The Dog Lab

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your recent article concerning the Medical School dog lab inaccurately portrays the first year class's reaction to the lab. An overwhelming majority, 153 out of 165 students, voluntarily participated in the eighthour lab which investigates different aspects of cardiovascular physiology. The lab is performed under the closed supervision. All participants are required to attend an orientation the day before the lab to view a move of the procedure, especially the anesthetic regiment. A protessor, doctor, or graduate student in physiology guides a team of four to five students through the procedure.

I and my classmates found the lab exciting and constructively educational. Again and again, our "textbook" predictions of the effects of certain pharmacological agents on heart rate and blood pressure proved insufficient in the live animal. Indeed, the live animal taught us the dynamic response of vitally interacting organs.

Yet, one of my classmates, Karin J. Stromswold, opposes the lab because "Science is in no way being forwarded by this," (11/3/83) Ms. Stromswold's quote, however, reveals a gross misconception of the lab's purpose. The lab does not intend to advance science. Its goal is to advance our knowledge as medical students and competency as future a physicians. Indeed, sacrificing the animal becomes morally palatable for me because I leave enlightened and that much more prepared to care for people. Daniel I. Simon   Harvard Medical School