Although this article thus far may appear to have taken an anti-vivisectionist twist, I haven't yet thought out a firm position on the issue. Certainly, I don't like the idea of cats being used cruelly or inhumanely in experiments where the end results prove absolutely nothing. I have concerns about the extrapolation of results on animal experiments to human medicine.
Conversely, I believe it is necessary to use cats in laboratory research to continue developing new vaccines, surgical and other procedures, and drugs for the benefit of cats, providing the research is conducted in a humane manner and the cats are not unnecessarily killed at the end of the experiments.
On the other hand, for every horror story told by anti-vivisectionists about cruel animal experiments (and there are many), you'll find another extolling the virtues of using animals in research.
As an example, Animal Emancipation, Inc. tells us that " not a single disease has been cured through vivisection this century," and goes on to provide specifics: " Drugs and surgical procedures 'perfected in animal models' have proven disastrous when first used with humans. Initial open heart surgeries/transplants and a cornucopia of drugs including thalidomide and oraflex have injured or killed humans following animal safety tests. " 1
On the other side of the coin, Americans for Medical Progress provides a long list of advances in both human disease research, along with an equally long list of benefits to animals from animal research. 2
A PeTA article tells us, "The drugs thalidomide, Zomax, and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. A General Accounting Office report, released in May 1990, found that more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused side effects that were serious enough to cause the drugs to be withdrawn from the market or relabeled. All of these drugs had been tested on animals.
"
Conversely, Lawrence Corey, M.D. writes an equally compelling article telling of a number of anti-viral drugs which have been developed in the past 20 years, it is presumed, as a benefit of animal research. 3
Is animal research really necessary?
Probably the most compelling arguments against animal research comes from the medical and scientific community itself. The Medical Research Modernization Committee describes non-animal methodologies, including epidemiology (population studies), patient studies, autopsies, biopsies, post-marketing surveillance, and Other non-animal methods as all being successful alternatives to animal testing. 4 Since the medical community itself is not entirely in agreement about the role of animal testing in research, is it any wonder that we laypersons are confused?
I can't read an article about the horrors of animal testing without abhorring the very idea.
On the other hand, I have a treasured friend whose husband is alive today because of a heart transplant. Coincidentally, he received it in a Nashville hospital - perhaps the very one in which Dr.-Senator Frist performed transplants. I can't help but wonder if Dr. Frist's feline dissection victims may have played a huge part in the survival of my friend's husband.
Animal experimentation is such a sensitive and controversial topic that many cat owners would prefer not to even think about it. But it isn't going away anytime soon. Perhaps we all need to think about it more seriously.
I'm interested in hearing your views about animal experimentation, particularly involving the use of cats. Please post your opinions in the forum discussion. Although I am unable to respond to individual emails, I will read all forum posts on this issue, and respond whenever possible.
Footnotes:
1The Truth About Animal Experiments
2Animal Research Saves Human and Animal Lives
3Animals & Research Part 3: Alternatives in medical breakthroughs
4A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation
Conversely, I believe it is necessary to use cats in laboratory research to continue developing new vaccines, surgical and other procedures, and drugs for the benefit of cats, providing the research is conducted in a humane manner and the cats are not unnecessarily killed at the end of the experiments.
On the other hand, for every horror story told by anti-vivisectionists about cruel animal experiments (and there are many), you'll find another extolling the virtues of using animals in research.
As an example, Animal Emancipation, Inc. tells us that " not a single disease has been cured through vivisection this century," and goes on to provide specifics: " Drugs and surgical procedures 'perfected in animal models' have proven disastrous when first used with humans. Initial open heart surgeries/transplants and a cornucopia of drugs including thalidomide and oraflex have injured or killed humans following animal safety tests. " 1
On the other side of the coin, Americans for Medical Progress provides a long list of advances in both human disease research, along with an equally long list of benefits to animals from animal research. 2
A PeTA article tells us, "The drugs thalidomide, Zomax, and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. A General Accounting Office report, released in May 1990, found that more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused side effects that were serious enough to cause the drugs to be withdrawn from the market or relabeled. All of these drugs had been tested on animals.
"
Conversely, Lawrence Corey, M.D. writes an equally compelling article telling of a number of anti-viral drugs which have been developed in the past 20 years, it is presumed, as a benefit of animal research. 3
Is animal research really necessary?
Probably the most compelling arguments against animal research comes from the medical and scientific community itself. The Medical Research Modernization Committee describes non-animal methodologies, including epidemiology (population studies), patient studies, autopsies, biopsies, post-marketing surveillance, and Other non-animal methods as all being successful alternatives to animal testing. 4 Since the medical community itself is not entirely in agreement about the role of animal testing in research, is it any wonder that we laypersons are confused?
I can't read an article about the horrors of animal testing without abhorring the very idea.
On the other hand, I have a treasured friend whose husband is alive today because of a heart transplant. Coincidentally, he received it in a Nashville hospital - perhaps the very one in which Dr.-Senator Frist performed transplants. I can't help but wonder if Dr. Frist's feline dissection victims may have played a huge part in the survival of my friend's husband.
Animal experimentation is such a sensitive and controversial topic that many cat owners would prefer not to even think about it. But it isn't going away anytime soon. Perhaps we all need to think about it more seriously.
I'm interested in hearing your views about animal experimentation, particularly involving the use of cats. Please post your opinions in the forum discussion. Although I am unable to respond to individual emails, I will read all forum posts on this issue, and respond whenever possible.
Footnotes:
1The Truth About Animal Experiments
2Animal Research Saves Human and Animal Lives
3Animals & Research Part 3: Alternatives in medical breakthroughs
4A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation