2. Goldsmith MF: For better hip replacement results, surgeon's best friend may be a robot. JAMA 1992; 267: 613-614 3. Venning GR: Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. I: What have been the important adverse reactions since thalidomide? BMJ 1983; 286: 199-202 4. Marwick C: "Alter" a virus molecularly for polio vaccine? JAMA 1992; 267: 473
ticularly the CCAC. Despite this, the activities of the animal rights movement have caused the cost of animal experimentation to escalate, so that this aspect of research and the benefits it brings to humanity are being lost. My laboratory has to be locked, for security, while those in it do experiments. My secretary After reading Dr. Kesteven's arti- has been trained to recognize a cle and then Mr. Cooper's re- letter bomb, and my family has port of a conversation with Dr. received threats. Should any Poznansky, I thought that an at- member of the medical profession tempt was being made to provide be subject to these experiences as a balanced viewpoint concerning a result of pursuing benefits for the use of animals in medical the health of Canadians? If proparesearch. As a medical researcher ganda can inflame the susceptible trying to understand how the arti- mind (as with hate literature) percles would be perceived by those haps now is the time for the in the medical profession who do media and CMAJ to look seriousnot perform animal research I am ly at whether they wish to be used concerned as to their message and to present such a viewpoint? its effect. Several years ago the CMA My worry is that medical re- presented the policy statement search with the use of animals is "Animals in biomedical research" seriously threatened in Canada. (Can Med Assoc J 1986; 135: Why should this be if the use of 928A), which reiterated a commitanimals for medical research is, as ment to the use of animals in Poznansky suggests, both crucial medical research. Those of us doing anand appropriate? Let me first address Kestev- imal-based medical research need en's viewpoint. What she has writ- the help of the media, including ten is a summary of the arguments CMAJ, to reverse the trend that is used by the animal rights move- damaging medical research and to ment, based largely on the philos- expose the activities of the animal ophy of Peter Singer. It is propa- rights movement. ganda. The statements are halftruths and thus appear reasonable Gerald A. Klassen, MD, FRCPC to the reader who has not made Professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics an in-depth study of the issues. Victoria General Hospital Propaganda is a powerful tool for Halifax, NS influencing public opinion. Society relies on the media to pro- [CMAJ responds.] vide a balanced view of public issues and to point out half-truths. As the introduction to her article From my perspective as a states, Dr. Kesteven wrote her physician and researcher for close Viewpoint piece in response to to 35 years I have seen an erosion "We cannot afford to lose the in the ability of medical science in animal rights war," a previous Canada to carry out research in Viewpoint article by Dr. Philp which animals are used. As Poz- (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: nansky correctly points out, the 1421-1423). Kesteven was the control of the quality of an- only author to volunteer to write imal-based medical research in such a response, and in the interCanada has been exemplary ests of presenting a balanced arguthrough the efforts of many, par- ment CMAJ accepted it. Dr. Klas1900
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 ( 11)
sen is right - the article on Dr. Poznansky was run as a companion piece to the Kesteven article because the same topic was being discussed. By publishing such pieces CMAJ is not saying that it accepts or rejects the views and comments being presented. Instead, it is trying to do its joboffer a forum for debate. Patrick Sullivan News and features editor
Dr. Poznansky's work in medical ethics leads him to the rather obvious conclusion that human experimental subjects must give "informed consent." What he fails to grasp and what millions of animal rights advocates from all walks of life readily recognize is that this principle applies to sentient animals. (Philosopher Tom Regan has noted that intelligence, language and other characteristics that render most humans "superior" to animals are irrelevant we would never vivisect a human who lacked these characteristics.') Nevertheless, Poznansky asserts that a situation in which there are difficulties in obtaining animals for experiments is "completely ridiculous," and he derides animal rights groups as poorly informed at best. Although Poznansky claims that animal research is crucial and appropriate Dr. Kesteven's commentary effectively challenges both assertions. Indeed, because animal modelling involves arguing by analogy it is not strictly science. Animal models represent stick figures of human diseases that cannot verify or refute hypotheses about human conditions. Why does animal research persist? I am convinced that the principal reasons are unrelated to science or knowledge. First, the results of animal experiments are easily published. It requires little originality or insight to take an already well-defined animal model, change a variable (or the LE 1er JUIN 1992
species being used) and obtain new and interesting findings. In the "publish or perish" world of academic science, animal research provides a relatively easy route to success. In addition, many researchers trained in animal research techniques are reluctant to adopt new methods, such as tissue culture. Second, publishing credentials tend to be self-perpetuating: those researchers able to demonstrate experience with animal experimentation are most likely to receive further funding for yet more such research. Many researchers mistakenly believe that animal research is more scientific than clinical research, because laboratory experiments are said to be controlled. The control, however, is illusory. Any animal model differs in a myriad undetermined ways from human states. In addition, the laboratory setting itself creates confounding variables - for example, stress and undesired disorders in the animals. Such variables can have system-wide effects. Finally, animal experimentation is lucrative. Partly because of its long standing, animal research is often favoured by funding agencies; animal research brings hefty funds to many institutions. Some universities receive tens of millions of dollars annually in direct grants for' animal research and tens of millions more for overhead costs that are supposed to be directly related to that research. Many institutions, in fact, depend on this for much of their building maintenance and expansion costs. Often, researchers' salaries deri've largely from grants. Poznansky's views notwithstanding there are good scientific and ethical reasons to question the animal research status quo. Stephen R. Kaufman, MD Chair Medical Research Modernization Committee New York, NY JUNE 1, 1992
Reference 1. Regan T: The Case for Animal Rights, U of Cal Pr, Berkeley, 1983
[Dr. Poznansky responds.]
