VIEWPOINT * POINT DE VUE
cannot afford to lose the animal rights war We
Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD T here is a war going on in medical science, but it is not the war against disease that is waged by physicians and scientists. And it is not the battle investigators fight every year to obtain adequate research funding. Rather, it is the guerrilla war against scientists and research facilities being waged by animal rights (AR) extremists. It has already cost Canadian universities and hospitals millions by forcing them to protect animal laboratories from a group of zealots called the Animal Liberation Front
(ALF).
Animal rights proponents have a simple philosophy. They say that the human species has no inherent mandate to exploit other species in any way, and so they oppose animal-based medical research, the eating of meat, the existence of zoos, the use of fur and leather, hunting and trapping, the keeping of pets, and so on. Australian philosopher Peter Singer, the guru of the movement, defines all such acts as "speciesism", which is basically an attempt to equate them with racism and sexism. Animal-welfare advocates have a different philosophy. They hold that the use of animals by humans should be kept to the
practical minimum, and that every reasonable effort should be made to minimize the discomfort of ones used for research purposes. Antivisectionists have been around as long as animal experimentation and their dogma has changed little through the centuries. In 1875 Sir George Duckett of the Society for the Abolition of Vivisection declared that "medical science has arrived probably at its extreme limits, and has nothing to learn and nothing can be gained by repetition of experiments on living animals". During an open debate on animal research held at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., last year, Dr. Marjorie Cramer, a New York plastic surgeon and member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, declared that no further medical benefits could come from animal
experimentation.
Given the tremendous progress made in the 115 years since Duckett's statement, one cannot help wondering how Cramer can persist in this remarkable bit of self-deception. Consider, for instance, the critical role animalbased research played in the testing of penicillin, in the development of Salk vaccine, and in the discovery of insulin. Still, others carry Cramer's views further. "I do not believe that any useful Richard Philp is a professor in the Depart- information is being obtained ment of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Western Ontario, London. through experiments on living an-
imals", the national chairman of the US Fund for Animals stated recently.
The 1980s saw an escalation
of the AR campaign, with frequent criminal and terrorist acts in North America and abroad. Bombings, break-ins, vandalism and theft of animals have occurred on campuses across Canada. Frivolous cruelty charges, all subsequently dismissed, were brought against faculty and staff members at the universities of Western Ontario and British Columbia by a BC group called Lifeforce and its director, Peter Hamilton. In the spring of 1989 members of another AR group, Ark II, occupied the offices of the dean of medicine at the University of Toronto. Vicki Miller, who engineered a takeover of the Toronto Humane Society by packing its board with Ark II members, has been widely quoted as stating that the 1980s could see "the first vivisector shot in the streets". As if to fulfil this prophesy, an AR extremist was arrested by Norwalk, Connecticut, police in 1988 and
charged with illegal possession of explosives. She is alleged to have left a pipe bomb in the parking space of Leon Hirsch, chairman of a company that uses dogs in the testing of surgical staples. These are but some of the more spectacular episodes in a long list of harassment-related and criminal activities launched by AR extremCAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
1421
ists in recent years, both here and abroad. In the United States many institutions have hired armed guards to protect animal laboratories. One group that should be of particular concern to physicians is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Its main premise seems to be that medical research using animals is unnecessary because all disease is preventable if the correct lifestyle and diet are adopted. The organization publishes slick, glossy pamphlets on topics such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease that, to the average reader, would be indistinguishable from the educational material produced by a reputable medical organization. Although these contain some conventional recommendations for promoting better health, they advocate vegetarianism as a way of life and as a panacea for disease prevention - recipes are provided. These tracts claim that animal-based research has no hope of resolving the riddles of problems such as AIDS or Alzheimer's disease, even though almost all of our knowledge about neurochemistry and neurophysiology is derived through animal-based studies.
i..m,a-
r.
