THE TELEGRAPH DEBATE ON LABORATORY ANIMALS

[Guest guest]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html

 

Monday, March 20, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW

New-age terrorism

 

Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research

Chris Patten , Oxford University's chancellor, stealthily tiptoed his

way past a recent march in support of animal research. He refused to

take to the podium and stay long. Why all this caution? The

university's press office says, " There is no mechanism for deciding

whether the university should do so (support animal research) " .

Unofficially, however, university officials admit that keeping a low

profile is the best option to beat fanatical animal rights activists.

 

This behaviour is predictable after what befell Prof. Colin Blakemore,

a neurobiologist at Oxford. Animal rights activists sent him letter

bombs packed with tiny HIV-infected needles because he chose to debunk

many of their claims.

 

This is plain terrorism. Animal rights activists, however, demur.

True, the two aren't comparable in terms of the scale of destruction

and loss of life, but both are united by a common purpose: to

terrorise people into changing their viewpoints. Animal rights

activists have spelt doom for biological research from ancient times.

The most blatant example of this is Susruta, who introduced the

concept of surgery in India. His followers, however, couldn't contend

with Buddhism, which as the historical avatar of modern day animal

rights activism made sure that further advancements in this field were

discouraged. And the result was that knowledge advancement made no

progress in India.

 

Animal research has played a vital role in most of the medical

achievements of the last century. From dialysis to organ

transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to

dopamine replacement — everything is based on knowledge attained

through animal research. Therefore, we will be grossly wrong if we

think that the mutually exclusive goals of animal rights and medical

research can be attained simultaneously.

 

The fear of animal activists about too many animals being killed

remains unfounded. There are laws in place to check the gross abuse of

animals and the laws are getting stricter.

 

In her article supporting a moratorium on animal research in the

British Medical Journal, Pandora Pound identified 277 systematic

reviews (review of all published papers to reach a balanced judgement)

of animal research. Out of this, they offered six reviews to criticise

animal research. However, Blakemore and Prof. Tony Peatfield, another

supporter of animal research, debunked most of these arguments as

misinterpretations. In a letter to the journal, they argued that five

of the reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results

predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested.

 

Seeing the bigotry and fanaticism of animal rights activists, how can

they profess love for animals and at the same time harbour ire for

their fellow humans?

 

SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY

 

 

 

27 March, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW

 

Medically futile

 

Some of the experiments on animals are specious

 

Pro-animal-research activists may say what they wish to (New-age

Terrorism, March 20) but there is little to substantiate their claim

that research on animals helps human beings. The argument that we owe

most or all of our advances in medicine to animal research misses out

on a basic point — animal models and humans have different

physiologies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from animal research

" when applied to human diseases are likely to harm a patient, " Moneim

Fadali, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, asserts in his

book Animal Experimentation: A Harvest Of Shame.

 

The fallacy of using animals for medical research is illustrated by

the fact that hundreds of drugs that would have been safe in humans

are deemed hazardous since they fail animal tests. For example,

aspirin and penicillin have all caused illness in animal models, but

have been highly effective when used on humans. On the other hand,

almost 70 per cent of drugs known to cause birth defects in humans

have no effect on pregnant monkeys. Such discrepancies impede medical

research since retrials are costly and time consuming.

 

Can animal experiments be replaced? Jane Goodall, a leading

primatologist, says that it's inconceivable that the human race, which

has developed technology to go to the moon, cannot develop something

to replace animal research with more humane alternatives.

 

And we certainly have such alternatives in the form of advancement in

medical technology. These technologies include silicon chips

containing thousands of liver cells meant to mimic animal metabolism.

There is also vision research with scanners, which can replace brain

experiments on animals. Moreover, computer programmes, molecular

research, demographic analyses and test-tube culture are slowly but

surely making animal research less important. In his book, Vivisection

or Science, Dr Pietro Croce, a spokesperson for the group, Doctors and

Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, says that he had conducted

experiments on animals for years. Croce, however, now feels that

" traditional reliance on animal experiments is scientifically

misplaced " .

 

While it cannot be said that no good has ever come from animal

research, what can be said with certainty is that if the same amount

of money and brainpower had been used in other ways, much more benefit

would have accrued.

 

Moreover, some of these experiments on helpless animals, which wear

the garb of medical research, are misleadingly attractive. Last month,

300 neurologists and neurosurgeons signed a petition for a moratorium

on a cruel Ohio State University research. It asked students to

paralyse mice by dropping heavy weights on their spinal cords. Aysha

Akhtar, a member of Physicians Committed for Responsible Medicine,

rightfully says that the experiment is not only cruel, but also

" medically futile " .

 

SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH