Animal Rights Activists Take Aim At Yale

There is one thing that these animal rights extremists and I can agree on, and that is the importance for the New Haven (and national) community to understand the scientific studies going on in Yale laboratories. In these labs, some of the first HIV treatments were discovered (d4T, specifically), innovative approaches for the management of narcotic dependence were designed and tested and new explanations for how genes and the environment shape child development emerged. Each of these projects required basic scientists to utilize animals for their discovery efforts. Without these contributions (and vastly more that cannot be listed here), the welfare of humans and animals alike would have been compromised.

With that in mind, I believe its reasonable to question the ethics of those who personally attack scientists, tell mis-truths about research and researchers and - in the process - deny hope to those with currently untreatable diseases. Fortunately, the scientists in Yale labs are resolute and determined to focus their attentions on conquering disease; we owe them profound thanks, not protests and lies.

I am a vegetarian and a strong believer in the use of collective action to enact social change. That said, I find PETA's use of intimidation and harassment in this situation to be deplorable. These tactics have a chilling effect on any meaningful discussion about the state of animal welfare in the United States. Discussion that could lead to improvement in both the human and animal condition. As a biomedical researcher myself, it is largely impossible for me to engage in this sort of public dialogue for fear of ending up on some sort of misguided leaflet (such as the one distributed yesterday).

Supporters ask a very important question – what would happen to research on cancer, heart disease and AIDS if animal experimentation were to be completely stopped? Will the progress in treatments and cures for such illnesses also come to a stop?

There is a rapidly growing movement of healthcare professionals that include scientists; doctors and even some educated members of the public who are extremely opposed to animals based testing, specifically on scientific and medical grounds. Animal testing and research is completely based on false premises, the results that are obtained from such experimentation cannot be applied to the human body.

Not only do animals react differently from humans where drugs, experiments and vaccines are concerned, but they also tend to react differently from each other. Ignoring these differences has been and will continue to be extremely costly to human health.

Animals are poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.

There is no evidence that animal testing has saved anyone's life directly, particularly in the case of HIV – most drugs could have been developed without the use of animals.

Monkeys and chimpanzees do not have identical immune systems to humans, and may not respond to drugs or vaccines in the same way. Rhesus macaques also cannot be directly infected with HIV. No HIV vaccine has yet been developed, despite many years of animal involvement.

Animals are still being used for experiments even though they are not capable of developing the AIDS virus. The development of those lifesaving protease inhibitors was initially delayed because of the misleading data that came out of experiments on monkeys.

There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes.

Animals may not be identical, but they are surely closer than computer simulations and single celled organisms, which is what anti-vivisectionist believe should be used instead. Or, just line up yourself and your children and permit the testing to be conducted on subjects closer to the cure? And, while you are at it, bring in your cats and dogs to test new rabies vaccines that are being developed.

@David Jentsch -

Could you identify the "lies" and/or "mistruths" that you believe were spread at yesterday's Yale protest?

Since you are based on the west coast (as far as I know), I presume you are relying on media reports and perhaps comments posted by readers. I'd be very interested in knowing what struck you as a lie or a mistruth and where it appeared.

Thanks.

Would any of the animal rights activists deny their own mother or themselves the right to have a lifesaving bypass or valve replacement surgery on the grounds that it was developed in numerous animal trials and fellows are learning their surgical skills on animals before going to patients?

Straight from Yale Scientific magazine ...

"Although Yale encourages faculty to produce patentable items, the ethical implications of collaborating with pharmaceutical companies are still not entirely clear. Yale itself has not escaped controversy on this highly politicized issue.

In 2001, Yale University came under scrutiny for its role in developing d4T"

Many institutions, including Yale, will defend their position even if they have to lie. The fact that they, Northwestern University, and others have been cited violation of the Animal Welfare Act (which in inself is very weak) for cruelty to animals -at times intentional cruelty and lack of respect for the suffering of animals. There are alternatives to animal research but then those who provide the cages, the food, the instruments of torture would lose money -- it's all about money and 'publish or perish' attitude.

Our reliance on animals used in labratory testing is archaic and unnecessary. Animal testing is completely unnecessary. Animals are beautiful, sensitive, intelligent creatures that deserve recognition and respect. The idea that animal testing is integral to science is ridiculous. I hope that Yale and all other institutions stop these horrific acts of violence.

Actually lab supporter I do regularly participate in clinical research studies along with numerous other humans who, unlike the animals, have given their consent.

Please be specific, what do you mean by "surely closer than computer simulations and single celled organisms"? Majoring in Neurobiology I have never found this to be the case in my own academic experience.

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."

• Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.
  
  "Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
  
• Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.
  
  "Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
  
• Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.
  
  "Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
  
• Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

@Christine

There are a lot of issues to address in your post, and some of them are valid. There are in fact physiological differences between humans, monkeys, and mice that complicate the development of treatments for conditions such as AIDS. However, your central premise that animal experimentation is inherently flawed with regards to human health is demonstrably false.

Why does everyone seem to think that the animal rights activists had ANYTHING to do with PETA whatsoever?
I'd like to know!

I would remind those against animal research that finding cures for human conditions is one part of the use of animals in research but certainly not the only. Pets and livestock benefit too. Tell me, when developing a new vaccine for rabies what better model to use than a dog? When developing a new diet for agricultural animals, what model should be used? I'm thinking a cow but I could be way off.

It's a complete fallacy that animal research provides no benefit for humans. The fact that on most posts those making the claim use almost the exact same wording leads me to believe that many of these people are merely getting their information from an animal rights web site. I just saw a video today about an adorable black cat that needed two new back feet. The veterinarian was able to fashion implants to anchor two prosthetic feet and the cat was up and running around the same day. Not long ago the only option would have been to euthanize the cat. Animal research works people. Remember that every time you take your pet in to get a check up or shots. Think of that when you hear someone survived a heart attack or a stroke.

@Andy in response to 1. diabetes

Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing. They assert, with justification, that without insulin harvested from slaughterhouses many diabetics would have lost their lives. Whereas it is true that animals have figured largely in the history of diabetic research and therapy, their use has not been necessary and furthermore has not always advanced science.

Diabetes is a very serious disease, even today affecting ten to fourteen million Americans. It is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Although the clinical signs of human diabetes have been known since the first century AD, not until the late eighteenth century did physicians associate the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the role of the pancreas in the disease.

Nearly a century later, in 1869, scientists identified insulin-producing pancreatic cells that malfunction in diabetic patients. Other human pancreatic conditions, such as pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) were seen to produce diabetic symptoms, reinforcing the disease's link with the pancreas.

Animal experimenters continued to interrupt the nicely progressing course of knowledge regarding the pancreas and diabetes. When they removed pancreases from dogs, cats, and pigs, sure enough, the animals did become diabetic. However, the animals' symptoms led to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, linking sugar transport to the liver and glycogen. These animal studies threw diabetes research off track for many years.

In 1882, a physician named Dr. Marie noted the association between acromegaly, a pituitary disorder, and sugar in the urine, thus connecting sugar metabolism and the pituitary gland. Another doctor, Atkinson, published data in 1938 that revealed 32.8 per cent of all acromegalic patients suffered from diabetes. Bouchardat published similar findings in 1908. For some reason, the scientist who reproduced this in dogs, Bernardo Houssay, ended up winning the Nobel Prize in 1947. Obviously, it is hardly fair to say dogs were responsible for his kudos, since knowledge predated Houssay's experiments and any number of human-based methods would have produced the same findings.

In the early 1920s two scientists, John Macleod and Frederick Banting, isolated insulin by extracting it from a dog. For this they received a Nobel Prize. Macleod admitted that their contribution was not the discovery of insulin, but rather reproducing in the dog lab what had already been demonstrated in man. They were not obliged to extract insulin from dogs, because certainly there was ample tissue from humans. They merely did so because it was convenient. In that same year Banting and another experimenter, named Best, gave dog insulin to a human patient with disastrous results. Note what scientists said about the dog experiments in 1922,

The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments.

Banting, Best and other scientists modified the process using in vitro techniques and later mass-produced insulin from pig and cow pancreases collected at slaughterhouses.

In coming years scientists continued to refine the animal-derived substance. Though it is true that beef and pork insulin saved lives, it also created an allergic reaction in some patients. Beef insulin has three amino acids that differ from human amino acids while pork insulin has only one. Whereas this sounds negligible, it takes very little amino acid discrepancy to undermine health. (Only one deviant amino acid is enough to produce certain life threatening diseases, such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia.) Injecting animal-derived insulin also presented the sizable danger of transmitting viruses that cross from one species to another. Had researchers then recognized these potentialities as well as the gulf of differences between humans and farm animals, scientists would have hastened to develop human insulin more quickly.

The ability to treat patients suffering from diabetes without giving them insulin injections was discovered by chance on humans. Today, the administration of oral anti-hyperglycemics, which arose from serendipity and self-experimentation, eliminates the need for insulin injections in many patients.

Diabetes is still stunningly enigmatic, in large part due to our continued reliance on the animal model. Most clinicians believe that strict glucose control though insulin injections offers advantages over a less regimented treatment plan. However, insulin is a treatment not a cure for diabetes. The exact biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is not yet known.

Drugs would be just as safe and probably safer than they now are if the animal testing phase was eliminated. Presently, legal drugs kill more people per year than all illegal drugs combined.

It is first important to recognize that drugs do not spring from lab animal to bottle. There are four methods of designing drugs. Scientists begin by one of the following methods:

Discovering new substances from nature
Uncovering a different curative value in an existing medication
Modifying the chemical structure of a similar medication
Designing a new medication from scratch based on anticipated chemical reactions
Once researchers have theorized about a substance's usefulness, they administer it to animals to see whether or not it works on them. They obtain plenty of feedback about the substance's effectiveness in the species tested. Positive animal results are reported in the popular press, generally mentioning only scantly the huge unbuilt bridge between lab animal results and human cures. At this stage there is still no reliable information about what the substance will do in humans, because our metabolism is unique.

Though subjecting the substances to animal testing is designed to reveal anticipated effects and side effects in humans, very often the results differ dramatically between species. Substances that could save many human lives are not approved because they are harmful to animals. And substances that are therapeutic in animals get approved, then harm and sometimes kill humans. Instead of safeguarding human consumers, animal testing creates a false sense of security.

The proof of this is apparent in any thorough assessment of drug development history. Numerous of our most popular drugs including aspirin, acetaminophen (Tylenol) and ibuprofen (Advil or Motrin), can be quite detrimental to animals. Diuretic medications, a mainstay in the treatment of hypertension, were in common use before animal testing became the rage. Many of these drugs, safely used by millions, would be hard pressed to pass today's mandatory mouse tests.

There is justifiable concern that animal tests are preventing us from acquiring much- needed medications, one scientist stating:

...for the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. The chance is of overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used.

Innumerable animal-tested drugs make it to market, and then cause problems. It is well accepted that approximately 100,000 deaths per year from legal drugs, and approximately fifteen per cent of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse medication reactions. In one decade more than half of all newly approved medications were either withdrawn or relabeled by the FDA secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. All of these drugs had undergone extensive animal testing!

Clearly, the animal testing protocol works against human safety. It also diverts valuable research dollars away from solid human-based testing methodologies.

....If we don't use animals, what will we use?

this view assumes that animal experiments have been responsible for medical advances in the past. If this were true, the concern would be valid. But it is not. Benchmarks in medical history have relied on the following nonanimal-based methodologies, as will future developments:

In vitro research or test tube research on living tissue has been instrumental for many of the great discoveries. Though human tissue has not always been employed; it could have been, because it has always been in ample supply. Blood, tissue and organ cultures are ideal test-beds for the efficacy and toxicity of medications.

Epidemiology is the study of populations of humans to determine factors that could account for the prevalence of the disease among them, or for their disease immunity. Combined with genetic research and other non-animal methods enumerated here, it provides very accurate information about whole systems.

Bacteria, viruses, and fungi reveal basic cell properties.

Autopsy and cadavers are used for clarifying disease and teaching operating techniques such as fracture fixation, spine stabilization, ligament reconstruction, and other procedures.

Physical models can be made for studying the wear on joints and other physiology.

Genetic research has elucidated many genes that are responsible for specific diseases. Since physicians can now ascertain their patients' predisposition to certain diseases, they can monitor them more carefully as well as suggest optimal nutrition, lifestyle and medications.

Clinical research on patients shows how humans respond to different treatments and determine whether or not one treatment is superior to another. We can attribute our fundamental knowledge of disease and hospital care to clinical research.

Post-marketing drug surveillance (PMDS) is the reporting process whereby every effect and side effect of a new medication are reported to a monitoring agency, eg., the FDA. (Despite its obvious benefits, post-marketing drug surveillance is presently practiced erratically as reporting methods are neither easy nor required.)

Mathematical and computer modeling is a complex research method that employs mathematics to simulate living systems and chemical reactions.

Technology is largely responsible for the high standard of care we receive today. MRI scanners, CAT scanners, PET scanners, X-rays, ultrasound, blood gas analysis machines, blood chemistry analysis machines, pulmonary artery catheters, arterial catheters, microscopes, monitoring devices, lasers, anesthesia machines and monitors, operating room equipment, computer based equipment, sutures, the heart-lung machine, pacemakers, electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, bone and joint replacements, staplers, laparoscopic surgery, the artificial kidney machine and many more are examples of technological breakthroughs.

