The Fur (Mostly) Flies

The Fur (Mostly) Flies I am writing to congratulate you on an excellent editorial on "Animal Research is for Human Welfare."1 I was born and bred in the countryside but have lived and worked in an around several major cities, including London, since 1965. Over the years I have seen the disconnection between city and countryside that you mention grow and grow. Fewer and fewer of our students, for example, have any sort of rural background, and there is no easy answer to their ignorance. My belief is that if you grow up in a small country village you can learn city ways, but to do vice versa is much more difficult. Employment patterns mean that few need to attempt it anyway. City folk are unaware of this disconnection, but at least it will help if they start to become aware of it, and your editorial will be a good start for the scientific community to start to see the divide. Dr. W.E. Lindup Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics University of Liverpool, UK wel@liverpool.ac.uk *** At one time I did experiments involving animals, and I do understand where my leather briefcase came from; however, my thoughts regarding the use of animals has evolved, and I now firmly believe that it is wrong to use these thinking, feeling animals for experimentation. Unlike you, I am not so arrogant as to think that I am a superior being. All of us are here to share this planet. I am not one of the public ignorants that you refer to in your letter. I know exactly what the animals are going through. Two wrongs never make a right, and animal experimentation in the name of science is simply not justified. Although I understand that vivisection will not stop in one single day, I certainly hope that we humans will aim for the ideal--a world in which animals are treated with the respect that they deserve, and one in which humans will have compassion for their fellow beings. The number (in absolutes and percentages) of scientists who are refusing to use animal models increases every day. Apparently, you are out of touch with what is happening in the scientific community! Thanks for the letter--I will send in my contribution to the antivivisection movement today. Sheryl Hohle Technology Transfer Office University of UtahSalt Lake City sheryl@tto.utah.edu *** How much more human welfare do we need, having six billion already? So the asked-for "unequivocal support for experiments on animals" sounds really like a regression in time. Would it not be better to join forces and adopt the three R's: reduce, refine, replace? Speaking as a veterinarian I must consider the rights of all beings, not just of our species. Elisabeth Scheichl São Paulo, Brazil emscheichl@uol.com.br *** We found "Animal Research is for Human Welfare" by Richard Gallagher representative of why scientists are held in low esteem by many in society. Using the "your dog or child" argument instead of examining scientific facts is the modus operandi of those with a vested interest in the animal model. If the vested-interest groups cannot convince the taxpaying public of the importance of the animal model, then do what has been done for decades--appeal to the government to force society to do their bidding. Appealing to the government is exactly what Richard Gallagher and others like him recommend. We suggest an open, honest, transparent, public debate on the issue of the scientific validity of the animal model of human disease in biomedical research in the 21st century. If the vested-interest groups have nothing to hide, there should be no objection to furthering the public's understanding of science. Ray Greek, MD Science Advisor, National Anti-Vivisection Society President, Americans For Medical Advancement Medical Director, Europeans For Medical Advancement Jean Greek, DVM Consultant, National Anti-Vivisection Society Los Angeles, Calif. AFMA@curedisease.com *** You write "Experiments are conducted on animals for human (and animal) welfare. They are an absolute necessity ..." Even "an absolute necessity" needs to be proven--or disproven. Would you please consider the following argument: A given species is defined by its reproductive isolation, due to its unique genetic make-up. The latter determines all biological activities of individuals of that species. Therefore, individuals of two different species have different genetic make-ups and consequently different biological activities. This simple syllogism is a rigorous proof that no species can stand as a reliable biological model for another species, however close both species may be in evolutionary terms. Sometimes, two species may display comparable biological reactions, but sometimes also different, even opposite reactions. To the best of our knowledge, the issue is fully unpredictable. Therefore, trusting the animal model for human health issues amounts to gambling with human life, a smoking gun which kills many. In UK, 20,000 persons a year die because of adverse drug effects, and one drug out of three barely matches the medical benefit of a placebo, despite--or rather because--these drugs were extensively tested in animals. Responsible doctors are tired of seeing their prescriptions harm and even kill their patients. To them, there is an "absolute necessity" for the animal model to go, and to go now! Biomedical progress is a matter of science, not of empiricism. Claude Reiss President, Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine London cjreiss@yahoo.com *** Your editorial, "Animal Research is for Human Welfare," is right on. In my 48 years of pharmaceutical R&D, I have seen many drug candidates administered to human beings and at least 20 new drugs enter the market. We absolutely need leadership not only in government but in science as well. The animal activists simply repeat, over and over again, that animals are not needed and may actually slow down the drug discovery process. These people should be challenged to tell us exactly how they would discover a new therapeutic without animals. How will they choose the dose to give to a patient based on a test-tube experiment? How will they decide the route of administration, the probable safety of the new compound in man (without animal-toxicity info), tolerance of the vein if the treatment is to be intravenous, etc. Nobody challenges these zealots to defend their misguided position with an actual proposal of how to discover a new medicament without the use of animals. In lectures I give on this subject, I outline the steps we now use to discover a drug and then ask for student participation on how to move forward using only in vitro tests. The audience usually just laughs at the suggestions made! Charles G. Smith Rancho Santa Fe, Calif. cgsmithsr@cox.net 1. R. Gallagher, "Animal research is for human welfare," The Scientist, 17[9]:16, May 5, 2003. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

The Fur (Mostly) Flies

The Fur (Mostly) Flies

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of