After coming across an article on AC that was grossly inaccurate and misleading regarding animals being used in medical research, the only thing I can do is try to set the record straight. My father has been doing research since before I was born, and I've worked with him from time to time, and the irresponsibility of the author who wrote the article to which I am responding is outrageous and unfortunate, to say the least. At least Michael Moore presented factual information in his biased movie about Bush that intelligent people ignored because it was so ridiculously one-sided.
I've worked in a lab that tested on animals, and there are so many regulations that you can't give them an injection without filling out pages of paperwork; even a rat has its own file. And no one is hurting these animals; apart from the simple fact that you can't get reliable data from an animal that is in pain or stressed, why would someone want to hurt them? And that's not just because you'd lose your job and never be allowed to work in research again, it's mainly because people aren't sadistic and don't enjoy inflicting pain on helpless animals.
Nevertheless, the article tries to argue that animal research has a "disappointing track record and obvious cruelty." She then attempts to argue that "the major advances in medical care we enjoy today have been made possible by techniques such as simple clinical observation, clinical research, human drug surveillance," and so on.
I find this odd considering that clinical and human drug research cannot be undertaken until the drug has undergone years of animal testing that will cost the drug company millions. That's the reason prescription drugs are so expensive; the ones that get through testing have to pay for all of the drugs that failed clinical trials, but still cost the companies a ton of money.
The only thing accurate in the article is that the DNA of humans and animals are 97-99% identical, but, according to the author, "that does not mean that our bodies function in the same way as theirs." That's pretty obvious, but what the article fails to mention is how different animals are used to test different things. Often, the animal is merely testing whether or not the drug is going to be dangerous. Different animals are used for different studies because they do, in fact, share similar physiology when it comes to a particular project. Monkeys are used in HIV research because the Simian Immunodeficiency virus (SIV) is nearly identical to the disease model for HIV infection in humans. What does this person want us to do? Grab homeless people off the street, infect them with HIV, and try out our treatments on them to spare the monkeys?
I should also mention that she tried to explain that "one complicating factor is that it's not just about the DNA, it's also about the millions of base pairs that make up the DNA. Any small change in base pair sequences can mean a big difference between, and even within, animal species."
DNA is composed of base pairs, which means if the DNA is 99% identical, the base pairs are 99% identical; they're the same thing! DNA is composed entirely of base pairs connected by various other molecules; they're not two separate entities that can function independently.
The worst part comes when she tries to use drugs that caused adverse reactions in people as proof that animal testing doesn't work. Yes, of the millions of people who took Vioxx, a few dozen had adverse reactions. It's so rare that it makes national headlines. Thousands of drugs that would hurt people never make it that far because animal testing showed that they were dangerous. Should we spare the animals and start testing on humans immediately?
What really upsets me is that the example this author went with was from the 1960s, when a drug called thalidomide taken by pregnant women caused birth defects in babies. Are you kidding me? A drug in the 60s, which didn't have nearly the safeguards in place today, caused birth defects, and thus we shouldn't test on animals?? I'm not an expert, but haven't some things changed since the 60s?
The bottom line is that animal testing most certainly is necessary to ensure that drugs can move on to be tested in humans. And it's not only in the case of drugs; we study mammalian physiology in animals to learn about our own without having to sacrifice people. We're not the Japanese during World War II.
If you still think it's wrong then fine: don't eat any food you find at the grocery store, drink anything with caffeine or alcohol, or take any drug, whether it's over-the-counter or by prescription, because the only way any food or medicine, with the exception of herbal supplements, can make it to the shelf is if the FDA has approved what it's made out of, and that process certainly includes animal testing.
I guess we'll see what you really believe the next time you get sick.
No comments:
Post a Comment