Dr. Kaufman and his colleagues in the animal rights movement continue to propagate a number of myths about the use of animals in medical research: that animals are used and destroyed needlessly, that medical researchers shun the use of alternative methods, that animal models of disease differ from human disease states and that animal experimentation is lucrative. Most medical research in Canada does not involve the use of animals, and in fact the proportion of animal-based research has decreased by 38% over the past 12 years, with a 63% reduction in the use of larger animals (data from the CCAC). This has occurred despite a major increase in total funding for medical research during the same period. All the alternatives to the use of animals in medical research (including tissue culture and computer models) have been developed by medical researchers (many of whom also use animals) who seek to find more appropriate and often less expensive ways to address unanswered questions in physiology and pathology. It is the medical research community that has recognized and studied the differences between animal models and human disease states. These are always considered and frequently used in pathophysiology and in the development of appropriate therapeutic
strategies. The notion that animal experimentation is lucrative is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I know of no investigator or grants committee that would approve the use of animals in medical research when an alternative is available that may be less expensive and more
reliable. The use of animals in medical research has decreased not only because of the 3 "R"s (reduce, replace, respect) but also because of the huge expense involved. Kaufman is an American who clearly does not understand the medical research scene in Canada. Our grants do not pay overhead costs, so that any suggestion that institutions benefit financially from the use of animals in research is also incorrect. Mark J. Poznansky, PhD Associate dean (research) Faculty of Medicine University of Alberta Edmonton, Alta.
Cover reveals all M y 7-year-old son looked at the cover of the Mar. 1, 1992, issue of CMAJ and exclaimed "Hey, dad! Look at this guy! He's half doctor and half human." A poignant comment on how doctors are viewed by the public. Muray D. Weingarten, MD Newmarket, Ont.
People [correction] I n the People section of the Mar. 15, 1992, issue of CMAJ (146: 1040) it was incorrectly stated that Dr. Charles Tator is chairman of the University of Toronto's Division of Neurology and has been appointed to the newly endowed Dan Family Chair in Neurology. Dr. Tator is chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery, and the Dan Family Chair is in the Division of Neurosurgery. We apologize for the error. -Ed. CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1901
ticularly the CCAC. Despite this, the activities of the animal rights movement have caused the cost of animal experimentation to escalate, so that this aspect of research and the benefits it brings to humanity are being lost. My laboratory has to be locked, for security, while those in it do experiments. My secretary After reading Dr. Kesteven's arti- has been trained to recognize a cle and then Mr. Cooper's re- letter bomb, and my family has port of a conversation with Dr. received threats. Should any Poznansky, I thought that an at- member of the medical profession tempt was being made to provide be subject to these experiences as a balanced viewpoint concerning a result of pursuing benefits for the use of animals in medical the health of Canadians? If proparesearch. As a medical researcher ganda can inflame the susceptible trying to understand how the arti- mind (as with hate literature) percles would be perceived by those haps now is the time for the in the medical profession who do media and CMAJ to look seriousnot perform animal research I am ly at whether they wish to be used concerned as to their message and to present such a viewpoint? its effect. Several years ago the CMA My worry is that medical re- presented the policy statement search with the use of animals is "Animals in biomedical research" seriously threatened in Canada. (Can Med Assoc J 1986; 135: Why should this be if the use of 928A), which reiterated a commitanimals for medical research is, as ment to the use of animals in Poznansky suggests, both crucial medical research. Those of us doing anand appropriate? Let me first address Kestev- imal-based medical research need en's viewpoint. What she has writ- the help of the media, including ten is a summary of the arguments CMAJ, to reverse the trend that is used by the animal rights move- damaging medical research and to ment, based largely on the philos- expose the activities of the animal ophy of Peter Singer. It is propa- rights movement. ganda. The statements are halftruths and thus appear reasonable Gerald A. Klassen, MD, FRCPC to the reader who has not made Professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics an in-depth study of the issues. Victoria General Hospital Propaganda is a powerful tool for Halifax, NS influencing public opinion. Society relies on the media to pro- [CMAJ responds.] vide a balanced view of public issues and to point out half-truths. As the introduction to her article From my perspective as a states, Dr. Kesteven wrote her physician and researcher for close Viewpoint piece in response to to 35 years I have seen an erosion "We cannot afford to lose the in the ability of medical science in animal rights war," a previous Canada to carry out research in Viewpoint article by Dr. Philp which animals are used. As Poz- (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: nansky correctly points out, the 1421-1423). Kesteven was the control of the quality of an- only author to volunteer to write imal-based medical research in such a response, and in the interCanada has been exemplary ests of presenting a balanced arguthrough the efforts of many, par- ment CMAJ accepted it. Dr. Klas1900
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 ( 11)
sen is right - the article on Dr. Poznansky was run as a companion piece to the Kesteven article because the same topic was being discussed. By publishing such pieces CMAJ is not saying that it accepts or rejects the views and comments being presented. Instead, it is trying to do its joboffer a forum for debate. Patrick Sullivan News and features editor
Dr. Poznansky's work in medical ethics leads him to the rather obvious conclusion that human experimental subjects must give "informed consent." What he fails to grasp and what millions of animal rights advocates from all walks of life readily recognize is that this principle applies to sentient animals. (Philosopher Tom Regan has noted that intelligence, language and other characteristics that render most humans "superior" to animals are irrelevant we would never vivisect a human who lacked these characteristics.') Nevertheless, Poznansky asserts that a situation in which there are difficulties in obtaining animals for experiments is "completely ridiculous," and he derides animal rights groups as poorly informed at best. Although Poznansky claims that animal research is crucial and appropriate Dr. Kesteven's commentary effectively challenges both assertions. Indeed, because animal modelling involves arguing by analogy it is not strictly science. Animal models represent stick figures of human diseases that cannot verify or refute hypotheses about human conditions. Why does animal research persist? I am convinced that the principal reasons are unrelated to science or knowledge. First, the results of animal experiments are easily published. It requires little originality or insight to take an already well-defined animal model, change a variable (or the LE 1er JUIN 1992
species being used) and obtain new and interesting findings. In the "publish or perish" world of academic science, animal research provides a relatively easy route to success. In addition, many researchers trained in animal research techniques are reluctant to adopt new methods, such as tissue culture. Second, publishing credentials tend to be self-perpetuating: those researchers able to demonstrate experience with animal experimentation are most likely to receive further funding for yet more such research. Many researchers mistakenly believe that animal research is more scientific than clinical research, because laboratory experiments are said to be controlled. The control, however, is illusory. Any animal model differs in a myriad undetermined ways from human states. In addition, the laboratory setting itself creates confounding variables - for example, stress and undesired disorders in the animals. Such variables can have system-wide effects. Finally, animal experimentation is lucrative. Partly because of its long standing, animal research is often favoured by funding agencies; animal research brings hefty funds to many institutions. Some universities receive tens of millions of dollars annually in direct grants for' animal research and tens of millions more for overhead costs that are supposed to be directly related to that research. Many institutions, in fact, depend on this for much of their building maintenance and expansion costs. Often, researchers' salaries deri've largely from grants. Poznansky's views notwithstanding there are good scientific and ethical reasons to question the animal research status quo. Stephen R. Kaufman, MD Chair Medical Research Modernization Committee New York, NY JUNE 1, 1992
Reference 1. Regan T: The Case for Animal Rights, U of Cal Pr, Berkeley, 1983
[Dr. Poznansky responds.]
Dr. Kaufman and his colleagues in the animal rights movement continue to propagate a number of myths about the use of animals in medical research: that animals are used and destroyed needlessly, that medical researchers shun the use of alternative methods, that animal models of disease differ from human disease states and that animal experimentation is lucrative. Most medical research in Canada does not involve the use of animals, and in fact the proportion of animal-based research has decreased by 38% over the past 12 years, with a 63% reduction in the use of larger animals (data from the CCAC). This has occurred despite a major increase in total funding for medical research during the same period. All the alternatives to the use of animals in medical research (including tissue culture and computer models) have been developed by medical researchers (many of whom also use animals) who seek to find more appropriate and often less expensive ways to address unanswered questions in physiology and pathology. It is the medical research community that has recognized and studied the differences between animal models and human disease states. These are always considered and frequently used in pathophysiology and in the development of appropriate therapeutic
strategies. The notion that animal experimentation is lucrative is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I know of no investigator or grants committee that would approve the use of animals in medical research when an alternative is available that may be less expensive and more
reliable. The use of animals in medical research has decreased not only because of the 3 "R"s (reduce, replace, respect) but also because of the huge expense involved. Kaufman is an American who clearly does not understand the medical research scene in Canada. Our grants do not pay overhead costs, so that any suggestion that institutions benefit financially from the use of animals in research is also incorrect. Mark J. Poznansky, PhD Associate dean (research) Faculty of Medicine University of Alberta Edmonton, Alta.
Cover reveals all M y 7-year-old son looked at the cover of the Mar. 1, 1992, issue of CMAJ and exclaimed "Hey, dad! Look at this guy! He's half doctor and half human." A poignant comment on how doctors are viewed by the public. Muray D. Weingarten, MD Newmarket, Ont.
People [correction] I n the People section of the Mar. 15, 1992, issue of CMAJ (146: 1040) it was incorrectly stated that Dr. Charles Tator is chairman of the University of Toronto's Division of Neurology and has been appointed to the newly endowed Dan Family Chair in Neurology. Dr. Tator is chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery, and the Dan Family Chair is in the Division of Neurosurgery. We apologize for the error. -Ed. CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1901