Specialization also saves countless lives. For example, the field of pathology allowed better understanding of diseases. Specialization of medical care into disciplines such as cardiology, oncology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, infectious diseases etc. allows physicians to increase and share their understanding of one field. Specialized areas of care in the hospital, like the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac ICU, and surgical ICU, improve patient care. Nurses, specially trained for the operating room or the ICU better administer to patients.

http://www.whitecoatwelfare.org/faq.shtml

It is unclear what Ian Smith, a full time researcher with PeTA and organizer of this event, was actually researching about Yale, its scientists and their work. Clearly, the outcome of PeTA's "research" was the predetermined outcome that Yale "tortures animals".

Yet, one can safely assume PeTA would instantly make this same claim about any other top university in the country, or about any research that involves animals, and not just about the projects carried out by the Yale investigators they apparently singled out for harassment and intimidation.

The only newsworthy item of this PeTA demonstration is that, fortunately, this time around, we were spared the nudity.

The Research community has so many restriction before animal research can even start I don't know how people say that the animals are abused. How you ever wonder why we as people don't treat other people the way you want animals to be treated. We let our sick family members suffer but we euthanize a dog because it is at the end of his life. Wish some of the haters of research advancements would do this for the human race. As a member of the research community I know for a fact that the animals in research are treated humanely and with kindness and care. Wake up America we won't be where we are without animal research.

Christine: The technological advances you mentioned such as PET scanners, MRI, ultrasound, etc. all used animal models in their development. Computer modeling is great too, but limited at this time. The computer model is only as good as the information entered and without further studying would be restrained to the information known at the time of programming. How would you know what new information to plug in for future programs if you're not allowed to study animal models to gain the information?

While you've mentioned some examples where animal models were not needed, let me provide some where they were. Armadillo's have been key in the development of a vaccine for leprosy. Because the neurological system of the cat is similar to that of humans, they have been used for research of the spinal cord and for furthering our understanding of amblyopia and strabismus, not to mention glaucoma. Dogs and cats were instrumental in the development of the heart-lung machine which made open-heart surgery possible. Guinea Pigs were used for studies leading to the vaccines for diptheria and tuberculosis. A bioluminescent chemical found in jellyfish allows doctors to trace the movement of specific chemicals through the body and has actually led to the reduction of the number of animals needed in some types of research. These are just a few examples of the developments brought about through the use of animal research. There are many more.

Judging by the number of people shown in the pictures, I think I could get more people to show up to protest my daughter's high school lunch menu.

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. From PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals."

These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

The animal "rights" terrorists are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.

more here:
http://tinyurl.com/27vocbb

@Christine

While your story about the history of diabetes research is nice story, it is also nothing but a story, one that seeks to minimize the contribution of animal model research to the elucidation of pancreatic function and the discovery of insulin. A thorough reading of the history of diabetes research would reveal that the road to our current state of knowledge has been a rocky one, but we certainly wouldn't be where we are today without contributions from both human and animal research.

I won't correct all of the mistakes that you have made in your story, as it would require me to right out the entire history of diabetes research in a browser window (annoying!), but I would direct anyone who is interested to a well-written and well-sourced history of the discovery of insulin (PDF warning):

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/48/12/2270

I think that this article nicely highlights the fits-and-starts nature of biomedical research and gives full due to the contributions of both human clinical work and animal model work. Of course, no amount of information will benefit someone who has already made up their mind on the issue.

Animal models of human conditions are analogies, and argument from analogy is inherently flawed. That being the case, it is still possible that the findings of animal experiments can sometimes correlate with what happens in humans – we are all animals, and some experiments on nonhuman animals correlate with what happens in human animals and some don't. An important question is whether the animal results have good predictive value, that is, do they predict what will happen in humans frequently enough to offset the wrong and misleading findings that often occur, particularly when there are always myriad ways to address a given scientific question.

If some past animal experiments have had value, this does not justify today's animal experimentation enterprise. For one thing, there is no way to know what modern medicine would be like if there were no animal experiments. If people had been vivisecting other humans for centuries, then defenders of the practice would likely have said, "We would never have cures for X, Y, and Z had it not been for such experimentation." For another thing, modern research methods that allow us to gain great insight into human conditions studying human beings safely and ethically have rendered many kinds of animal experimentation obsolete.

Even if some animal experimentation could be justified on scientific grounds, there are many experiments whose value to human health is highly dubious at best. Further, the ethical argument remains. If animals are sufficiently like us to provide useful medical information, then this raises serious ethical concerns about whether we have the right to subject them to experiments that, in general, cause great pain and suffering.

Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., cochair, Medical Research Modernization Committee www.mrmcmed.org.

On a different, but still related note. The assertion that scientists involved in animal experimentation take the enterprise lightly is one that have found to be largely false. I don't even work with vertebrate animals myself, but it is still an ethical issue that has kept me up at night. I've read Peter Singer and I've read Stephen Kaufman to try to understand the viewpoints that oppose mine (or maybe are sort of orthogonal to mine), and do think that there is value in those viewpoints. I don't believe that I am in a minority in this respect.

The truth is that a more vegan America is something that would probably benefit animal welfare, human health, and the environment. This is something I support. Animal experimentation should be reduced and refined- not in the abolitionist manner proposed by PeTA, but rationally and scientifically. Unfortunately, there is little rationality to this debate when the conversation is dominated by groups like PeTA that subsist on fear and misinformation and cheap publicity. There is a middle ground in this debate.

Dr. Kaufman,

The arguments about animal research tends to focus on human health. That is one area, as I've mentioned. But your argument leaves no room for research into animal health. What better model for studying animal health than animals? A vast majority of Americans (don't know about other countries) have pets. It's been animal research that's led to vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia.

Animal rights terrorists like to point out that animal research has provided zero benefits for humans. However as I posted previously this is patently false. Additionally most advances in replacing animals with other models has come from the animal researchers. The animal rights movement has yet to offer one single idea that would replace animal research while still providing necessary information. Are there alternatives? Of course and every researcher is required to search for such alternatives prior to beginning a project.

There is also the fallacy that those involved in animal research enjoy torturing animals. This too is false. I can promise you we take better care of our animals than the PETA volunteers who lied to shelters, gathered adoptable pets, euthanized them in a van and threw out their bodies in a dumpster. How is that compassion? I think you would be surprised to find that most of the people working in animal research would be all for finding legitimate replacements for animals in medical research.

more on PETA:

http://tinyurl.com/2vuk6er

Lauren: Because PETA is an animal rights movement. So is the Humane Society of the United States by the way.

I don't believe in taking anything to an extreme, but at this point I think animal researchers have gone to an extreme in believing that anything can be justified in the name medical research and cures. No.
Perhaps a few things can, but not all.
Andy,
I'm really surprised and gladdened to learn that some researchers do think about alternatives. Please don't take this in a negative way. I'm rooting for you Mr. Vegan animal researcher. Criticism is often just a push to look superior solutions.

There is a lot of middle ground on this issue. We do need to give up some animal testing, but we're afraid, because we are not certain about the effectiveness of the replacements.
The replacements may end up being the volunteers who need the treatments -- and why not?

