Advertisement

From Test Tube to Hypodermic Needle

A prescription for educating the public on the value of using animals in medical research

By | December 1, 2011

WIKICOMMONS

England, 1876. Researchers are in a state of panic. A bill to ban all animal experiments, except those certain to lead to knowledge useful in saving or prolonging human life, is moving rapidly toward legislative approval.

According to historian Richard French, the editor of the British Medical Journal mobilized the medical community, and led a “spectacular deputation of several hundred medical men”—including the discoverer of the difference between typhus and typhoid, physician William Jenner—to the Home Office. Their evidence led to rewriting the bill to allow the use of animals in experiments for the advancement of physiological knowledge and the alleviation of either animal or human suffering.

This account offers a lesson for today’s researchers, physicians, and patients. Arguments made by researchers failed to stem the tide of antivivisection in Victorian England. It wasn’t until the medical profession intervened that concessions created sane public policy that ultimately became the law.

Although the use of animals as research subjects enjoyed nearly uniform approval 40 years ago, today only about half of Americans support the practice. We believe that this decline in support is because much of the public doesn’t understand the connection between animal research and personal health.

Curriculum units are desperately needed in the classroom to compete with PETA testimonials from actors and musicians, and with the organization’s awarding of “activist points” redeemable for merchandise. One recently field-tested curriculum unit, “The Science and Ethics of Animal Research,” supported by a Science Education Partnership Award from the National Institutes of Health, is part of a larger syllabus to include two additional modules, now in development: “The Science and Ethics of Humans in Research,” and “The Nature of Scientific Research.”

Organizations that advocate for research also need physicians to work alongside researchers to review and critique middle-school health texts. Too many of those texts present only the results of biomedical research, leaving out its process of discovery through scientific method and its dependence on animal models.

The connection between animal research and personal health can’t be championed only by researchers, who have been progressively demonized and have become the target of extremists. Rather, physicians, who know well how essential basic animal-based research is to the well-being of their patients, are in a better position to make the argument.

The public must come to understand that there  is no “other side” to the fact that animal research continues to improve our health.

When legislatures come under pressure from animal-rights extremists, doctors and nurses must testify. When the media prepares to report biomedical research advances, doctors must comment. When the drug company Bayer puts teen rocker Nick Jonas on stage to advertise diabetes management strategies, doctors must insist that the performer also inform young people about the role lab animals played in the research that led to those treatments.

Because of their interaction with patients, physicians are better positioned than researchers to get the guests on TV talk shows to look the camera in the eye and say, “If it weren’t for animal research, I would not be alive.” Doctors might endorse the distribution of prescription pads that tell the patient and remind the pharmacist, “This medication was developed in part through animal research.”

Doctors working together could step up where health organizations, research foundations, and charities fear to go. Ask any of those groups to sponsor pro-research ads and they will take a pass, concerned about losing contributions and exposing their employees to harassment.

Source: Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR); Years 1948, 1985 and 1989 are industry polling; thereafter from FBR. 2004-2011 polling data is from Zogby International. The inset is a billboard posted in 2011 in several cities by the Foundation for Biomedical Research asking the public to consider the value of human life. IMAGES PROVIDED BY P. MICHAEL CONN. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF FBR

Finally, medical societies need to work more effectively with the media. A recent headline in many newspapers across the country, announced, “HIV/AIDS Pandemic Hits 30-Year Mark with Hope.” Not a word in this long story pointed out that the research was conducted, in very large part, using animal models. Here’s an example of how to face the problem squarely: when the Oregon Health & Science University announced an advance in developing an AIDS vaccine, the university followed that announcement by releasing an op-ed piece, “Behind medical breakthroughs: animal studies,” describing the role that nonhuman primates played in the relevant research.

It is important, moreover, to distinguish “testing” for established toxicities from “research.” Only research can discover previously unknown pathways that either cause drugs to have ill effects or that might allow drugs to beneficially reach new targets. For research that requires the complexity of an intact physiological system, it is likely that we will continue to rely on animals for the foreseeable future.

It’s true that in some applications, researchers have already replaced animals with cell cultures and other technologies. The law requires doing so whenever possible, and most scientists subscribe to even higher standards of humane treatment. It’s also true that drug testing for safety and efficacy may ultimately become more heavily cell-based. Microdosing or “phase zero” studies in human volunteers, for example, may one day reliably allow assessment of how drugs are distributed throughout the body. First, however, it must be demonstrated that this approach will reveal drug effects on the cellular level without being toxic to the whole body.

The public must come to understand that there is no “other side” to the fact that animal research continues to improve our health, any more than there is an alternate view to the roundness of the earth or the existence of gravity. Without that understanding, many people, even as they reach for their pills or wait in the doctor’s office, will wonder why researchers “torture those poor, cute animals.”

James V. Parker, a biomedical ethicist, and P. Michael Conn, a senior scientist at the Oregon Health and Science University’s Oregon National Primate Center and a professor in the University’s School of Medicine, coauthored The Animal Research War (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: DeepBlueScience

DeepBlueScience

Posts: 11

December 1, 2011

Great article!

It's also worth remembering on World AIDS Day that organizations like PeTA did their best to impead much of the research that has led the treatments that are now available for HIV infection, and the prophylactic treatments that prevent thousands of babies from becoming infected with HIV every year.

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

I'm not surprised that your example of great communication comes from Oregon Health and Science University, they are also very good at responding to misleading claims made by animal rights activists

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of: tvhwy

tvhwy

Posts: 2

December 1, 2011

This article makes the persuasive case that medical experimentation on captive animals has improved human well-being. Unfortunately for those who also wish to persuade others that this is grounds for calling it ethical, there's not a single argument here that wouldn't also justify the captivity and use of humans in medical research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

Great article!

It's also worth remembering on World AIDS Day that organizations like PeTA did their best to impead much of the research that has led the treatments that are now available for HIV infection, and the prophylactic treatments that prevent thousands of babies from becoming infected with HIV every year.

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

I'm not surprised that your example of great communication comes from Oregon Health and Science University, they are also very good at responding to misleading claims made by animal rights activists

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

This article makes the persuasive case that medical experimentation on captive animals has improved human well-being. Unfortunately for those who also wish to persuade others that this is grounds for calling it ethical, there's not a single argument here that wouldn't also justify the captivity and use of humans in medical research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

Great article!

It's also worth remembering on World AIDS Day that organizations like PeTA did their best to impead much of the research that has led the treatments that are now available for HIV infection, and the prophylactic treatments that prevent thousands of babies from becoming infected with HIV every year.

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

I'm not surprised that your example of great communication comes from Oregon Health and Science University, they are also very good at responding to misleading claims made by animal rights activists

http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

This article makes the persuasive case that medical experimentation on captive animals has improved human well-being. Unfortunately for those who also wish to persuade others that this is grounds for calling it ethical, there's not a single argument here that wouldn't also justify the captivity and use of humans in medical research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Humans ARE used in biomedical research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Excellent points, Parker and Conn! I will add that more science-centric media need to follow The Scientist's lead and publish articles like this one to remind the wider science community of the importance of animal research. I have been disappointed lately in the number of ostensibly pro-science sources that print uncritical condemnations of valuable research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

A great article, there can be no doubt that the medical community and Universities need to do more to ensure that the public knows where medical advances come from.

I'm not surprised to learn that OHSU have led the way in explaining why animal research is so important to future medical advances, as they also have a stronger record than many in countering the misleading claims made by animal rights activists http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Humans ARE used in biomedical research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Excellent points, Parker and Conn! I will add that more science-centric media need to follow The Scientist's lead and publish articles like this one to remind the wider science community of the importance of animal research. I have been disappointed lately in the number of ostensibly pro-science sources that print uncritical condemnations of valuable research. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

A great article, there can be no doubt that the medical community and Universities need to do more to ensure that the public knows where medical advances come from.

I'm not surprised to learn that OHSU have led the way in explaining why animal research is so important to future medical advances, as they also have a stronger record than many in countering the misleading claims made by animal rights activists http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of: allangr

allangr

Posts: 3

December 2, 2011

Humans ARE used in biomedical research. 

Avatar of: allangr

allangr

Posts: 3

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research.

Avatar of: allangr

allangr

Posts: 3

December 2, 2011

actually humans ARE used in medical research. 

Avatar of: Harlequinclrty

Harlequinclrty

Posts: 1

December 2, 2011

Excellent points, Parker and Conn! I will add that more science-centric media need to follow The Scientist's lead and publish articles like this one to remind the wider science community of the importance of animal research. I have been disappointed lately in the number of ostensibly pro-science sources that print uncritical condemnations of valuable research. 

Avatar of: DeepBlueScience

DeepBlueScience

Posts: 11

December 2, 2011

A great article, there can be no doubt that the medical community and Universities need to do more to ensure that the public knows where medical advances come from.

I'm not surprised to learn that OHSU have led the way in explaining why animal research is so important to future medical advances, as they also have a stronger record than many in countering the misleading claims made by animal rights activists http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Avatar of: tvhwy

tvhwy

Posts: 2

December 3, 2011

I don't know. But whether they are used in medical research or not, my point is the same. Every argument in this article would be equally suitable to defend a regime where humans are held captive and experimented on. Since such arguments wouldn't convince us to accept that regime, they shouldn't convince us to accept one with animals in place of people, either.

This is not to say humans and non-humans are necessarily deserving of the same moral treatment. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that properly distinguishes the two. But this article doesn't make it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 3, 2011

I don't know. But whether they are used in medical research or not, my point is the same. Every argument in this article would be equally suitable to defend a regime where humans are held captive and experimented on. Since such arguments wouldn't convince us to accept that regime, they shouldn't convince us to accept one with animals in place of people, either.

This is not to say humans and non-humans are necessarily deserving of the same moral treatment. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that properly distinguishes the two. But this article doesn't make it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 3, 2011

I don't know. But whether they are used in medical research or not, my point is the same. Every argument in this article would be equally suitable to defend a regime where humans are held captive and experimented on. Since such arguments wouldn't convince us to accept that regime, they shouldn't convince us to accept one with animals in place of people, either.

This is not to say humans and non-humans are necessarily deserving of the same moral treatment. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that properly distinguishes the two. But this article doesn't make it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 5, 2011

In May 2011, OHSU researchers discovered a 50% effective vaccine against HIV.
http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...

Unfortunately, H$U$ lobby in congress is pushing an act that will make it impossible to continue work on that vaccine.
http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Well, animal rights lunatics do what they promised.
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." - PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newhitler... sorry... Ingrid Newkirk.
http://animalscam.com/quotes.c...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 5, 2011

In May 2011, OHSU researchers discovered a 50% effective vaccine against HIV.
http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...

Unfortunately, H$U$ lobby in congress is pushing an act that will make it impossible to continue work on that vaccine.
http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Well, animal rights lunatics do what they promised.
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." - PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newhitler... sorry... Ingrid Newkirk.
http://animalscam.com/quotes.c...

Avatar of: Dr. Fleischacker

Dr. Fleischacker

Posts: 1457

December 5, 2011

In May 2011, OHSU researchers discovered a 50% effective vaccine against HIV.
http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...

Unfortunately, H$U$ lobby in congress is pushing an act that will make it impossible to continue work on that vaccine.
http://speakingofresearch.com/...

Well, animal rights lunatics do what they promised.
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." - PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newhitler... sorry... Ingrid Newkirk.
http://animalscam.com/quotes.c...

Avatar of: Brian Hanley

Brian Hanley

Posts: 66

December 13, 2011

I think that the article should have noted that the anti-vivisectionists did accomplish some good. There was a time when animals were dissected alive without anesthetics. We don't do that anymore. And I support some things PETA has done, such as exposing the practice of skinning cage raised raccoon-dogs alive, their bodies tossed, still alive, on a pile, where they slowly expire in the sun.

It isn't that studies on animals are easy. Those who work with primates, for instance, have broken down crying and tried to get an animal's life spared. In at least one case, the animal may have been smuggled out by caretaker staff to save him. He vanished without a trace. Sensible research facilities understand this, and leave such cases be. Even rodent studies need regular updates on what the ethical standards are.

But cell based assays don't work for much of pharma. Concentrations of drugs that are effective in vitro may need to be hundreds of times higher in vivo. There may be unforeseen effects somewhere. For other therapies, such as gene therapy, it is impossible to do a study in vitro. For surgical studies, the same is true.

Thus, medications go through animal and very often primate studies. Periodically, as in the case of Jolee-Mohr, we get a reminder that rodent studies aren't sufficient. She died of an experimental treatment where the clinical trial was approved, bypassing primate studies. Would it have saved the life of this attractive young woman? Perhaps so. Did PETA, et al, have something to do with her death? Indirectly, I think that is definitely so.

Do the obstructions thrown up make medical research more expensive, or so onerous it is dropped, thus leading to lack of treatments? Yes. That is definitely true.

I think it should also be noted that there is a large amount of hypocrisy on the part of PETA and the various notables who speak up for them. The number of non-rodent animals used in research nationally pales compared to the quantity of animals passing through the meat counter of a single large grocery story each year.

In terms of sheer numbers, about 9 billion animals (not including fish, shrimp, shellfish, etc.) are slaughtered each year in the USA for food use, of which approximately 150.4 million are cattle, bison, goats, sheep, and pigs, and 8.9 billion birds. There are maybe 25 million (although some estimates have gone as high as 40 million) rodents, mostly mice, used in medical research each year. (Although not all of those are terminated each year.) Medical research is less than 1/3rd of 1% of all animals killed in a year by humans. And that does not include fish.

In terms of thoughtfulness about the animals by researchers, those in sciences definitely think more about the animals they work with, and weigh the cost and benefits of those lives more carefully than those who eat them. Yes, not all researchers care much, but most do. Collectively, researchers consider far more deeply the effect on animals of what they do than does your typical consumer at a grocery store, or people dining at a restaurant.

Collectively, I am quite sure that the research community considers the effects of what they are doing more carefully than does PETA, ALF, et al.

It really needs to be asked why it is that PETA and others are hypocritically selecting the "soft target" of this tiny fraction of animals. Is it morally superior to enjoy the taste of carrion? Is it morally superior to eat it than to make use of medications and surgical procedures that save lives?

Is it really true that gustatory delights of ham, beef, chicken, etc. are better than saving people's lives? Really? Because that is what PETA, ALF, etc. are saying by their actions.

Avatar of: Sasha Lukas

Sasha Lukas

Posts: 2

December 13, 2011

Sorry, the public is given more and more information on alternative methods of testing and research, as well as scientific organizations such as PCRM and AAVS that state facts and have physicians backings.  Not all, and a minority of viable results have resulted from animal testing.

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

December 13, 2011

I am reminded of a debate on animal testing at our University, where one of the protagonists made a reductio ad absurdam case for including brain-damaged humans in clinical trials.  Apparently a transplant surgeon took him seriously, and said "Can we??"

Seriously, now: ethics is a moving target; there is no "absolute" in animal work.  Some of what was perfectly acceptable 50 years ago is no longer tolerated, partly because of better understanding of animal cognition and physiology - but the testing of certain vaccines, for example, can ONLY be done in animals as in vitro systems simply don't cut it in terms of the total response.  If and when we completely understand the immune systems of target species, then perhaps we can use animals-on-a-chip.  But until then....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

I think that the article should have noted that the anti-vivisectionists did accomplish some good. There was a time when animals were dissected alive without anesthetics. We don't do that anymore. And I support some things PETA has done, such as exposing the practice of skinning cage raised raccoon-dogs alive, their bodies tossed, still alive, on a pile, where they slowly expire in the sun.

It isn't that studies on animals are easy. Those who work with primates, for instance, have broken down crying and tried to get an animal's life spared. In at least one case, the animal may have been smuggled out by caretaker staff to save him. He vanished without a trace. Sensible research facilities understand this, and leave such cases be. Even rodent studies need regular updates on what the ethical standards are.

But cell based assays don't work for much of pharma. Concentrations of drugs that are effective in vitro may need to be hundreds of times higher in vivo. There may be unforeseen effects somewhere. For other therapies, such as gene therapy, it is impossible to do a study in vitro. For surgical studies, the same is true.

Thus, medications go through animal and very often primate studies. Periodically, as in the case of Jolee-Mohr, we get a reminder that rodent studies aren't sufficient. She died of an experimental treatment where the clinical trial was approved, bypassing primate studies. Would it have saved the life of this attractive young woman? Perhaps so. Did PETA, et al, have something to do with her death? Indirectly, I think that is definitely so.

Do the obstructions thrown up make medical research more expensive, or so onerous it is dropped, thus leading to lack of treatments? Yes. That is definitely true.

I think it should also be noted that there is a large amount of hypocrisy on the part of PETA and the various notables who speak up for them. The number of non-rodent animals used in research nationally pales compared to the quantity of animals passing through the meat counter of a single large grocery story each year.

In terms of sheer numbers, about 9 billion animals (not including fish, shrimp, shellfish, etc.) are slaughtered each year in the USA for food use, of which approximately 150.4 million are cattle, bison, goats, sheep, and pigs, and 8.9 billion birds. There are maybe 25 million (although some estimates have gone as high as 40 million) rodents, mostly mice, used in medical research each year. (Although not all of those are terminated each year.) Medical research is less than 1/3rd of 1% of all animals killed in a year by humans. And that does not include fish.

In terms of thoughtfulness about the animals by researchers, those in sciences definitely think more about the animals they work with, and weigh the cost and benefits of those lives more carefully than those who eat them. Yes, not all researchers care much, but most do. Collectively, researchers consider far more deeply the effect on animals of what they do than does your typical consumer at a grocery store, or people dining at a restaurant.

Collectively, I am quite sure that the research community considers the effects of what they are doing more carefully than does PETA, ALF, et al.

It really needs to be asked why it is that PETA and others are hypocritically selecting the "soft target" of this tiny fraction of animals. Is it morally superior to enjoy the taste of carrion? Is it morally superior to eat it than to make use of medications and surgical procedures that save lives?

Is it really true that gustatory delights of ham, beef, chicken, etc. are better than saving people's lives? Really? Because that is what PETA, ALF, etc. are saying by their actions.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

Sorry, the public is given more and more information on alternative methods of testing and research, as well as scientific organizations such as PCRM and AAVS that state facts and have physicians backings.  Not all, and a minority of viable results have resulted from animal testing.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

I am reminded of a debate on animal testing at our University, where one of the protagonists made a reductio ad absurdam case for including brain-damaged humans in clinical trials.  Apparently a transplant surgeon took him seriously, and said "Can we??"

Seriously, now: ethics is a moving target; there is no "absolute" in animal work.  Some of what was perfectly acceptable 50 years ago is no longer tolerated, partly because of better understanding of animal cognition and physiology - but the testing of certain vaccines, for example, can ONLY be done in animals as in vitro systems simply don't cut it in terms of the total response.  If and when we completely understand the immune systems of target species, then perhaps we can use animals-on-a-chip.  But until then....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

I think that the article should have noted that the anti-vivisectionists did accomplish some good. There was a time when animals were dissected alive without anesthetics. We don't do that anymore. And I support some things PETA has done, such as exposing the practice of skinning cage raised raccoon-dogs alive, their bodies tossed, still alive, on a pile, where they slowly expire in the sun.

It isn't that studies on animals are easy. Those who work with primates, for instance, have broken down crying and tried to get an animal's life spared. In at least one case, the animal may have been smuggled out by caretaker staff to save him. He vanished without a trace. Sensible research facilities understand this, and leave such cases be. Even rodent studies need regular updates on what the ethical standards are.

But cell based assays don't work for much of pharma. Concentrations of drugs that are effective in vitro may need to be hundreds of times higher in vivo. There may be unforeseen effects somewhere. For other therapies, such as gene therapy, it is impossible to do a study in vitro. For surgical studies, the same is true.

Thus, medications go through animal and very often primate studies. Periodically, as in the case of Jolee-Mohr, we get a reminder that rodent studies aren't sufficient. She died of an experimental treatment where the clinical trial was approved, bypassing primate studies. Would it have saved the life of this attractive young woman? Perhaps so. Did PETA, et al, have something to do with her death? Indirectly, I think that is definitely so.

Do the obstructions thrown up make medical research more expensive, or so onerous it is dropped, thus leading to lack of treatments? Yes. That is definitely true.

I think it should also be noted that there is a large amount of hypocrisy on the part of PETA and the various notables who speak up for them. The number of non-rodent animals used in research nationally pales compared to the quantity of animals passing through the meat counter of a single large grocery story each year.

In terms of sheer numbers, about 9 billion animals (not including fish, shrimp, shellfish, etc.) are slaughtered each year in the USA for food use, of which approximately 150.4 million are cattle, bison, goats, sheep, and pigs, and 8.9 billion birds. There are maybe 25 million (although some estimates have gone as high as 40 million) rodents, mostly mice, used in medical research each year. (Although not all of those are terminated each year.) Medical research is less than 1/3rd of 1% of all animals killed in a year by humans. And that does not include fish.

In terms of thoughtfulness about the animals by researchers, those in sciences definitely think more about the animals they work with, and weigh the cost and benefits of those lives more carefully than those who eat them. Yes, not all researchers care much, but most do. Collectively, researchers consider far more deeply the effect on animals of what they do than does your typical consumer at a grocery store, or people dining at a restaurant.

Collectively, I am quite sure that the research community considers the effects of what they are doing more carefully than does PETA, ALF, et al.

It really needs to be asked why it is that PETA and others are hypocritically selecting the "soft target" of this tiny fraction of animals. Is it morally superior to enjoy the taste of carrion? Is it morally superior to eat it than to make use of medications and surgical procedures that save lives?

Is it really true that gustatory delights of ham, beef, chicken, etc. are better than saving people's lives? Really? Because that is what PETA, ALF, etc. are saying by their actions.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

Sorry, the public is given more and more information on alternative methods of testing and research, as well as scientific organizations such as PCRM and AAVS that state facts and have physicians backings.  Not all, and a minority of viable results have resulted from animal testing.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

I am reminded of a debate on animal testing at our University, where one of the protagonists made a reductio ad absurdam case for including brain-damaged humans in clinical trials.  Apparently a transplant surgeon took him seriously, and said "Can we??"

Seriously, now: ethics is a moving target; there is no "absolute" in animal work.  Some of what was perfectly acceptable 50 years ago is no longer tolerated, partly because of better understanding of animal cognition and physiology - but the testing of certain vaccines, for example, can ONLY be done in animals as in vitro systems simply don't cut it in terms of the total response.  If and when we completely understand the immune systems of target species, then perhaps we can use animals-on-a-chip.  But until then....

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 3, 2012

Great article! Thankfully, there are quite a few programs/curricula in development or having been developed to educate folks of all different ages on the use of animals in research in an attempt to counter some of the sensationalized and inaccurate programs put forth by PETA, etc. The one cited in this article is an excellent one with the backing of a number of educators. My collegue and I have also developed a similar but more abbreviated program designed for high school and college-aged students. You can learn more about it here: www.sharehappens.org

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 3, 2012

Great article! Thankfully, there are quite a few programs/curricula in development or having been developed to educate folks of all different ages on the use of animals in research in an attempt to counter some of the sensationalized and inaccurate programs put forth by PETA, etc. The one cited in this article is an excellent one with the backing of a number of educators. My collegue and I have also developed a similar but more abbreviated program designed for high school and college-aged students. You can learn more about it here: www.sharehappens.org

Avatar of: Share Hayre

Share Hayre

Posts: 1

January 3, 2012

Great article! Thankfully, there are quite a few programs/curricula in development or having been developed to educate folks of all different ages on the use of animals in research in an attempt to counter some of the sensationalized and inaccurate programs put forth by PETA, etc. The one cited in this article is an excellent one with the backing of a number of educators. My collegue and I have also developed a similar but more abbreviated program designed for high school and college-aged students. You can learn more about it here: www.sharehappens.org

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
EMD Millipore
EMD Millipore

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
BioTek
BioTek
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist