By Cary Shuman
After a 6-4 vote at the Jan. 13 Council meeting in favor of her amendment to allow limited animal testing in Everett, Councilor-at-Large Stephanie Smith said she would like to do more research on the issue before she reintroduces the measure for a future vote.
The Council discussed the limited animal testing ordinance at its meeting Monday night. Prior to the discussion, residents and advocates of animal rights appeared during the public speaking portion of the meeting to voice their opinion for a total ban of animal testing, a message that Councilor-at-Large Katy Rogers had delivered vigorously at the Jan 13 meeting.
Smith had reasoned that opening the city to the construction of life science centers would create highly skilled jobs for Everett residents and additional tax revenues for the city. But Smith basically put the issue on hold for now, “though not to say that I won’t reintroduce it again at a point in the future, maybe further along in the Davis Company’s journey.”
“I will continue to take feedback from my colleagues about wanting to understand more about what the developers [Davis Company] are putting in [Everett] and what the [Mayor DeMaria] Adminstration’s stance on it is,” said Smith after the meeting. “So, I will work with the Administration and Davis to get some more information and reintroduce it [the ordinance] when we have additional information.”
Smith said her colleagues may have been influenced by the concerns of animal advocates who apparently flooded Council members with emails since the last meeting.
“I asked Davis Company not to come [to Monday’s meeting] because I didn’t want anyone’s voice influenced by them – which may have been a mistake on my part,” offered Smith candidly. “But I also wasn’t trying to overpower my colleagues with scientific evidence, either, because I agree there’s alternative methods [to live animal testing] which I support, but I also know that our neighboring communities support animal testing, and I would like to make sure that we get some of these revenues from the tax bases that they’re getting. So, I was looking at this issue in the interest of the taxpayers.”
Rogers thanks her colleagues
for their support on the issue
Councilor-at-Large Katy Rogers, who went head-to-head with Smith on the issue at the Jan. 13 meeting, respectfully refrained from calling the decision “a victory” for her side over Smith’s perspective, but she did say she was pleased by the Council’s action on the issue.
“I am grateful to my colleagues on the City Council for taking the time to carefully consider the implications of introducing animal testing in Everett,” said Rogers. “Pursuing animal testing would raise significant ethical, scientific, and financial concerns that are not aligned with the resources available in our city.
“Since our last meeting, I had the opportunity to speak with MatTek, a Massachusetts-based company specializing in growing human organ tissue models for research. They have been offering ethical and more accurate replacements for over forty years. and they are only one of many local companies advancing animal testing alternatives.
“Science is not lagging in the effort to reduce animal testing; it is the responsibility of government—including the Everett City Council—to set the standard.”
Van Campen give his reasons his for change in stance
on the issue
Ward 5 Councilor Robert Van Campen delivered an impressive speech offering his reasons for deciding to change his vote from the Jan. 13 meeting. Van Campen made it clear that he had researched the issue extensively in the two weeks since the last meeting.
Calling live animal testing “a challenging issue for a variety of reasons, Van Campen said, “We’re balancing ethical concerns as every one of us are animal lovers, versus what we think is right for the city in terms of development and economic opportunity.”
Van Campen said he had received much feedback (“320 emails”) on the issue from people “outside of Everett and inside of Everett.”
“I’ve spent the last couple of weeks educating myself on this issue, both the pros and the cons, and every time I gave this issue some consideration, I always came back to one of the pillars as to why I got re-engaged in the City Council: to make sure that development in the city is responsible and reasonable.”
“I credit Councilor Smith for advancing this issue, but I would have much preferred this issue be presented as part of the Innovation Zoning District process, so we could have had much more public engagement, much more public discussion, much more public notice. Unfortunately, we didn’t. That would have given the community more of a voice on this issue.”
Van Campen said he discovered in his review of the issue that animal testing has served a useful benefit in society.
“But the science today is indicating that animal testing is less effective than some of the modern methods: computational models, cellular analysis. This is the wave of the future and both the state and federal government are heading in that direction as well.
“I’ve given this issue more consideration than any issue that has come before us, and I just don’t think the time is right to amend the ban without greater engagement, greater public involvement, and maybe a more robust process.”
Pietrantonio listens to the
the wishes of
Everett residents
Ward 6 Councilor Peter Pietrantonio said the Davis Company “started all this when whey made a statement to a councilor that they were going to bring animal testing at that site.”
“They went at it the wrong way, unfortunately, and they started a war,” said Pietrantonio.
Adding that “when I took this job [as city councilor], I promised myself I would do what the citizens would want. Here are the citizens and they don’t want it.”
Affirming the far-reaching fervor and interest in the issue of live animal testing, Pietrantonio indicated that “I got 646 emails from people I don’t even know – from Sudbury, from Lincoln. But I care about the people right here [Everett].
“Councilor Smith has a very good point. We do need tax revenue in this city. There’s no doubt about that. Do we want more apartments? No, we want businesses. And, unfortunately, this is the business we don’t want,” said Pietrantonio.
Marchese seeks conference with Davis, DeMaria
Administration on matter
Councilor-at-Large Michael Marchese bemoaned “the lack of information that’s [been] provided us through the Davis Company and our own Administration” on the issue.
“I [want] people to explain what they’re going to do and how they’re going to do it,” said Marchese. “No one’s ever come before us and did a presentation to tell us what they’re going to do. Are they [Davis Company] coming here to open a testing lab, or are they not?
“I’d like to hear a presentation by Davis and also hear what the Administration is looking for,” concluded Marchese.