Peter Doherty advocates trialling vaccines on primates

[Guest guest]

The World Today - Peter Doherty advocates trialling vaccines on primates

 

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s888132.htm]

 

 

The World Today - Wednesday, 25 June , 2003 12:42:00

Reporter: Lisa Millar

ELEANOR HALL: Australian scientist Peter Doherty, who won the Nobel Prize

for medicine in 1996, has warned that research on cures for diseases like

AIDS and cancer is not likely to advance very far if scientists can't test

their trial vaccines on primates.

 

Speaking at the world's largest scientific convention in Washington,

Biotech 2003, Professor Doherty says he's concerned that animal rights

activists won't accept that most medical advances depend on experiments on

animals.

 

And he's been telling our North America Correspondent, Lisa Millar, that

scientists are losing the public relations war.

 

PETER DOHERTY: Obviously a lot of people feel very strongly against

experiments in animals, but the reality of current research, particularly

as we try, say, to develop a vaccine for AIDS, is that we're not likely to

get very far unless we do experiments in animals.

 

AIDS is particularly difficult because we can't use a lab mouse, we have

to use a primate, and so there is a lot of sensitivity about that and it's

a matter of relative values. Current deaths this year from AIDS, will be

in the neighbourhood of 3-million, and it will be something like 500,000

children die, and those numbers are increasing.

 

And so while one respects the sensitivities of people who care deeply

about these issues, you have to ask what is the value for humanity, in a

sense?

 

LISA MILLAR: Is it slowing the process then?

 

PETER DOHERTY: It creates a tension. I don't think it is slowing the

process, but it means there has to be a constant dialogue and that we have

to be prepared, or the scientific community also has to be prepared to put

the case for what it does.

 

Now, 25 years ago the scientific community did not have to make that case,

but as we all realise, as technology has become more and more pervasive in

our lives, people are more and more sensitive about the effects that

technology has, and therefore the scientists and the people associated

with them have to stand up and put their position. I think that's

extremely healthy. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

LISA MILLAR: Are the scientists losing the public relations battle at the

moment?

 

PETER DOHERTY: I think to some extent they are, because they're more

moderate in what they say, and some of the animal rights groups can be

very immoderate of course, and there's almost a religious zeal associated

with it, and the scientists are always coming from the point of view of

trying to reason and to make a cogent case.

 

The animal rights groups will often be coming from making an emotional

case and, you know, often emotions are much more powerful than reasons

unfortunately. If you want to have an AIDS vaccine you will have to do

experiments in primates I think, though people are going into humans as

quickly as possible.

 

I think it's difficult for all of us, the thought of working in primate

systems. I find it much… to work with a laboratory mouse it seems much

more remote from us.

 

LISA MILLAR: Have their arguments changed over the years? Are they growing

more fervent? Is the movement growing?

 

PETER DOHERTY: I think there's very strong emotional arguments. I'm not

necessarily saying they're immoderate moderate, I'm saying their

emotional. I think it would be quite inappropriate for people to do

experiments in animals that were not properly controlled and took good

care of the needs of the animal and so forth.

 

We now have very stringent regulations. Any animal experimentation now is

done under very stringent regulations of about pain and suffering, numbers

of animals that are used.

 

These are very carefully monitored by committees and all the universities

and all the research institutes, and there are strong policies that are

laid down through, if you're talking about Australian International Health

and Medical Research Council.

 

We all operate within those guidelines and everyone is better for it. I

don't think it's healthy if the scientists are telling people what should

be done.

 

On the other hand, it's not healthy if people are uninformed, telling

people what should be done, because it may limit progress in dealing with

some very, very difficult human diseases, particularly cancer.

 

ELEANOR HALL: Professor Peter Doherty speaking to Lisa Millar in Washington.

 

 

 

© 2003 Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Copyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm

Privacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm

 

--------------------------------

 

This is just insane the way this man turns the ethical issue onto an

emotional idea, telling that AR activists just do it because they are too

sensitive! They never want to admit how unethical using other beings is,

it would just ruin their plans and i guess they would loose a lot of

money?

f