experiments performed on animals can be misleading.' Vermon Coleman, MB, ChB President International League - Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection Arbedo, Switzerland
Reference 1. Coleman V: Why Animal Experiments Must Stop, Green Print, London, 1991
Ehen cost rulles out most NSAIDs...
ENTROPHENlO1
Dr. Kesteven tries to claim the middle ground between extremists in the animal rights and scientific camps. In fact, her consensus position is the abolition of animal-based research, and although her methods to achieve this are not, thankfully, those of the Animal Liberation Front her goals are equally extreme. At the same time I have difficulty in identifying the extremists in the scientific camp. These would presumably demand the right to use animals for any purpose, without any restrictions. There are no such people. I suggest that the middle ground is, in fact, held by medical scientists who use animals when necessary to answer important scientific questions and who do so in full and willing conformity with the guidelines of the CCAC. Much of Kesteven's article is an attack on the utility of animal-based research. She supports it with studies conducted by the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC), which, despite its name, is an anti-vivisectionist organization. Is it likely that a survey conducted by the MRMC is going to have an outcome other than one unfavourable to the use of animals in research? Why didn't Kesteven mention the study' concluding that "animal research contributed in a significant way to 74% of 386 major biomedical advances" and noting that "71% of the 82 Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine awarded between 1901 and 1982 were JUNE 1, 1992
(Actlsalic1ic a
elayed-release tablets, USP)
* Offers patients substantial savings on treaunent costs-
up to 8 tmes lower than other NSAIDs! * Enteric coating offers reliable ASA absorption in the small intestine and good gastrointestinal tolerance.' *0 Well established side effect profile. * A trusted, reliable, highly prescribed choice for over 30 years. When it comes to relieving mild to moderate arthris pain and related musculoskeletal pain conditions, it simply makes sense to recommend Entrophene10 first.
4
p
Available in tablets and caplets, wJith or witouta prescrtioin. For samples, call Physicians' Hotline®9: 1-800-363-6871. PMB
ErP'-2-2s8
EWTROPHEN@ is a trademark of Merck Frosst Canada Inc. *Traeak Merck & Co. Inc./Merck Frosst Canadal Inc., R.U. For prescribing informaffon see page 2101
given for research- that depended on studies with animals"? Kesteven believes that animal-based research is no longer necessary, in part because of "the rapid pace of development in molecular biology and noninvasive imaging instrumentation." How ironic that she should choose these two items: the latter owes much of its application to work done in animals, and the former, through transgenic technology, has led to a situation in which "the whole animal is once again in vogue as an experimental model system [in order to] dissect molecular mechanisms contributing to the pathogenesis of specific diseases, and to identify agents which can abrogate the onset of the disease, slow its progression or ameliorate its symptoms."2 After the selective and biased data provided by Kesteven is stripped away the debate about animal-based research comes down to individual ethical choice. The duty of medical scientists and physicians is to ensure that patients, politicians and the public are adequately informed in making that choice. We must explain the benefits of animal-based research, expose any misleading and inaccurate arguments that may be put forward by those who would abolish it, and predict the consequences should they succeed. Kesteven's clever article should make it clear why the biomedical community must become more proactive and aggressive in dealing with the animal rights threat to human and animal health.
