|
Laboratory Animal Farm
By Steven Milloy “All animals are equal,” is the Sixth Commandment of Animalism in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” Animal “rights” activists want to expand this egalitarianism to include humans. They’re making headway toward this goal, threatening medical research in the process. “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” says Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of the largest animal “rights” activist group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. There’s no question that’s fringe thinking. But it’s thinking that recently gained a dangerous toehold in federal law. In 1966, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was given authority under the Animal Welfare Act to issue regulations governing the care of research animals. Rats, mice and birds were not covered by the law. In 1998, the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, an animal rights group, petitioned the USDA to cancel the long-time exemption. Before the USDA could take final action on the petition, the ARDF sued claiming the USDA was “arbitrary and capricious” in excluding rats, mice and birds from the regulations. Rather than litigate, the USDA capitulated – based on the advice of the Department of Justice and despite the pleas of numerous biomedical organizations, universities and scientists. The USDA agreed to conduct a new rulemaking that would amend the definition of “animal” for purpose of the animal welfare rules. Fortunately, Congress intervened – temporarily, anyway. The fiscal year 2001 Agricultural Appropriations Act prohibits the USDA from spending any money on rulemaking to implement the agreement with the ARDF. But the prohibition only applies for fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2002 and beyond, all bets are off. The biomedical research community opposes including rats, mice and birds under Animal Welfare Act regulation because, they say, research laboratories already are subject to guidelines on the humane care and use of laboratory animals issued by the U.S. Public Health Service. More regulations would only burden researchers with unnecessary, time consuming and expensive administrative requirements, says Estelle Fishbein, general counsel of the Johns Hopkins University in a commentary in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association. This is sound reasoning, certainly. But it‘s a timid and inadequate defense of the use laboratory animals in medical research. First of all, the ARDF is not the slightest bit interested in “more humane” treatment of laboratory animals. The group flatly opposes all use of laboratory animals in medical research – no exceptions. While subjecting rats and mice – the vast majority of laboratory animals used in medical research – to strict federal regulation does not achieve the ARDF’s goal, it represents an incremental step toward making the use of laboratory animals impractical. Animal research may make some uneasy. But it’s not undertaken without good reason. Laboratory animals provide living systems for medical researchers to test out their ideas. Without laboratory animals, human beings would be the guinea pigs for medical researchers. Animal research has a tremendous track record, playing a key role in research resulting in the prevention and treatment of many diseases, including rabies, small pox, anthrax, rickets, tetanus, arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, cancer, rubella, measles and AIDS. The development of cardiac catheterization, insulin, blood anticoagulants, open heart surgery, cardiac pacemakers, tranquilizers, modern anesthesia, laproscopic surgery and many other advances all relied upon animal research. Compare that medical progress with some of the ARDF’s recommendations for medical learning and research.. The ARDF wants surgery taught through three-dimensional, computer-assisted techniques. But imagine that something goes wrong during a procedure led by a computer-trained surgeon. Would he know what to do? Or would he look for your reset button? The ARDF advocates testing AIDS vaccines in vitro – test tubes and petri dishes, that is. No AIDS treatment to date has been developed without animal testing. Nobel laureate Joseph E. Murray, M.D. says, “Americans must decide whether they support animal research or ‘animal rights.’... We can’t let a potential treatment for AIDS fall victim to their specious rhetoric.” “Research with laboratory animals is required to bring the benefits of advances in molecular genetics, neuroscience and other highly productive fields to clinical application through the study of intact organisms,” says Nobel laureate Harold Varmus. Animal research is not for people only. It’s led to many medical benefits for other animals, including immunization against distemper, rabies, and feline leukemia. But why let life-saving progress get in the way of mindless activism? PETA calls the March of Dimes the “March of Crimes” because the March of Dimes funds animal research in its quest to prevent birth defects. PETA says “Both animals and human babies are the losers, because every dollar spent to harm... animals is a dollar that could have – and should have – been used to help people.” But compare this rhetoric to reality. The March of Dimes 2001 National Ambassador is a six year-old boy who was born four months premature. Because his lungs were severely underdeveloped, he was given surfactant therapy. Surfactant is a substance the body produces to help re-inflate the lungs after each breath. Premature babies often don’t produce surfactant in sufficient quantity. Surfactant treatment was developed with March of Dimes’ support. Animal rights activists want animals treated as equals – and we don’t eat, wear or experiment on other humans. Perhaps in some ways we all are “animals.” But let’s not forget the ultimate commandment of Animalism, “Some animals are more equal than others” – especially when it comes to medical research. Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com. |