Sandy didn’t just blow the covers off buildings: It’s whipped up an ongoing debate over using animals for medical research.
Two radical animal rights groups, PETA in the U.S, and BUAV in the U.K., are in Sandy’s wake charging that the loss of medical research animals in the storm was cruel and preventable.
PETA has filed suit against New York University (NYU) for the drowning of 10,000 white rats during the storm, that were being used mostly for melanoma research. And BUAV has resurrected a campaign against Mauritius macaque breeding farms that ship mostly to American and UK medical research organizations, as Sandy delayed many shipments.
Only from the perspective of an intensely committed animal rights activist can such attention be garnished in the wake of this super storm. Most of the world’s attention is as it should be focused on people. But this is also the foundation of the argument about medical research.
Most of us countenance the use of animals in medical research. But those who don’t are extremely vocal, a sort of battalion of armed Albert Schweitzers as much a non sequitur as that may seem. And Sandy has given them another public moment.
NYU’s activities will draw less attention than the breeding farms in Africa’s Mauritius, where the long-tailed macaques are bred in pretty horrendous conditions not unlike some early chicken farms in the U.S., and then exported often before being weaned to laboratories around the world for biomedical research.
Cornell scientists proved more than five years ago that the macaque – particularly the rhesus macaque – carries genes and chromosomes remarkably similar to us. Not as similar as chimps, of course, but chimps for medical research in the U.S. is essentially over.
Intense campaigns against chimp research for years achieved significant success last December when the NIH ceased funding any research that used chimps. The decision was fully implemented by this September and technically now, there is no government sponsored medical research that uses chimps in the U.S.
This has left many scientists angry. Drug and nutritional research, many research programs – especially with cancer, Parkinson’s disease and kidney diseases – have essentially come to a halt. The counter arguments are deeply scientific as well and hard to understand, but basically claim that chemical research (test tube analysis) can be just as insightful as watching what happens to an actual living chimp.
It’s also very hard to know being a layman if the decision to remove chimps from medical research is more scientific or more political. In America’s culture, today, the twain rarely meet.
Be that as it may, the next most likely human creature available for research is the macaque, and the easiest place to get them is from the breeding farms in Mauritius.
Purists argue that a living thing is a living thing, whether that be a human baby, chimpanzee, long-tailed macaque or white rat. And that whatever prescripts exist against murder of one should apply to all.
I disagree. There is a big difference between a white rat and a baby boy. If we can do something – as horrible as it might portend – to white rats that will prolong or make better the lives of baby boys, we should.
Regulating that statement is beyond us laymen. It’s for scientists … and politicians. No one would argue that if a good alternative existed it would be given priority. But defining the alternative is technical science… and artful politics.
But there is much less of a difference between a baby boy and a baby macaque.
Or is there? And how do we know? What exactly do we presume? Do we pretend to believe we can understand what a macaque thinks about us?
That’s why it’s so easy to just lump all living creatures together, because that’s easy to know. It’s alive or it isn’t. No EKG, no IQ … just a heartbeat.
The answer is not the easy way out. That much I believe for certain. I’m neither trained or talented enough to parse the barriers dividing humans from macaques, but I trust men out there who are.
I agree that there are more talented people out there to make the decision then us. However, unless you are prepared to live without the advances in science these animals have allowed then you do not have a voice in this fight. I for one would rather have the medical advances.
If PETA members are so upset about medical research using animals, any animals, then they should ALL volunteer themselves as guinea pigs. I am not a scientist myself, but we have 2 MD’s in the family, a professor and an assistant professor. There is no way any kind of research can be done solely by using test tubes or computers. Before anything can be used on humans, it has to be tested in a living organism as close to us humans as possible. Of course, those animals should be treated well and have their needs met while they are helping advance medicine. Oh and by the way, Albert Schweitzer was an MD first and a humanist second. He also had a degree in music, was a world class authority on J. S. Bach as well as an admired organist.
Animal cruelty is a sad fact of life in this world. More money is spent on animal cruelty prevention than is on cruelty to children and child abuse. What is the morality of such a state of affairs. PETA members should look more carefully at societies problems. The world is full of terrible illnesses which defy cure. Does anybody believe that medical researchers would rather sacrifice animals as opposed to performing studies using non animal subjects. Remember human experimentation took place in Tuskegee during the infamous studies of syphilis. We have progressed and further progress is in the offing. Numerous techniques of cellular culture are being developed to make this possible. Let us not waste time trying to prevent something that most people both lay and scientific would rather put behind us. The question to ask is – Are we doing enough, are we giving enough and are co-operating enough to reach a goal we all want. It may be stem cell research, organ donation or genetic manipulation that hold the future. Let us put away the street posters and rallies and support proper medical research. All those doing animal research would agree to terminate such activity if it were to be proved to be unnecessary.
It is like everything else. Take the easy way out. If u don’t stop scientists from using animals, they will never come up with a better solution. There are alternative methods to testing on animals but if u r not forced to use them and improve on them, u will just keep doing the same thing. This applies to so many things including our environment. We need to find a better way!!!
Dear Jim,
Hope all is well with you and your family. I love your blog and your political statements and views. I especially enjoyed reading the viewpoints from Africans. I do not believe Monkeys or any animal should be “sacrificed” to research a cure for anything, especially because it is humans who have mostly created disease in the first place. No animals should ever be tortured for any reason.
Beverly (Blair & Judd”s Mom)
Jim,
Hope all is well.
You should trust the women out there as well!!
Carol
Anyone who thinks there are other ways to testing than using animals does not understand science. Using animals in medical tests (just as an example) is NOT the easy way out. It is the only way (after the test tube and computer analysis stage) to test prior to using it in humans. Michael (#3) said it best. Humans mostly “created” disease in the first place (#5)? Man, where did that come from??? Scientists do not enjoy hurting animals. If there were another way, they would already use it. Testing in animals is expensive. If there are other known ways (#4), please do us a favor and name them.