal action as a result of this latest Insurgent issue?
RM: I don't want to comment on that because I haven't given it much thought.

OC: Do you have any closing thoughts for our readers?
RM: I just think it's important to separate a couple of issues here. Regardless of how you feel about animal research, I think you have to be persuaded that this is wrong. I would urge people on campus, namely students who are paying out of their pockets for this publication to reconsider whether or not this type of activity, not the paper itself, but this type of activity should be supported. And if they think it should not be, then they should speak up and demand that the Insurgent change in this regard. This is wrong, and this is going to have immense implications for activities of newspapers on campus. I think it already has.

Brandon Oberlin, a junior majoring in Biology, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator