Letters re animal research/human welfare (6)

[Mary Finelli]

THE FUR (MOSTLY) FLIES
The Scientist, June 3, 2003
Volume 17 | Issue 11 | 21
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/jun/letters_030603.html


Letters in response to: "Animal research is for human welfare," The 
Scientist, 17[9]:16, R. Gallagher, May 5, 2003: 
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/may/edit_030505.html


I am writing to congratulate you on an excellent editorial on "Animal 
Research is for Human Welfare." 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 at 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 Utah
Salt Lake City
sheryl at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at cox.net

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail