Biologists have searched for examples of altruism in other species, but on close examination all behaviors seem to benefit either the individual or the species, and there is certainly no example of one species sacrificing itself willingly to the advantage of another. The concept of reciprocity seems to apply widely in biology, but we call it symbiosis. Peter Singer, guru of the animal rights movement, believes that the volunteer blood donor is truly altruistic, acting without hope of reciprocity.' All of us may at some point require a transfusion, however, and supporting the system improves our chance of getting one when it's needed. Reciprocity may also explain why we treat people with limited or
nonexistent intellectual capacity differently from how we treat animals. We never know when we might be in the same boat, and we accord treatment that we would like to receive for ourselves or our loved ones. Every species owes its first allegiance to its own kind. Perhaps all of this illustrates only that we should choose our philosophers even more carefully than we choose our physicians. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
Reference
search or scientific writing. To merely quote the opinions of others who share one's view (however cleverly expressed) without valid supportive data is not to build a scholarly argument. That Stephanie Brown (the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies' representative on the Canadian Council on Animal Care [CCAC]) finds it frustrating that she cannot violate the confidentiality of her position is not a meaningful indictment of animal research. Kesteven's use of this quote is, however, mildly reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the McCarthy era. The article becomes even more absurd when the author challenges extrapolation to human conditions from experimental species that differ physiologically from humans. I do not imagine that Kesteven is suggesting that we dramatically increase our use of primates in medical research, although that is the only logical conclusion of her argument. Similarly, to suggest that most psychotropic drugs are found through clinical serendipity does not negate the importance of the initial testing for safety that all drugs must undergo before serendipity has had a chance to come into play. It is important that animal research be under constant scrutiny. Unfortunately, articles such as the one by Kesteven shed very little light on the debate.
1. Alexander RD: The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine Pub, New York, 1987: 154
Herschel C. Rosenberg, MD, FRCPC Department of Paediatric Cardiology Children's Hospital of Western Ontario London, Ont.
I applaud CMAJ for publishing the recent article by Dr. Kesteven that expresses an opposing view to the use of animals in medical research. It is unfortunate that the journal could not find a more scholarly advocate. Although Kesteven possesses a doctorate her article reflects little understanding of the principles of scientific re-
The article by Dr. Kesteven conveys the impression that scientists who advocate the use of animals in medical research occupy a low moral ground. It is surprising that no mention is made of the numerous committees that promote ethical standards for animal experimentation or the animal safety and ethics committees that Can-
1896
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
adian universities possess, which are charged with the review of all protocols involving animals in health science before their implementation. It is also incredible that Kesteven does not mention the thousands of lifesaving drugs, such as antibiotics, that could only have been developed for humans through the use of appropriate animal models. Finally, Kesteven singles out acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as an example of a disease against which most advances have occurred through epidemiologic and tissue culturebased investigations. Although this is largely true, it is directly related to the fact that we do not have good animal models for AIDS and other diseases associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. All the antiviral drugs employed clinically have had to be tested on animals to check their safety, pharmacokinetic features and bioavailability. Our reliance on animals for such testing is likely to continue unabated, not because scientists derive any perverse pleasure from their use, but, rather, because tissue culture and alternative models do not provide the means to answer important questions. Mark A. Wainberg, PhD Director McGill University AIDS Centre Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital Montreal, Que.
I read with interest the recent paper by Dr. Kesteven. CMAJ readers may be interested to know that the International League Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection now has more than 750 physician members in 43 countries, who are all totally opposed to animal experimentation on scientific grounds. A recent survey of 500 British physicians showed that 88% agree that laboratory LE I er JUIN 1992
nonexistent intellectual capacity differently from how we treat animals. We never know when we might be in the same boat, and we accord treatment that we would like to receive for ourselves or our loved ones. Every species owes its first allegiance to its own kind. Perhaps all of this illustrates only that we should choose our philosophers even more carefully than we choose our physicians. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
Reference
search or scientific writing. To merely quote the opinions of others who share one's view (however cleverly expressed) without valid supportive data is not to build a scholarly argument. That Stephanie Brown (the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies' representative on the Canadian Council on Animal Care [CCAC]) finds it frustrating that she cannot violate the confidentiality of her position is not a meaningful indictment of animal research. Kesteven's use of this quote is, however, mildly reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the McCarthy era. The article becomes even more absurd when the author challenges extrapolation to human conditions from experimental species that differ physiologically from humans. I do not imagine that Kesteven is suggesting that we dramatically increase our use of primates in medical research, although that is the only logical conclusion of her argument. Similarly, to suggest that most psychotropic drugs are found through clinical serendipity does not negate the importance of the initial testing for safety that all drugs must undergo before serendipity has had a chance to come into play. It is important that animal research be under constant scrutiny. Unfortunately, articles such as the one by Kesteven shed very little light on the debate.
1. Alexander RD: The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine Pub, New York, 1987: 154
Herschel C. Rosenberg, MD, FRCPC Department of Paediatric Cardiology Children's Hospital of Western Ontario London, Ont.
I applaud CMAJ for publishing the recent article by Dr. Kesteven that expresses an opposing view to the use of animals in medical research. It is unfortunate that the journal could not find a more scholarly advocate. Although Kesteven possesses a doctorate her article reflects little understanding of the principles of scientific re-
The article by Dr. Kesteven conveys the impression that scientists who advocate the use of animals in medical research occupy a low moral ground. It is surprising that no mention is made of the numerous committees that promote ethical standards for animal experimentation or the animal safety and ethics committees that Can-
1896
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
adian universities possess, which are charged with the review of all protocols involving animals in health science before their implementation. It is also incredible that Kesteven does not mention the thousands of lifesaving drugs, such as antibiotics, that could only have been developed for humans through the use of appropriate animal models. Finally, Kesteven singles out acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as an example of a disease against which most advances have occurred through epidemiologic and tissue culturebased investigations. Although this is largely true, it is directly related to the fact that we do not have good animal models for AIDS and other diseases associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. All the antiviral drugs employed clinically have had to be tested on animals to check their safety, pharmacokinetic features and bioavailability. Our reliance on animals for such testing is likely to continue unabated, not because scientists derive any perverse pleasure from their use, but, rather, because tissue culture and alternative models do not provide the means to answer important questions. Mark A. Wainberg, PhD Director McGill University AIDS Centre Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital Montreal, Que.
I read with interest the recent paper by Dr. Kesteven. CMAJ readers may be interested to know that the International League Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection now has more than 750 physician members in 43 countries, who are all totally opposed to animal experimentation on scientific grounds. A recent survey of 500 British physicians showed that 88% agree that laboratory LE I er JUIN 1992