2. Merlino CT: Transgenic animals in biomedical research. Ibid: 2996-3001
[Dr. Kesteven responds:]
It is true that many millions of animals have been used in the practice of Western science. But where is the scientific evidence that this was (or will be) the only way to advance our knowledge of human disease? History is largely a matter of interpretation: one analysis of Nobel prizes' shows that up to 1985 in the research leading to two-thirds of the awards, techniques that could be regarded as replacements for the use of animals played a major role. Who can say which approach led to the crucial insight? It seems to me that practising physicians who have examined their field critically and concluded that animal experiments are not particularly useful (such as members of the MRMC) have additional credibility in promoting a shift to more relevant research and the eventual abolition of animal experimentation. New methods with general application could contribute to a fruitful collaboration between human and veterinary medicine if the cause or treatment of a disease is similar - for example, an improved hip replacement procedure.2 In view of the apparent contradiction between some published research and assurances of CCAC effectiveness - such as those of Dr. Mark Poznansky quoted in the article accompanying mine ("It is 'almost easier' to find human research subjects than animal ones, researcher Mark A. Bisby, MA, DPhil says" [ibid: 1613-1614], by RichProfessor and head W. Cooper) - I asked if the ard Department of Physiology two council members representing Queen's University Kingston, Ont. animal interests are satisfied that infringements of the guidelines References are always promptly remedied. Ms. Brown's reply was "No, not 1. Nicoll CS, Russell SM: Mozart, Alexanthe confidentiality der the Great, and the animal rights/lib- always," but eration philosophy. FASEB J 1991; 5: imposed by the CCAC prevented her from substantiating this with 2888-2892 -
For prescribing information see page 2077
specific details. That is the only information available. Brown's comments were never intended to indict animal research; they address the issue of accountability through current CCAC procedures. Certainly, safe modern drugs have passed animal tests; however, harmful drugs have also been approved on this basis.3 Even one failure shows that we cannot rely on these tests to ensure our safety and that better methods are needed. Since any interspecies extrapolation is questionable there would be no significant advantage in Rosenberg's suggestion of a greater use of primates. Tests in monkeys failed to predict the deadly effects of benoxaprofen in elderly people because of their different metabolic rates. The contention that animal testing will continue unabated is challenged by advances such as a potential in-vitro alternative (involving viral RNA sequencing) to the current monkey neurovirulence test for oral polio vaccine.4 In a more appropriate milieu we could certainly debate the ethics of other aspects of our interaction with animals and particularly whether Philp's strictly anthropocentric morality would really minimize hardship and suffering. Since most of the world's population depend for their primary health care on traditional, mostly herbal medicines (unlikely to have been tested on animals until Western science discovered them) the best policy may be to protect all the habitats in which medicinal plants may be found. High-tech medicine for the ills of the affluent First World minority may not be best for the global protectionand promotion of health. Rita M. Kesteven, PhD Sydenham, Ont.
References 1. Langley G (ed): Animal Experimentation: the Consensus Changes, Macmillan, London, 1989: 144-168 CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1899
Reference 1. Coleman V: Why Animal Experiments Must Stop, Green Print, London, 1991
Ehen cost rulles out most NSAIDs...
ENTROPHENlO1
Dr. Kesteven tries to claim the middle ground between extremists in the animal rights and scientific camps. In fact, her consensus position is the abolition of animal-based research, and although her methods to achieve this are not, thankfully, those of the Animal Liberation Front her goals are equally extreme. At the same time I have difficulty in identifying the extremists in the scientific camp. These would presumably demand the right to use animals for any purpose, without any restrictions. There are no such people. I suggest that the middle ground is, in fact, held by medical scientists who use animals when necessary to answer important scientific questions and who do so in full and willing conformity with the guidelines of the CCAC. Much of Kesteven's article is an attack on the utility of animal-based research. She supports it with studies conducted by the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC), which, despite its name, is an anti-vivisectionist organization. Is it likely that a survey conducted by the MRMC is going to have an outcome other than one unfavourable to the use of animals in research? Why didn't Kesteven mention the study' concluding that "animal research contributed in a significant way to 74% of 386 major biomedical advances" and noting that "71% of the 82 Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine awarded between 1901 and 1982 were JUNE 1, 1992
(Actlsalic1ic a
elayed-release tablets, USP)
* Offers patients substantial savings on treaunent costs-
up to 8 tmes lower than other NSAIDs! * Enteric coating offers reliable ASA absorption in the small intestine and good gastrointestinal tolerance.' *0 Well established side effect profile. * A trusted, reliable, highly prescribed choice for over 30 years. When it comes to relieving mild to moderate arthris pain and related musculoskeletal pain conditions, it simply makes sense to recommend Entrophene10 first.
4
p
Available in tablets and caplets, wJith or witouta prescrtioin. For samples, call Physicians' Hotline®9: 1-800-363-6871. PMB
ErP'-2-2s8
EWTROPHEN@ is a trademark of Merck Frosst Canada Inc. *Traeak Merck & Co. Inc./Merck Frosst Canadal Inc., R.U. For prescribing informaffon see page 2101
given for research- that depended on studies with animals"? Kesteven believes that animal-based research is no longer necessary, in part because of "the rapid pace of development in molecular biology and noninvasive imaging instrumentation." How ironic that she should choose these two items: the latter owes much of its application to work done in animals, and the former, through transgenic technology, has led to a situation in which "the whole animal is once again in vogue as an experimental model system [in order to] dissect molecular mechanisms contributing to the pathogenesis of specific diseases, and to identify agents which can abrogate the onset of the disease, slow its progression or ameliorate its symptoms."2 After the selective and biased data provided by Kesteven is stripped away the debate about animal-based research comes down to individual ethical choice. The duty of medical scientists and physicians is to ensure that patients, politicians and the public are adequately informed in making that choice. We must explain the benefits of animal-based research, expose any misleading and inaccurate arguments that may be put forward by those who would abolish it, and predict the consequences should they succeed. Kesteven's clever article should make it clear why the biomedical community must become more proactive and aggressive in dealing with the animal rights threat to human and animal health.
2. Merlino CT: Transgenic animals in biomedical research. Ibid: 2996-3001
[Dr. Kesteven responds:]
It is true that many millions of animals have been used in the practice of Western science. But where is the scientific evidence that this was (or will be) the only way to advance our knowledge of human disease? History is largely a matter of interpretation: one analysis of Nobel prizes' shows that up to 1985 in the research leading to two-thirds of the awards, techniques that could be regarded as replacements for the use of animals played a major role. Who can say which approach led to the crucial insight? It seems to me that practising physicians who have examined their field critically and concluded that animal experiments are not particularly useful (such as members of the MRMC) have additional credibility in promoting a shift to more relevant research and the eventual abolition of animal experimentation. New methods with general application could contribute to a fruitful collaboration between human and veterinary medicine if the cause or treatment of a disease is similar - for example, an improved hip replacement procedure.2 In view of the apparent contradiction between some published research and assurances of CCAC effectiveness - such as those of Dr. Mark Poznansky quoted in the article accompanying mine ("It is 'almost easier' to find human research subjects than animal ones, researcher Mark A. Bisby, MA, DPhil says" [ibid: 1613-1614], by RichProfessor and head W. Cooper) - I asked if the ard Department of Physiology two council members representing Queen's University Kingston, Ont. animal interests are satisfied that infringements of the guidelines References are always promptly remedied. Ms. Brown's reply was "No, not 1. Nicoll CS, Russell SM: Mozart, Alexanthe confidentiality der the Great, and the animal rights/lib- always," but eration philosophy. FASEB J 1991; 5: imposed by the CCAC prevented her from substantiating this with 2888-2892 -
For prescribing information see page 2077
specific details. That is the only information available. Brown's comments were never intended to indict animal research; they address the issue of accountability through current CCAC procedures. Certainly, safe modern drugs have passed animal tests; however, harmful drugs have also been approved on this basis.3 Even one failure shows that we cannot rely on these tests to ensure our safety and that better methods are needed. Since any interspecies extrapolation is questionable there would be no significant advantage in Rosenberg's suggestion of a greater use of primates. Tests in monkeys failed to predict the deadly effects of benoxaprofen in elderly people because of their different metabolic rates. The contention that animal testing will continue unabated is challenged by advances such as a potential in-vitro alternative (involving viral RNA sequencing) to the current monkey neurovirulence test for oral polio vaccine.4 In a more appropriate milieu we could certainly debate the ethics of other aspects of our interaction with animals and particularly whether Philp's strictly anthropocentric morality would really minimize hardship and suffering. Since most of the world's population depend for their primary health care on traditional, mostly herbal medicines (unlikely to have been tested on animals until Western science discovered them) the best policy may be to protect all the habitats in which medicinal plants may be found. High-tech medicine for the ills of the affluent First World minority may not be best for the global protectionand promotion of health. Rita M. Kesteven, PhD Sydenham, Ont.
References 1. Langley G (ed): Animal Experimentation: the Consensus Changes, Macmillan, London, 1989: 144-168 CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1899
