The Use Of Animals In Laboratory Research: Debate Presses Forward Animal Rights Advocates' Actions Pose Big Threat To Public Health

Owing to the ongoing debate over health-care reform, we've all become conversant on such once-esoteric subjects as "managed care" and "universal coverage." We're all interested in the matter, and the fact that politicians are meeting the issue head-on illustrates the power of public pressure. But there is one threat to human health that has slipped through a loophole in the public consciousness. It is a threat that has the potential to slow medical progress to a tedious crawl, delaying and sometimes stopping the search for cures and treatments. This threat takes the form of an anti-medical research movement, better known as animal rights. And because the public has failed to expose the movement's agenda and to condemn its tactics, it is growing stronger, more destructive, and more difficult to stop. This is no longer a movement composed of a small band of extremists. Membership in animal rights groups has grown fivefold since 1984, making it one of the fastest-growing social movements in the United States today. Further, letters concerning animals now constitute the third largest volume of mail to the U.S. Congress, exceeded only by those concerned with Social Security and the federal deficit. The animal rightists have also got the support of Hollywood's wealthy elite. Noted celebrities Kim Basinger, Alec Baldwin, and Paul and Linda McCartney, for example, all wave the animal rights banner for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the largest animal rights group in the U.S. This widespread support has been achieved through a tremendous public manipulation campaign. Like many extremist groups, the animal rights movement cloaks its radical intentions under the guise of compassion, hoodwinking the public into believing animal extremists wish to strike a balance between human and animal interests. Yet, unlike the concept of animal welfare, which we all support, the animal-rights agenda calls for a fundamental change in the relationship between humans and animals--from one of responsible stewardship to one of absolute equality. Chief among the animal rights movement's goals is to abolish all medical research work with animals, no matter how necessary or humane. Ingrid Newkirk, cofounder and president of PETA, has stated publicly: "Animal research is immoral, even if it is essential." Of course, you won't find this statement in PETA's direct- mail fund-raising letters, or in its public presentations. But every single dollar of the $10 million donated annually to PETA fuels the spread of this philosophy. The same is true for the other $190 million donated to other animal rights groups nationwide. The animal rights movement uses a classic extremist strategy. The political wing presses forward on the propaganda front while the covert wing plants the bombs. Animal-rights lobbyists have had great success stopping medical research with legislative red tape and regulation. They have helped shift billions of dollars in medical- research funds into compliance with excessive regulations that do not contribute to the welfare of animals, but simply waste scarce resources. For example, laboratories, zoos, animal dealers, and auction operators spent an estimated $2 billion in 1990 complying with tougher federal rules covering the housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, and ventilation of animals. Those extremists for whom the legislative process moves too slowly resort to more dangeroud tactics. The Department of Justice issued a report to Congress in September 1993 that documented 313 instances of animal-rights terrorism in the U.S. since 1977, causing an extimated $1.37 million in direct damages. According to the report, security costs for animal enterprises have risen anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent as a result of extremist animal-rights activity. Bulletproof glass had to be installed in the windows of the laboratory animal-care facility at the University of California, Berkeley. The cost of this security measure was $55,000. It is impossible to account for the costs in terms of human suffering and loss as a result of delayed or aborted research. But is is easy to see how the hopes of those in need of cures and treatments are left in a pile of debris with the torched remains of our nation's research enterprises. American recognize a need to deal with the health-care crisis. We have seen the problematic signs--rising costs of care and Americans without coverage--and we have acted. But all of the work being put into improving our health-care system will be for naught if we allow a powerful band of self-righteous activists to deny us the privilege of studying nonhuman animals--medical science's most valuable tool in the fight against disease. Susan E. Paris is president of Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to informing the public, the media, and policymakers about biomedical research. E-mail address: ampef@delphi.com (The Scientist, Vol:8, #17, pg.12, September 5, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)

The Use Of Animals In Laboratory Research: Debate Presses Forward Animal Rights Advocates' Actions Pose Big Threat To Public Health

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of