LETTERS * CORRESPONDANCE
We will consider for publication only letters submitted in duplicate, printed in letterquality type without proportional spacing and not exceeding 450 words. All the authors must sign a covering letter transferring copyright. Letters must not duplicate material being submitted elsewhere or already published. We routinely correspond only with authors of accepted letters. Rejected letters are destroyed. Accepted letters are subject to editing and abridgement.
Seules peuvent etre retenues pour publications les lettres recues en double dont la longueur n'excede pas 450 mots. Elles doivent etre mecanographiees en qualite "correspondance" sans espacement proportionnel. Tous les auteurs doivent signer une lettre d'accompagnement portant cession du copyright. Les lettres ne doivent rien contenir qui ait ete presente ailleurs pour publication ou deja paru. En principe, la redaction correspond uniquement avec les auteurs des lettres retenues pour publication. Les lettres refusees sont detruites. Les lettres retenues peuvent etre abregees ou faire l'objet de modifications d'ordre redactionnel.
The animal rights war B ecause I was misquoted in Dr. Richard B. Philp's article "We cannot afford to lose the animal rights war" (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: 14211423) I would like to set the record straight. I have at no time said, as I am quoted as having said during a recent debate, that "no further medical benefits could come from animal experimentation". The members of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) have various philosophies regarding the ethics of medical experimentation and criticize animal research not on ethical but on medical grounds. I have witnessed animal demonstrations and research in which -
For prescribing information see page 602
the teaching value or the data generated were useless at best. I know of poorly designed or repetitive research done because grant money was available and a publication could result. Using animal "models" is often an easy way to manipulate an almost infinite number of variables and generate data that in themselves can be totally worthless. During the debate in question a claim was made by Dr. Bessie Borwein, a biomedical researcher, that animal research was responsible for the eradication of onchocerciasis, or river blindness, in Africa. However, I know a Canadian statistician who worked for the World Health Organization on the onchocerciasis project under the direction of Dr. Samba, and in discussion with the statistician it became apparent that the life cycle of the parasite was worked out by careful clinical field work and that onchocerciasis is now treated by ivermectin, an old veterinary drug. Such distortion of the facts and unwarranted claims for the successes of animal research are all too common. The type of paranoia that Philp's entire article exhibits is not, unfortunately, rare. I am opposed to any sort of illegal action, but I find that when I identify my position as a physician opposed to animal research the response, as demonstrated here, includes allusion to animal rights groups and terrorism. I believe that this is not accidental but the result of a wellorganized public relations campaign by the various groups that support unrestricted animal research. Much more progress can be made by dialogue among responsible coprofessionals than by the
kind of mudslinging that this article exhibits. I would like to be on record as having offered to participate in such a dialogue. I challenge the author to accept. Marjorie Cramer, MD 800-A Fifth Ave. New York, NY
Dr. Philp's opinion piece on animal rights did not accurately represent the views of the PCRM. He is correct that we publish information on nutrition, including the bimonthly Guide to Healthy Eating. We do not hold the view that "all disease is preventable". We agree with the National Cancer Institute that approximately 80% of cancers are potentially preventable but that a considerable amount of education and policy change is required to realize this potential. We do not deny that many animal experiments have been conducted with a rationale and, presumably, some benefit. But they also divert a tremendous amount of time, resources and attention away from more profitable methods of research. Animal models of AIDS, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis and numerous other conditions leave a great deal to be desired. Bearing in mind, also, the suffering that is inherent in animal experiments we should be able to agree that investing in other methods has substantial merit. Neal D. Bamard, MD President Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine PO Box 6322 Washington, DC
How much longer will animalCAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 143 (7)
603
We will consider for publication only letters submitted in duplicate, printed in letterquality type without proportional spacing and not exceeding 450 words. All the authors must sign a covering letter transferring copyright. Letters must not duplicate material being submitted elsewhere or already published. We routinely correspond only with authors of accepted letters. Rejected letters are destroyed. Accepted letters are subject to editing and abridgement.
Seules peuvent etre retenues pour publications les lettres recues en double dont la longueur n'excede pas 450 mots. Elles doivent etre mecanographiees en qualite "correspondance" sans espacement proportionnel. Tous les auteurs doivent signer une lettre d'accompagnement portant cession du copyright. Les lettres ne doivent rien contenir qui ait ete presente ailleurs pour publication ou deja paru. En principe, la redaction correspond uniquement avec les auteurs des lettres retenues pour publication. Les lettres refusees sont detruites. Les lettres retenues peuvent etre abregees ou faire l'objet de modifications d'ordre redactionnel.
The animal rights war B ecause I was misquoted in Dr. Richard B. Philp's article "We cannot afford to lose the animal rights war" (Can Med Assoc J 1990; 142: 14211423) I would like to set the record straight. I have at no time said, as I am quoted as having said during a recent debate, that "no further medical benefits could come from animal experimentation". The members of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) have various philosophies regarding the ethics of medical experimentation and criticize animal research not on ethical but on medical grounds. I have witnessed animal demonstrations and research in which -
For prescribing information see page 602
the teaching value or the data generated were useless at best. I know of poorly designed or repetitive research done because grant money was available and a publication could result. Using animal "models" is often an easy way to manipulate an almost infinite number of variables and generate data that in themselves can be totally worthless. During the debate in question a claim was made by Dr. Bessie Borwein, a biomedical researcher, that animal research was responsible for the eradication of onchocerciasis, or river blindness, in Africa. However, I know a Canadian statistician who worked for the World Health Organization on the onchocerciasis project under the direction of Dr. Samba, and in discussion with the statistician it became apparent that the life cycle of the parasite was worked out by careful clinical field work and that onchocerciasis is now treated by ivermectin, an old veterinary drug. Such distortion of the facts and unwarranted claims for the successes of animal research are all too common. The type of paranoia that Philp's entire article exhibits is not, unfortunately, rare. I am opposed to any sort of illegal action, but I find that when I identify my position as a physician opposed to animal research the response, as demonstrated here, includes allusion to animal rights groups and terrorism. I believe that this is not accidental but the result of a wellorganized public relations campaign by the various groups that support unrestricted animal research. Much more progress can be made by dialogue among responsible coprofessionals than by the
kind of mudslinging that this article exhibits. I would like to be on record as having offered to participate in such a dialogue. I challenge the author to accept. Marjorie Cramer, MD 800-A Fifth Ave. New York, NY
Dr. Philp's opinion piece on animal rights did not accurately represent the views of the PCRM. He is correct that we publish information on nutrition, including the bimonthly Guide to Healthy Eating. We do not hold the view that "all disease is preventable". We agree with the National Cancer Institute that approximately 80% of cancers are potentially preventable but that a considerable amount of education and policy change is required to realize this potential. We do not deny that many animal experiments have been conducted with a rationale and, presumably, some benefit. But they also divert a tremendous amount of time, resources and attention away from more profitable methods of research. Animal models of AIDS, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis and numerous other conditions leave a great deal to be desired. Bearing in mind, also, the suffering that is inherent in animal experiments we should be able to agree that investing in other methods has substantial merit. Neal D. Bamard, MD President Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine PO Box 6322 Washington, DC
How much longer will animalCAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 143 (7)
603
