Aug 31 2010
Any Which Way They Can
Biomedical research is a field that has been immensely important to the advance of medicine without occupying much media spotlight. But because some of this research uses animals, it's a juicy target for animal rights activists at organizations ranging from the Humane Society of the United States to PETA—whose president famously declared that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
HSUS shares PETA’s goal of eliminating all medical research on animals. The top sponsor of this year's HSUS "Taking Action for Animals" conference was the American Anti-Vivisection Society, whose stated goal (see its ad on page 25) is to "end the use of animals in science." So much for curing cancer.
It came as no surprise that HSUS crowed last December about a research paper—which HSUS itself initiated—that appeared in the Journal of Medical Primatology. The article reviewed the past 10 years of hepatitis C research on chimpanzees and concluded that the primates were not useful in working toward a cure.
It was written by Raija Bettauer of McLean, VA. Bettauer has a Master of Science degree, according to the study's text, but she apparently is primarily a lawyer who has written on financial and banking topics, is affiliated with the ASPCA, and used to work for the U.S. Treasury Department. Her listed affiliation in the study itself—"Bettauer BioMed Research"—doesn’t have a website, boasts a whopping 10 search results on Google, and isn't in the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s database at all. It also doesn't show up in Washington, DC. (We can't find evidence that it legally exists anywhere.)
Medical researchers whose work depends on chimpanzees didn't take HSUS's contribution to the debate lightly. In a letter to the editor published two weeks ago in the same medical journal, five research scientists (including 3 veterinarians) expressed their doubts about Bettauer’s work—and about HSUS’s goals.
They write:
It appears that this study was initiated and supported by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an organization that openly advocates an "end to the use of animals in biomedical research." As stated by the author, the purpose of this article "was to ascertain the extent of chimpanzee use ... and any related health and welfare issues." It is our view that this article does not objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the chimpanzee model in hepatitis C research. The article appears to contain numerous unsubstantiated conclusions that support the HSUS agenda of banning the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research.
The scientists go on to dissect, point by point, the contentions of the HSUS-backed research article. The whole thing is worth reading, but this nugget stands out:
The author states that "there is currently not sufficient data or scientific consensus to establish the biological relevance of the chimpanzee model for [hepatitis C virus]." As evidence that is contrary to the author’s statement, we refer the readers to the recent publication in Science of results from chimpanzees that establish great promise for a microRNA-silencing drug (SPC3649) for treating hepatitis C patients [4].
Of course, “great promise” doesn’t matter to animal rights activists ideologically opposed to using animals to cure human disease. They would rather ban it and leave us with computer models (or people) to conduct experiments with. As HumaneWatch “guest blogger” Cheeta the Chimp wrote a few months back, this isn't HSUS's only foray into chimp politics. But don't count on the group to bother with scientific realities when it chooses to weigh in.
Got a comment? Be sure to leave your thoughts below. From August 23 to October 29, 2010 we will be choosing the two best comments each week of 25 words or more, and awarding $100 (each) to the local pet shelters of the commenters' choice. Click here for more information and the official rules.
Related Organizations
Comments
Biomedical research relative to human medical concerns aside, I have dogs. If I use animal care products, whether shampoos, parasite prevention products, vaccines, or medications, I want to know that they are in fact safe, effective and efficacious ON DOGS. This means that the products have to be tested on dogs. This applies also to medical procedures including surgical techniques.
As for products intended for human use, and medications and medical procedures being researched for human use, we do not hear about AR people jumping forward and volunteering themselves as research subjects in order to “save chimpanzees” and other non-human primates. Until this happens perhaps these folks can show some gratitude for the lives of those animals that have been devoted to improving HUMAN quality of life, and admit that in fact these animals are cared for extremely well and treated with compassion in accord with appropriate standards of humane care.
I agree with animal testing for medical purposes, and as long as measures are taken to ensure no animal suffers needlessly. Medicine would never be as advanced as it is today without the use of animals… The same results would take MUCH longer with the use of human test subjects, since our metabolisms and lifecycles are much slower/longer than that of a lab rat or mouse. I admit I am not the biggest fan of testing with primates, but I have no problem with the use of mice, rats, frogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc… as long as care is taken to ensure it is done as humanely as possible. Likewise I know that sometimes there is no replacement for the primate model.
If ALL animal testing were eliminated, all of the novel proteins and antibiotics being found in skin secretions of frogs or in snake venoms would be unavailable for study and discovery, even though they hold possible cures/treatments for diabetes, MS, heart disease, breast cancer, even HIV. Likewise, training mice to go through mazes would be illegal, as would using fruitflies as subjects in student labs.
Not all animal testing leads to death or suffering. Without the use of animals we would not have diabetic insulin, antivenin for snakebites, and MUCH more.
No one likes seeing animals used for research, not even the researchers themselves which is something people do not often realize. In an ideal world, we would be able to make medical progress through other resources that do not involve animals but that is just not realistic. For years, groups like PETA, ALF, and HSUS have been misinforming the public by stating that animal research can ultimately be replaced completely through other modern technologies when that simply isn’t the case. Even these computer models that can replace SOME of the animals used can only go so far, and are used hand in hand with lab animals in order for the studies to produce accurate and valid results. The truth is research saves lives. Ingrid herself relies on an insulin pump that was first tested on dogs and rats in order to survive, how ironic. It’s time things change and researchers fight back these false claims made by Animal Rights groups in order to defend their work, lives, and the real truth about animal research and how animals are used humanely in order to achieve this. Both humans and the lives of the very animals we cherish depend on this considering they benefit from research too.
The AR movement reminds me a lot of the human characters in the recent movie, “Avatar”.
They are absolutely delighted to use all these medical advances and biotechnology to make their own lives better, but will fight tooth and nail to ensure that absolutely no one else ever gets the same opportunity.
There are several words for this attitude. The one which is work-safe and appropriate for a family publication like yours is “hypocrite”.
There has been some research into the use of biodegradable plastics to use as a platform to grow cells and create organs. That being said, some of the first uses for this technology were for animals. It was a Beagle who got the first organ transplant using this method, and it was for a bad bladder, common to the breed. I bet that was one happy dog when it could pee again! (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-05/AUA-ENFB-310598.php) Why is it so bad if an animal can benefit from technology that people can also benefit from? Or if an animal can help save a human’s life? Most animals in labs are well cared for and most are euthanized, not left to suffer til they die. I kind of wish we as people had the same choice!
All I have to say is, my boxer looks at me every day and I love that face. Now, some may say that she needs to try out some makeup to make her prettier (because some people think boxers are ugly), but she’s looking at me saying, “I’m pretty just the way I am!” And she is!
I feel all animals are saying something similar to this when it comes to any kind of experimentation. They are just fine the way they are, don’t experiment on them to mess that up! I’m sure that there are plenty of people out there who will give consent to trying out new products. They know the risks, animals don’t. They can choose, animals can’t.
No Hope use the animals, and volunteers too if you can find them. Animals are not equal to human’s you kind of people need to understand that. I know it’s hard for you, but logic, or maybe I should say ‘“COMMON SENSE” is the only way to go!
Whoa “Regan H”, tone it down a bit there buddy. Trying to belittle someone there because “YOU PEOPLE” believe that you are smarter? Wrong! I didn’t explain myself the way I meant to, I was referring to testing on animals when it comes to products that don’t need to be tested on animals. I came across as being completely against “RESEARCH” for any kind of living being, but I am not. But I do disagree with the fact that animals are not equal to humans, because I would take most animals over humans any day, because animals are innocent where as people are not. I have sympathy for stupid people and innocent animals, not people who think that they are superior. Humans are animals as well, some just think that they are better and superior than any other animal on this planet. I DO NOT LIKE PETA, if I did, I wouldn’t own leather jackets, boots, bags, etc. There is a line that we must draw between right and wrong when it comes to animals. I am a meat eater and will never say that eating an animal is wrong.
But tone down the bitterness there, everyone is entitled to their opinion on everything whether we agree with it or not. =)
I once saw a little business-card-like thing that said “Animal Rights ID”—it was like a medic-alert bracelet that instructed paramedics and ER doctors that they shouldn’t employ any life-saving techniques or drugs to save the person if they were ever tested on animals. Probably a joke at the expense of PETA-types, but maybe we should send HSUS’s direct-mail fulfillment house a few million to slip into the fundraising letters as a “gift” from Wayne Pacelle.
Animal based “research” is a futile WASTE of financial resources and animals which has yet to produce ONE HUMAN CURE or advance understanding of human illness/medicine. This quest for human cures via animal data is FOR BIG PROFIT ONLY benefiting no one and achieving NOTHING. In fact animal based “research” is deleterious to finding cures as there can never be any ANIMAL MODEL FOR HUMAN ILLNESS.This century old FRAUD can be exposed by ONE scientific principle in TWO words SPECIES VARIATION!! OPPOSING the Massive Fraud of Animal Based “Research” is far more a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE!
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
The whole problem is that the vast majority of the public will take all of the HSUS articles at face value, never questioning the facts in evidence. And HSUS knows this. How do you get the general public to question the articles enough to dig for the truth—and when they find it, to believe it?