A Matter of Opinion-Ignore Lies About Animal Research

A Matter of Opinion
Ignore Lies About Animal Research

As originally published in The Physiologist
Volume 45, Number 6, December 2002, page 491

Robert C. Speth
Washington State University, and Oregon Health & Science University

    APS Member Robert Speth is to be commended for effectively demolishing some of the animal activists� most closely-held misrepresentations about animal research through the use of historical facts. Speth responded to a letter written by a retired science teacher that was published in The Columbian, the newspaper published in Vancouver, WA. Speth�s response is reprinted below. Just as Speth has responded to the misrepresentations of an animal activist, physiologists should willingly step forward and meet similar challenges raised in their communities. Only by speaking up can we expect to continue to have the ability to use animals in our research and teaching programs. By speaking up, we can challenge the efforts of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and other groups to undermine public support for animal health charities that support animal research assertions. Speth is to be congratulated for showing the APS membership how to respond to the challenges raised by animal activists.
    Robert C. Speth is a professor of Pharmacology and Neuroscience at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University in Pullman and adjunct professor of Physiology and Pharmacology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He is a past president of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics.

The Columbian
Vancouver, WA
Monday, September 9, 2002

Opinion Page Editor

    It is unfortunate to see a retired science teacher relaying the litany of lies and rhetoric of the animal rights movement (�A Local View,� 8/30/02).
    What the animal rights movement doesn�t want you to know is that advances such as water purification and sewage treatment arose from the animal experiments of Pasteur and Koch showing that germs were the agents that transmitted infectious diseases.
    Mr. Steinke�s comment that our use of penicillin was not based on animal research, is another inaccuracy rampant in animal rights literature. In what might be one of the most famous experiments ever done, Sir Howard Florey in 1940 used eight mice to demonstrate that penicillin cured streptococcal infections. This Nobel prize-winning discovery led to the use of penicillin in World War II saving the lives of countless soldiers. For more information, see: http://naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/inhumn.htm.
    Regarding Charles Mayo, who retired from his medical practice in 1919, he specified that earnings of the Mayo Clinic be used for medical education and research. Today part of the Mayo Clinic�s mission statement is to, �Conduct basic and clinical research programs to improve patient care and to benefit society.� Today it invests nearly $300 million dollars into animal and human research programs.
    Another animal rightist distortion parroted by Steinke is that animal testing of drugs poses a danger to humans. Again, medical history refutes the animal rightists. Thalidomide caused one of the worst drug-induced disasters upon humanity because it was not adequately tested on animals. Only after thousands of deformed babies were born, was the proper animal testing done, showing that thalidomide was teratogenic (a cause of birth defects). Of note, thalidomide was not approved for morning sickness in the USA because FDA inspector Frances Kelsey required it to be tested on pregnant animals. This entire story is chronicled in the book Suffer the Children: The Story of Thalidomide, by Phillip Knightley and others.
    Delving deeper into medical history, a major reason thalidomide was not approved for use in the USA was because of a prior disaster that led to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. In 1937, an antibacterial, sulfanilamide, was dissolved in an antifreeze solvent (diethylene glycol) and given to children who subsequently died because diethylene glycol is toxic to the kidneys. This law led to safety testing of substances in animals prior to their use in humans and has undoubtedly saved us from countless similar disasters. For further information on these and other examples of US drug legislation, see the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/miles.html.
    This should also serve as a timely reminder of the need to properly store and dispose of antifreeze, because cats and dogs will seek out this sweet-tasting lethal substance.
    The animal rights movement often compares the use of animals by humans to slavery, analogizing their efforts to the civil rights movement. But there is a stark contrast. Martin Luther King did not have to lie to gain support for his movement. Dr. King did not use violence and terror to force his beliefs on others. And, most importantly, Dr. King�s philosophy did not endanger the very people he sought to protect.
    The animal rights movement suffers from a corruption so deep as to defile the use of this term by anyone genuinely concerned with animal welfare. Worse yet, the dishonesty and ignorance of the animal rights movement threatens the health and welfare of the millions of animals whose lives benefit from the symbiotic relationship we have with animals. The animal rights movement would have us stop doing animal research today, knowing fully that this will interfere with the development of cures for newly emerging diseases, such as the West Nile Virus Disease, which causes suffering and death in human and animal populations.
    When you hear stories of animal abuse from animal rightists, ask whether they accurately represent animal usage. There are millions of examples of humane animal use that animal rightists ignore, focusing only on rare incidents of animal abuse. Using their criteria we should also abolish police departments based on a videotape showing excessive force, we should abolish democracy if a public official violates the law, and we should abolish parenthood if a child is abused. Clearly such changes would lead to anarchy and destroy our society. Similarly, implementation of the demands of animal rightists would lead to an animal anarchy, whose victims will be the very animals that animal rightists claim to be wanting to help.

[Index] [Reorganization of Study Sections] [APS News] [Publications] [Membership] [Education] [Public Affairs] [Book Reviews] [News From Senior Physiologists] [People & Places] [Announcements]