Animal testing does no good in search for AIDS cure

[Guest guest]

sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-peta01forumsbapr01,0,6241210.story

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Animal testing does no good in search for AIDS cure

April 1, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Justin Goodman

 

The failure of Merck's V520 HIV vaccine highlights a serious problem in HIV/AIDS scientists' heavy reliance on animal testing. According to the National Institutes of Health,

all of the more than 80 vaccines for HIV/AIDS developed using animals

and brought to human trials have failed. V520 is only the most recent

in this string of failures. It showed promise in preclinical trials on

mice, rabbits and monkeys, but in clinical trials, it actually

increased human susceptibility to HIV.

 

A 2005 article by an animal experimenter at the Washington National

Primate Research Center provides insight as to why these vaccines

continue to fall short. It stated that "SIV [the form of the virus that

affects nonhuman primates] models do not allow direct testing of HIV

vaccines" and that "because of the complexity and limitations of the

nonhuman primate models, it remains difficult to extrapolate data from

these models to inform the development of HIV vaccines."

 

In other words, HIV/AIDS experiments on monkeys don't work. Yet,

because they are convenient — monkeys are bred and imported to the

United States by the tens of thousands every year — and because federal

funding is copious, studies on animals continue.

 

Concerns about the flaws of animal testing and the virtues of

human-based medicine are nothing new. As far back as 1987, renowned

AIDS researcher Dr. Allen Goldstein of George Washington

University stated, "The sooner we begin testing on humans, the sooner

we'll hopefully be able to develop a vaccine." Epidemiological,

clinical, in vitro (non-animal) and computational research methods have

provided science with some of its most important insights into HIV and

AIDS and will continue to play an integral role in the discovery of an

effective treatment. Some of the most widely used AIDS treatments, such

as AZT, 3TC and protease inhibitors, were developed using non-animal

methods.

 

Animal-based HIV/AIDS research prolongs the suffering of humans and

animals. Hundreds of millions of federal dollars are squandered every

year on these dead-end studies, as are the efforts of thousands of

researchers, which should be focused on developing new human-relevant

methods to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS.

 

This wasted money could be used in other ways, too. A 2006 study published in Science concluded

that "greater spending on prevention now would not only prevent more

than half the new infections that would occur from 2005 to 2015 but

would actually produce a net financial saving as future costs for

treatment and care are averted." Yet only 4 percent ($956 million) of

the 2007 federal budget went to AIDS/HIV prevention efforts, while 12

percent ($2.6 billion) went to research, much of which involves animals.

 

Further, there are serious ethical problems presented by animal

testing. It is our moral imperative to protect the rights of all

sentient animals, human and non-human. The animals forced to suffer

through these scientifically unsound AIDS experiments undergo acute

weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems and neurological

disorders. If we agree that it is unethical to use vulnerable,

unconsenting humans such as infants and those with severe developmental

disabilities in AIDS experimentation, then it is similarly abhorrent to

subject thinking, feeling nonhumans to the same confinement and abuse,

since the species we belong to, like our intelligence and

self-awareness, does not diminish our ability to suffer.

 

For the sake of our health, our economy and our humanity, the federal

government should immediately redirect HIV/AIDS funding. The lives of

millions of people and animals depend upon it.

 

Justin Goodman is a research associate with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.