On another note, PETA vociferously criticizes animal research, but really, how else will they be heard? They do what good marketers do -- they get the attention of the consumer.
They make us think about things -- such as the moral implications of research that causes unimaginable suffering when there are alternatives to animal research that are languishing for lack of attention. These things may be uncomfortable for your colleagues to think about.


No one enjoys being criticized and all too often we see our critics as our enemies, when they may actually be pushing us to find new solutions to problems. PETA found these tactics worked best -- if more diplomatic solutions were more effective PETA would immediately start using those instead. PETA wants a point of view raised and seriously considered by others.

PETA does what it has to do to bring attention to the issue, but it is not actually involved in the solutions. That will be up to people like you and Christine joining forces to analyze the problem.
I wish you would not demean the points she raised regarding insulin research. When you called it 'a nice story' it was a red flag that you did not see a flaw in the argument and had to resort to using demeaning language instead of factual argument. That 'story' clearly showed that animal research often (not always) leads us astray -- away from the right answers.

In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax, and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. A General Accounting Office report, released in May 1990, found that more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused side effects that were serious enough to cause the drugs to be withdrawn from the market or relabeled. All of these drugs had been tested on animals.

Animal experimentation also misleads researchers in their studies. Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, cited in testimony at a congressional hearing this example of the dangers of animal-based research: "[p]aralytic polio could be dealt with only by preventing the irreversible destruction of the large number of motor nerve cells, and the work on prevention was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine reports that sophisticated non-animal research methods are more accurate, less expensive, and less time-consuming than traditional animal-based research methods. Patients waiting for helpful drugs and treatments could be spared years of suffering if companies and government agencies would implement the efficient alternatives to animal studies. Fewer accidental deaths caused by drugs and treatments would occur if stubborn bureaucrats and wealthy vivisectors would use the more accurate alternatives. And tax dollars would be better spent preventing human suffering in the first place through education programs and medical assistance programs for low-income individuals--helping the more than 30 million U.S. citizens who cannot afford health insurance--rather than making animals sick. Most killer diseases in this country (heart disease, cancer, and stroke) can be prevented by eating a low-fat, vegetarian diet, refraining from smoking and alcohol abuse, and exercising regularly. These simple lifestyle changes can also help prevent arthritis, adult-onset diabetes, ulcers, and a long list of other illnesses.

It is not surprising that those who make money experimenting on animals or supplying vivisectors with cages, restraining devices, food for caged animals (like the Lab Chow made by Purina Mills), and tiny guillotines to destroy animals whose lives are no longer considered useful insist that nearly every medical advance has been made through the use of animals. Although every drug and procedure must now be tested on animals before hitting the market, this does not mean that animal studies are invaluable, irreplaceable, or even of minor importance or that alternative methods could not have been used.

Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic, explains, "I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil."

Dr. Edward Kass, of the Harvard Medical School, said in a speech he gave to the Infectious Disease Society of America: "[I]t was not medical research that had stamped out tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia and puerperal sepsis; the primary credit for those monumental accomplishments must go to public health, sanitation and the general improvement in the standard of living brought about by industrialization."

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/vivisection.asp "

Many factors perpetuate animal experimentation, the most obvious of which is momentum. The practice is now very engrained and the systems are resistant to change. Egos are on the line. Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to animal experimentation are reluctant to admit that those methods were useless, much less dangerous.

Some research scientists do not even realize their travesty. They are far removed from patient care. If their investigations are compelling enough, they may never think beyond to question applicability. They often revel in the glory of discovery, never pausing to consider the human patients who are deprived of useful remedies while they squander money on knowledge for knowledge's sake. Animal experiments fuel the scientific papers they are obliged to write, and these result in promotion. Animal experimentation works for them, if not for humankind. Imagine the guilt these PhDs would feel if they were to face the true consequences of their work, if only in terms of its costly wastefulness and its effect on patient victims.

Simply put, animal experimentation continues because it is highly profitable. All the following constituencies make money: scientists, physicians, hospitals, regulation agency bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies, medical conglomerates, politicians, animal farmers and vendors, lawyers, reporters, and news media, to name a few. Other companies, whose products may or may not pose human health problems, use animal testing to secure themselves against litigation too. Think asbestos. Think tobacco. None of these constituencies can afford for the public to lose confidence in the idea that animal testing protects them.

Their interdependency is finely tuned: The more animal experiments the researcher does, the more articles he or she publishes. The more articles published, the more grant money received. The more grant money, the more money the university or research facility receives. The more money the university or research facility receives, the less liable big business is and the more products big business can sell. The more big business sells, the more money for advertising and hence the more compliant is the media. Anytime animal testing is questioned, there are outcries from many vested quarters. All hasten to shore up their positions and keep clear of litigation.

And on the other side of this cabal is the unwitting American consumer, paying through the nose for, at best, nothing and worse, ill health. Trillions of taxpayer and charity dollars continue to be funneled into wasteful experiments that are of no use to the consumer who supports them. Animal experimentation is a kind of "white coat welfare." But the animal testing machine, now large and in perpetual motion, will be difficult to stop.

http://www.whitecoatwelfare.org/faq.shtml "

Maria,

I think you're mistaken in some of your statements. Researchers and those of us involved in animal care have high regards for animal welfare. It's unfair to characterize researchers as believing anything goes for the advancement of science. That isn't true at all. The people I work with and those I've met elsewhere take animal welfare very seriously. Research project are reviewed first by the granting agency and then the IACUC at each research facility. The researcher is required to explain why the experiment is needed, why animal models need to be used, and how they plan to minimize suffering. Despite what many may think I have seen projects rejected because the investigator did not satisfactorily address these concerns.

There is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights. PETA is an animal rights organization. Ingrid Newkirk has repeatedly stated as much, despite benefiting from such research herself. I think most people would be genuinely surprised at the level of care provided to animals used in research. We take it very seriously indeed.

@ Dave B -
I want to thank you for adding your informed opinions. I appreciate that you take the time to speak your mind and sharing your views with us. But then you add in your attempts at humor, which kind of takes away your credibility. I get it: Our opinion is not popular! It's not news. We're different! Gasp! Thank you for pointing out the very obvious!

I will let others with a stronger educational background (i.e., they're a lot smarter and more well-spoken than I am and I don't want to confuse you). I don't have the ability to take time away from my job to research and respond to each of your (and others') arguments on other sites. It is time consuming and thankless work, and when we do prove a point, you divert attention and just laugh at the size of our crowd. Nice.
One thing I did HAVE to tell you, Dave. I only know of ONE person who was representing Peta there. Some were part of other Animal Rights networks but we came as concerned citizens from all over. Many of us do not have any ties to Peta at all. Because the organizer belongs to a group doesn't mean we are all members too. He actually represented himself as an organizer of yet another group while actually AT the protest. I just wanted to chime in since people mistakenly believe that all forms of animal activism is run by Peta. In my honest opinion, that's like saying every Christian is a member or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's untrue, and many Christians also oppose the church, yet all consider themselves Christian and all seek salvation. It's sort of like the way we all consider ourselves activists and we all seek respect for all forms of life, namely the millions of animals in labs across the United States.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Now go pick apart my analogy, and try to get some giggles.

Ah, I see the anonymous animal rights groups are on the attack. Well they were bound to show up. By the way, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an animal rights movement. You forgot to mention that we also play the French national anthem before leading them to the guillotine. That and the tiny white blindfolds. In my ten years of experience I've never actually seen anyone use one.

To be fair, PETA is a huge money maker too. They bring in millions of dollars a year. They make some valid points, I think, regarding cosmetic testing and furs. I don't agree with their stance on medical research however.

And for love of God, would you please stop saying that animal research has provided no benefits for humans. I've already listed a bunch that proves that statement false. It's like saying that because person drowned in a pool all pools should be outlawed.

Regarding Dave Bienus' reply to my earlier comment, I have several observations:

@Dr Kaufman

You write:

"For another thing, modern research methods that allow us to gain great insight into human conditions studying human beings safely and ethically have rendered many kinds of animal experimentation obsolete."

..... as if implying that scientists are stubborn and refuse to adopt new technologies that would potentially save animal lives. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not know of any scientist that, given the ability to collect the same data in humans in a safe way, would not be happy to do so. In fact, animal research is only part of our whole biomedical research enterprise which, of course, also includes human-based research as well.

There is no doubt there are ethical considerations in animal research.

It would be much easier to have a reasoned debate on this topic if opponents of animal research were to state their position plainly from the beginning -- they oppose animal research under all circumstances no matter what benefits can be derived from it.

I am usually a supporter of "animal rights", but on this issue I must dissent from the protestors. Animal testing led to the development of a procedure that saved my life and the lives of countless other people. It is a noble sacrifice that these animals make and they should be treated humanely, but we must recognize that human life is more valuable than animal life. If alternatives to animal research are developed than we should use them, but until that time we have no choice but to use the animals. Well, the only other choice is to live and die naturally and never fight disease and illness.

Dr. Kaufman: I regard people that blow up cars, destroy labs, make harassing and threatening phone calls as terrorists. What they are trying to do is instill terror in their subjects so my description of them as such is accurate. You may like to distance yourself from this element of your cause, but it's there.

You may not have heard about people claiming animal researchers enjoy torturing animals but that to is a part of the animal rights "activists" tool kit. Camille Marino has used it often. Your claim that you haven't heard such arguements strikes me as disingenuous.

Again, many animal rights activists to assert that animal research has not benefited humans because the results can't be extrapolated to humans. However the examples I provided prove that wrong. Again, please read comments left on various animal rights websites.

Finally, your last paragraph was a childish shot at me. Come-on, you're a doctor, supposedly you're above 5th grade play ground antics. Perhaps you should stop with the ad hominem attacks.

Yale University's animal-research laboratories were cited by federal inspectors last month for several instances of abuse of research animals, including burns on two baboons and several dead hamsters.

The report was issued May 3 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The report described several incidents involving animal safety:

A baboon was put under general anesthesia Feb. 4 for a procedure. Later, "laboratory personnel noted the presence of blisters on a small, localized area of the abdomen of the animal" because electric heating pads had been substituted for a broken warm water unit. The researcher told inspectors a similar incident happened Jan. 26....

Several hamsters in a study of infectious agents were found dead over several days, and others fell ill and had to be euthanized, but veterinary staff was not informed.

Five primates escaped from cages or restraint chairs between January and March. Primates "were loose inside their housing room in four of the incidents, and in one incident the (primate) was loose in a procedure room," the report says. The incidents, for which inspectors faulted lab personnel, resulted in two minor injuries to primates.

Lax descriptions of procedures to be used or improper handling of materials and equipment also were noted. Violations of sanitary and safety issues, but no injuries, also were reported in 2009 and 2008 reports.

"What's happened at Yale is really what we're seeing as part of a national pattern of negligence," said Michael A. Biddie, executive director of Stop Animal Exploitation Now, which publicized the USDA inspection....

"In most instances the USDA doesn't take meaningful action against these laboratories. … Even when the fines were issued they were reduced to the point of being financially meaningless," Budkie said.

He acknowledged SAEN opposes all animal research, but said when instances of animal abuse are found "it has to become suspect because we don't know what else hasn't been done correctly."

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/06/01/news/new_haven/doc4c05dcb044579132633984.txt

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Every year tens of thousands of animals suffer and die in laboratory tests of cosmetics and household products...despite the fact that the test results do not help prevent or treat accidental or purposeful misuse of the products. Please join me in using your voice for those whose cries are forever sealed behind the laboratory doors."

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

One of the best deconstructions of the "do it with computers" myth can be found here:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/04/can_simulations_replace_animal.php

Written by someone who knows a little something about computer simulations and what computers can do by themselves without external data.

@Maria - Appreciate your comments about the value of dialogue. You also said, "at this point I think animal researchers have gone to an extreme in believing that anything can be justified in the name medical research and cures. No. Perhaps a few things can, but not all."

Scientists engaged in animal-based research do not believe that "anything can be justified in the name of medical research and cures." You mention that a "few things can, but not all." Which do you feel are justified? What are your criteria for sorting them? The justification for any animal-based research is an issue that receives a great deal of attention and discussion from scientists. That is reflected many places, among them as a requirement within the Institutional Animal Care and Use protocols that scientists write and must have approved prior to beginning a study.

http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/research-regulation/

"—when there are alternatives to animal research that are languishing for lack of attention."

With respect to the appropriateness, utility, and development of alternatives, as Andy, Dave and others have pointed out, scientists have high interest and motivation to move to alternatives wherever possible. Considering alternatives is also an explicit part of the approval process. In some cases alternatives simply do not yet exist. There is more information that might be of interest here: http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/alternatives/

"On another note, PETA vociferously criticizes animal research, but really, how else will they be heard?"

One major to distinction to make here is that the protestors are not simply criticizing animal research in order to provoke discussion; rather, they are distributing the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of individual scientists. It is difficult to imagine that the intent of those actions is to promote anything other than fear.

Lauren,

Humor is necessary in this world. Even in this debate. I admire those that appose animal research and wish to discuss different ideas in a peaceful and respectful manner. In fact I'm positive that many of the animal welfare regulations are in place because of such individuals as you apparently are. That's great, really it is.

I do think it's important to know that many animal rights activist try to mislead the public into believing that animals are routinely abused and neglected. This is absolutely false. The people I have met from all over the country in this field are passionate about providing humane care for the animals in our care.

Please understand I really do have a high regard for concerned citizens regarding animal research. And I think a respectful and meaningful middle ground can be found between the needs of research and the needs of animal welfare. By all means continue to question and ask for answers. However, I myself and those I know have been targeted by animal rights activists to the point where they were calling my house at 2am and threatening me and my family. That is unacceptable.

If you asked I think you would find that most of us in research are as appalled as you when real cases of animal abuse are found in labs. It's inexcusable. I'm sorry this is late but I missed the post earlier.

"During my medical education … I found vivisection horrible, barbarous and above all unnecessary." -- Carl Jung, MD

"We sacrificed daily from one to three dogs, besides rabbits and other animals, and after four years experience, I am of the opinion that not one of these experiments on animals was justified or necessary."
-- Dr. George Hoggan (1875), student of Claude Bernard, MD, a leading and ardent vivisectionist. Bernard (1813 — 1878) was France's most famous physiologist. In his 1865 book, "Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine," Bernard argues that progress in medicine is not possible without animal-based physiological research. He taught that the researcher must not be hampered by the blood and cries of his animal subjects.

"Vivisection has done little for the art of the doctor at the bedside, but it has done immeasurable harm to the character and mind of the rising generation of doctors."
-- Dr. Rudolph Hammer

"Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research."
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Whenever people say, 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it."
-- Brigid Brophy

"I abhor vivisection…. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty."
-- Charles W. Mayo, MD (1961), son of the co-founder of the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Charles W. Mayo (1898 — 1968) was a skilled surgeon and a member of the Mayo Clinic's Board of Governors.

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
-- Albert Sabin, MD (1986), developer of the live-virus polio vaccine. Sabin (1906 — 1993) was a physician and microbiologist who developed a live-virus polio vaccine that helped curb the spread of the then deadly disease.

"At present it is a rare person that emerges from medical training with his or her humanity intact."
-- Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 261, p. 2011, (1989)

@upset

There is no doubt violations do occur on occasion... but certainly are not the norm.

Noncompliance issues are sometimes raised by the internal mechanisms the university has at its disposal (such as the IACUC committee) and sometimes by external USDA inspections. When these problems are identified, institutions and investigators should make sure they take immediate corrective action.

Mr Budkie and other activists would like to make the public believe that scientists do with animals as they please with complete disregard to laws and regulations. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Perhaps Mr. Budkie would care to share with the public the multiple complaints he filed with USDA which, after subsequent investigation, they were found to be completely unfounded and dismissed?

Opponents of research should be honest and acknowledge from the outset that there is no amount of oversight and compliance that would make animal research acceptable to them.

They should be honest and acknowledge that they believe that there is no amount of benefit from research that would justify their use by scientists.

Then, we could have a reasoned and public debate about the issue.

Conditions in labs are some of the best in the world, and the biomedical industry is one of the most heavily regulated. However, accidents happen - rarely, but they do happen. When this occurs it is the job of management to ensure this does not happen again.

Finding examples of minor slips in animal care does little to benefit animals except to undermine the lifesaving work done by researchers. In a major hospital you would likely find many more minor slips in welfare (errors in treatment etc) however we would not condemn the whole field of medicine for this reason. Similarly researchers are working round in efforts to find treatments to the many ailments which cause human suffering. Through their efforts we have treatments for breast cancer, vaccines for cervical cancer, TB, Polio and meningitis, treatments for AIDS (which allow sufferers to live relatively normal lives), and many surgical techniques including kidney and liver transplants.

calling them on it:

OK, I can find quotes too.

Allyson,
Thanks for raising that first point.
I looked on your web site and this point really struck me:
"Stressed or unhealthy animals make poor study subjects–they do not provide good data and can introduce uncontrolled variability in the research results. If valid, reproducible data cannot be obtained, the use of animals cannot be ethically justified. The established laws and regulations, therefore, function to prescribe a commonly understood basis for ensuring that humane standards are maintained for the care of animals." When I read that, I gasped.
It seems like a pretty bulletproof argument for why painful animal experiments should not be conducted.
Pain creates stress and stress flaws the experiment.
If you use anesthesia, the anesthesia would flaw the experiment by introducing different chemicals in the body.
Given the choice, I'll take the experiment with anesthesia regardless, but since all painful experiments are flawed, it seems pointless.

I am troubled by the personal harassment that the researchers have experienced, such as the late night phone calls.
What we need is a focused and productive discussion and you're really helping with that. Again, I was fascinated to see the argument posted above on http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/research-regulation/. Thanks for sharing it.

This is free speech in action at its finest. Anyone who claims to be an American should be proud of these individuals. They are doing what our founders did: speaking up for the rights of the innocent and downtrodden. Go, go, go!

@Dario

What additional forms of oversight and compliance are you proposing? How can opponents reject that which does not exist?

The extremely lax bare bones minimal federal regulations could not even be met, as Yale was cited for multiple and repeated violations. No apologies or explanations have been offered about these abuses, nor any evidence that these violations have been remedied and will not be repeated.

We are listening Mr. Ringach, please propose new oversight and compliance and give us an opportunity to accept or refute it. A good starting point may be to operate within the law. If you have nothing to hide, give us a tour of the lab and show the public that your facility is now at least operating within federally regulated standards.

@Dario -

I would be happy to acknowledge that "there is no amount of oversight and compliance that would make animal research acceptable" and I don't think it would be difficult to find others who would "admit" this.

Creating regulations and complying to those regulations does not suffice to transform an immoral activity into a moral one. Many of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities were very well regulated, there is no reason why genocide (for example) cannot coexist with meticulous bookkeeping...as we well know.

I stressed to many people who passed last week's protest--general public and media representatives alike--that violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) were not of principal concern to us. Rather it is the every day, legally sanctioned violence against animals that is the real problem.

The AWA offers so little protection to animals that compliance is pretty cheap and not something that guarantees moral permissibilty by any means.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics in their 2005 report on the ethics of research involving animals said the following:

"Regulation can act as an emotional screen between the researcher and an animal, possibly encouraging researchers to believe that simply to conform to regulations is to act in a moral way."

I think that is pretty succinctly put.

If animal testing isn't torture or abuse, why can't they just take the money they'd use to care for the animals and use it to pay human volunteers?

Ian Smith:

Then may I suggest you read the Public Health Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals which is published by the NIH and offers further regulations for lab animals not covered by the AWA. The AWA is one regulation, but not the only one. There are others. The PHS policy covers all vertebrates used in research. As just a bit of trivia, the AWA does not exclude all rodents, just mice of the genus Mus and rats of the genus Rattus.

You may also want to pick up the Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. There is also the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals. Biomedical research is in fact the second most heavily regulated industry in the US, the first being the airline industry.

Maria:

The chemicals used for anesthesia, to my knowledge, do not interfere with the research. For instance, if an osmotic pump is implanted into a mouse, the mouse is anesthetized, the pump is surgically inserted using the same aseptic techniques a human surgeon would use, and then the incision is sutured (using the same methods you would see in an emergency room). The animal is then monitored until it wakes up and is often given some form of analgesic or antibiotics post surgery. Oddly enough, surgical glue which was fist used in veterinary practice is now being used in human operations. When I had arthroscopic knee surgery this year that's what they used to close my incisions.

I'm not sure of the exact wording and perhaps Allyson could help me with this, but any research that causes more than momentary pain (which is defined as if it would hurt a human it would hurt an animal) some form of pain relief must be provided unless the investigator can provide reasons why it shouldn't. The only exception that I've heard of is when the research involves the responses to pain.

One of the main reasons that research facilities are reluctant to let in visitors is because we just never know who might be an animal rights activist out to advance their agenda. It's too bad because many of us would love to show people what we do. We're proud of our work and I think if people could get first hand experience of what an animal facility looks like they'd see that there is a lot of propaganda put out by these animal rights groups that's just plain false.

Emma: I think you're somewhat misinformed about the process. The FDA won't approve a drug for clinical trials (in humans) until it's been tested in animals. It's not an either/or situation.

@Dave Bienus

There is a significant difference between federal law such as the Animal Welfare Act and the additional guidelines which you mention.

One difference being that the guidelines you cite are not mandatory for all laboratories but hinge on the source of funding. A second significant difference is that deviating from a guideline is not the same as violating a law. Deviating from guidelines does not bring fines or criminal penalties. There is also the matter of enforcement which would exist regardless of what laws or guidelines actually say.

But the whole point of my previous post was that regulation cannot transform the mutilation and killing of animals into a moral activity; so the claiming that I did not adequately detail the regulations which exist is not much of a response.

It doesn't matter what the regulations are or what degree of compliance is achieved, experimenters publish the details of what they do to animals in their own papers which provide more than adequate grounds to condemn their actions.

@ VRS
Yes, I am proud to be American!
This is what my dad, and all his fathers before him, fought for!

The most clear distinction of positions relates to the question of "moral" behaviors. Ian and PETA's position is that - if you eat meat, if you believe that animal-based research is justified if it saves lives or if you keep animals at home for companionship or for farm work or the like - you are immoral.

He thinks that - if you believe that your child's life is worth more than that of a mouse - you are immoral.

Personally, I find it chilling when people in our society set their own moral vision above that of others, in turn deciding when and where to deliver punishment to the "immoral" for violating their puritanical (in this case, animal rights) views. As AR activists increasingly adopt the methods of anti-abortionists and homophobes like the Reverend Fred Phelps, we all have something to fear.

Be quite aware - this means that the protests they bring to scientists at Yale could easily appear on your doorstep.

Ian,

... The PHS applies to all NIH funded projects which account for over 85% of all animal research projects. Also, I've never tortured or mutilated an animal. ...

Dave,

It is unfair and inaccurate to brand animal research opposition as extreme.

For some readers, the concerns raised in this story are limited to animal research and do not extend to vegetarianism, nor to pets, nor to animal rights versus animal welfare.

'We' ( actually I, since I don't represent a group, but allow me to speak for the moderates) want animal research phased out or used as little as possible because it seems to inflict unnecessary suffering.
People have a long tradition of 'using' animals.
When people 'use' animals for our own purposes, we often attempt to eliminate pain as much as possible. We do this because we consider it moral.

Animal rights may figure into the debate on animal research, but to me it's one part of a much bigger argument.
When I say I want animal research phased out -- I want us to be consistent with our stated and traditional values.
These values do not include inducing excruciating pain on unwilling participants, and animals come under that protection. We have laws that protect animals from cruelty and I don't believe labs should be exempt from the principles behind those laws.

I would just like to reiterate that the debate over use of animals in research is different than the debate over animal equality.

Maria,

Fair point. I guess I would ask that if we phase out animal models for research what would be it's replacement? We still need to test new drugs and procedures before introducing them to the mass market. Do you honestly want the first test subjects to be humans? What then would be considered an acceptable loss rate? Computer simulations are good, but they are limited to the programing at the time of release. How would you find new information? Cell cultures are good, but 1) the cells have to come from somewhere, and 2) cells don't tell you how something will act system wide.

Animal research looks to follow what we call the 3R's, Reduce, Replace and Refine. We look to reduce the number of animals used in a project. This is actually becoming more of a reality as things such as MRI's, PET scanners, Bioluminescence imaging and ultrasound let us use fewer animals. For example. At one time studying tumor growth at different stages could only be accurately studied by setting up a huge number of mice,injecting them with the tumor agent and then sacrificing them at different time intervals to see how far the tumor had progressed. Now we can tag the tumor cell line with a bioluminescent marker and image the same mouse at different time periods. This has drastically reduced the number of animals needed and gives a more accurate picture of how the tumor develops.

I refer to animal rights activists because those are the most common types we deal with. You're right that it's not fair to lump everyone into the same category, so for that I apologize. I would like to challenge your statement of, "seems to inflict unnecessary pain." To begin with any procedure that is likely to cause more than momentary pain must explain how the pain will be alleviated. Momentary pain is like that caused by getting a shot. So if I'm going to do surgery on a mouse, not only does the mouse have to be anesthetized so that it doesn't feel the pain during surgery, but I have to provide some sort of post-op pain relief such as topical pain medication.

I don't excuse those in our field that have abused animals. Yes it's happened and yes it's appalling. It doesn't happen nearly as often as groups like PETA or the HSUS would have you believe and most instances are actually policed internally, not by undercover operations by the above groups. Also, those groups have, in the past, edited their video so as to advance their cause regardless of what really happened. One example was a video showing monkeys jumping around their cages making a lot of noise. The voice over said it was because they had gone insane from being caged. However, anyone that has worked with primates knows they don't like intruders and merely being in the room with the camera was likely the cause for the commotion. I almost never work with the primates we have and yet every time I go in there they go nuts. I'm an intruder.

How about I'll stop assuming everyone opposed to research is an animal rights activist if you can work on convincing some of your people that were not psychopaths that enjoy torturing animals? Please see the response to Lauren I wrote too.

Dave,
That sounds fair to me.

@Dave Bienus

It's a mistake to get so hung up on whether vivisectors enjoy tormenting and killing animals or whether they do it reluctantly.

When [researchers] inject animals with cocaine the effects are not exacerbated if she takes delight in the result and they are not mitigated if she is reluctant.

Eichmann may not have cared for his boring desk job, shuffling papers all day but it doesn't change his culpability...

@Andy

1.There would be no treatment for diabetes without the animal experiments performed by Banting and Macleod.

~For background, this Web site http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Experiments.htm on "The Discovery of Insulin: A Canadian medical miracle of the 20th century" gives an overview Banting and MacLeod's dog-based research (that also used fetal calf pancreases) that is touted by pro-animal researchers

~A veterinarian Brandon Reines disputes their research on this site: http://archive.animalvoices.org/insulin1.htm saying that "new historical evidence unearthed by medical historian Michael Bliss for his new book on the discovery of insulin reveals that virtually every step in the traditional account is highly questionable, if not outright false" and that "the animal experimentation which preceded the discovery insulin was not part of the scientific process that led to the discovery. While the various dog experiments conducted by von Mering and Minkowski in 1882 and by Banting and Best in the early 1900s were undoubtedly useful for convincing skeptics that insulin exists, all the hard scientific information which allowed researchers to discover insulin consisted of clinical data: observations of actual human patients."

2.The use of streptomycin to treat tuberculosis was pioneered using an animal model.

~As the Wiki article says, Selman Waksman developed Streptomycin in vitro. Only later was it used by Corwin Hinshaw and William Feldman in four guinea pigs to cure tuberculosis with which they had been infected. Hinshaw followed these studies with human trials that provided a dramatic advance in the ability to stop and reverse the progression of tuberculosis.[25][26] Mortality from tuberculosis in the UK has diminished from the early 20th century due to better hygiene and improved living standards, but from the moment antibiotics were introduced, the fall became much steeper, so that by the 1980s mortality in developed countries was effectively

3.Many details of the life cycle of malaria have been discovered through animal research."

~See the section "A historical perspective of 30 years of malaria research" in Hadwen Trust's Replacing Primates in Medical Research found here: http://www.scienceroom.org/replacing-primates-in-medical-research-new-report-launched

Here is a quick summary:
Malaria, a parasitic infection that kills 1-2 million people per year, has been the focus of intense research for decades. Several malaria vaccines originally developed and tested in primates have failed to generate immunity in humans. One of the factors hampering progress is that the species of parasite used in primate studies may not naturally infect those hosts. This may lead to contradictory results, when data acquired through an artificial setting is transferred to natural infections. A realistic alternative to the primate models has recently been developed involving in vitro human liver cell cultures, where the liver stage of the infection can be studied. Using such cultures, it will soon be possible to identify vaccine candidates and screen anti-malarial drugs. Human studies are essential for understanding why malaria parasites differ in their infectivity and to elucidate how individual differences in immune response contribute to the infection outcome.

@Christine

It's interesting that you mention Brandon Reines essay on the discovery of insulin, in which he makes the case that animal-based experiments were only accessories to actual scientific progress. This essay is actually a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty that is so common in attempts to discredit animal-based experiments. In this essay Reines uses Michael Bliss' "The Discovery of Insulin" as his primary source (an excellent book by and excellent science historian, by the way). Michael Bliss said the following when asked to comment on Reines essay:

"I was appalled at the distortion of my work in the pamphlet and have written to both Mr. Reines and the American Anti-vivisection Society protesting their unethical, distorted use of my material in a cause with which I entirely disagree. I believe my book, The Discovery of Insulin, shows the absolute necessity for animal experimentation in the work that produced that momentous breakthrough. Thousands of dogs had to be sacrificed. When the research succeeded, thanks in substantial part to that sacrifice, millions of human lives were saved. Anti-vivisectionists who use my research to try to support their cases are either ignorantly or deliberately misunderstanding it. I cannot condemn their efforts too strongly."

(from An Odyssey with Animals: A Veterinarian's Reflections on the Animal Rights & Welfare Debate by Adrian Morrison)


I'll accept the argument that animal experimentation, even though it works, is not morally acceptable. I don't agree with that argument, but I can try to understand it. To use the sort of tactics that Mr. Reines has used, however, only serves to muddy the waters of the debate with misinformation. Again, this sort of dishonesty detracts massively from civil debate about the topic.

Regarding the points tuberculosis point, I never argued that animal experimentation was the only factor in eliminating tuberculosis, only that it saved many lives in conjunction with improvements in sanitation.

Regarding your point about malaria, only one strain of human malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, can currently be grown in vitro. The others must be passaged through animal hosts, a process that is necessary for work to conducted in a laboratory setting.

Maria: If you'll notice, Diana is the type of person I was eluding to. Why would I want to now discuss anything with someone who already is comparing me to the Nazis?

Here are a few doctors who do not agree that "Vivisection is a safer alternative to human testing.'

Species difference makes it impossible for medicine for one species to be based on any other species or variety of species. Humans and animals only get the same diseases 1.16% of the time. Humans now have 30,000 diseases yet about 60 million animals are killed in medical 'research' each year. Why is nothing cured? How did we get 30,000 diseases? The hundreds of thousands of artificial substances that we consume or come into contact with pass a fraudulent test, ie they are tested on other species of animals, this protects the financial health of the drug/chem co's via legal protection at the expense of our physical health and that of the environment.

Imagine this... a cat is sick with a feline (cat) disease. We want to help the cat. It is suggested that we observe the sick cat. This gets no funding. It is then suggested that we observe the population of cats to find why some get this disease and others do not and to then eliminate the cause. This also gets no funding. Then it is suggested that we get other animals which do not and cannot get this disease, we artificially induce symptoms in these healthy animals (eg dog, mouse human) and then try to 'cure' them. This is called an 'animal model' and it has no correlation to the real disease so the 'cure' does not work. This is why despite billions of dollars and millions of animals killed no human diseases are being cured despite constant claims of breakthroughs


DOCTORS AGAINST VIVISECTION

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."

• Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.
  
  "Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
  
• Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.
  
  "Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
  
• Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.
  
  "Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
  
• Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.
  
  "Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
  
• Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.
  
  "Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
  
• Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.
  
  "Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
  
• Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).
  
  "Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
  
• Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.
  
  "Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
  
• Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).
  
  "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
  
• Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.
  
  "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
  
• Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.
  
  "Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
  
• Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.
  
  "All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
  
• Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.
  
  "My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
  
• Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.
  
  "Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
  
• Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.
  
  "It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
  
• A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.
  
  "The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned."
  
• Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.
  
  "Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished."
  
• Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.
  
  "Experiments on animals do not only mean torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people. Vivisection is a double-edged sword."
  
• Major R.F.E. Austin, M.D., 1927, Royal College of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.
  Cawadias (1953) has said that "The history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation and disaster."
  (British Medical Journal, October 8 1955, p.867.)
  
  The above quotes were taken from the book 1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989.
  For further information or to purchase the book contact Hans Ruesch Foundation/CIVIS - POB 152, via Motta 51, CH-6900 Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland
  
  German researchers Drs H and M Stiller, "In praxis, all animal experiments are scientifically indefensible, as they lack any scientific validity and reliability in regard to humans. They only serve as an alibi for the drug manufacturers, who hope to protect themselves thereby". Peter Tatchell, "Animal Research Is Bad Science", 2001.
  
  Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain, under oath at a hearing investigating the Thalidomide tragedy, said, "No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is carried out on several animal species including primates under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave in the same way in humans; because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal". Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1997, p. 103.
  Thalidomide only causes birth defects in 3 of the 63 species it was finally tested on.
  www.caare.org.uk

In reference to Andy's earlier discusiion:

@ Dr Margaret

Thank you for such an informative post!