mep
Animal-based research must continue 1422
CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
AR extremists have made much of the claim that more than 1000 American physicians have joined PCRM. In an era when the public is deluged with health information in the popular press, much of it conflicting, a medical group purporting to support the stance of vegans could dissuade people from seeking essential medical attention. There are indications that this group is attempting to establish a bridgehead in Canada. Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, writes extensively on AR issues and is frequently quoted by officials of the Toronto Humane Society and other AR groups. AR activists have become masterful media manipulators and they are expert at managing public debates by packing an audience with supporters, who then dominate the microphones during question periods. They practise the "death of a thousand knives", first attacking soft targets such as eye-irritancy tests conducted to check the safety of cosmetics and toiletries. By discrediting cosmetics as vanity products, and therefore trivial, they have successfully pressured several firms into forgoing animal testing, despite the development of a modified test that uses graded concentrations and causes no more than mild conjunctivitis. They perpetuate the myth that there are "alternatives"9 to all animal experiments, notably computer models and cell cultures. Although there has been progress in developing nonmammalian tests for some purposes, in most cases these have yet to be validated. AR activists have gained substantial support from many highprofile entertainers who campaign publicly on their behalf, and they expertly exploit their media contacts. CBS released a television film last October about Jennifer Graham, a California teenager who refused to dissect a frog in biology class. It spurred the pas-
sage of a state "students' rights" bill. What role should doctors play in this struggle? Most of the tactics used by AR activists, even the legal ones, are exceedingly distasteful to scientists and physicians, who customarily shun public confrontation. Although animal rights is the number one priority of its proponents, it has a low priority and is an unwelcome distraction for most of us. There is, however, a growing belief that we will have to take a high-profile stand if we are to counter the AR
onslaught. The Ontario legislature has before it private members' bills advocating an end to the use of pound animals for research; cosmetics testing would also be banned. The politicians tell us they have been deluged by letters of support and have received few in opposition. Clinical investigators, who often have better access to the news media than basic scientists, sometimes appear reluctant to emphasize the role that experimental animals have played in their newsworthy medical advances. They may be afraid that they or their institutions will become targets of AR action, or be worried about administrators' concerns that fund-raising might suffer. In the long run, such attitudes are bound to be self-defeating. There is already agitation to introduce federal legislation to control the use of animals in research because not all provinces have a law like Ontario's Animals For Research Act. AR activists choose to ignore the excellent work performed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, which employs volunteer scientists and Canadian Federation of Humane Society representatives to conduct site inspections of research facilities. If not followed, their recommendations can result in withdrawal of research grants.
Activists also ignore the role of local animal-care committees, which review all research protocols involving the use of animals. Federal legislation would require the establishment of yet another bureaucracy, which would undoubtedly be more costly than the present system and would be unlikely to provide better protection than animals already have. Unless we become more sophisticated at, and committed to, countering this ongoing pressure, we will find ourselves hedged in by ill-conceived, restrictive regulations that might foster the use of second-rate technology in order to avoid red tape and controversy. And that in turn might discourage our young graduates from choosing careers in the biosciences. Given that acute shortages are expected in the academic field in less than a decade, this could contribute to a crisis in our universities and our medical schools. Clinical and basic investigators alike should take advantage of every opportunity to inform the public of the vital role animalbased research plays in medical progress. This policy has been advocated by such respected figures as heart transplant pioneer Michael de Bakey, Nobel laureate David Hubel, and Daniel Koshland, Jr., the editor of Science. Canada's family physicians may feel this debate has nothing to do with them, that it does not affect them directly and that there is little they can do to influence its outcome. They are wrong. Should AR extremists achieve even partial success, it will be reflected in: * increased costs in developing new medications; * a probable reduction in their safety if toxicity testing is curtailed; * a possible reduction in the availability of new and better medications. Obviously, it is neither practical nor desirable for physicians to
Canapress
"AR activists are masterful media manipulators."
discuss with patients the role animal research played in developing each drug being prescribed, but they should think of putting a poster in their waiting rooms to make the point. If a patient should express AR leanings, or concerns about safeguards for the humane care of animals used in research, a few minutes spent discussing the issue would be time well spent. We must also learn to be more effective lobbyists elected officials tend to hear the loudest voices, and for a long time these have been coming from the AR side. One noteworthy organization is Partners in Research (PIR), which comprises concerned lay persons, physicians and scientists. It is dedicated to educating society and government about the importance of medical research and the critical role animal experimentation plays in it. Chapters already exist in London, Ont., Toronto and Ottawa, and there are plans to form others in Hamilton, Ont., Kingston, Ont., and Guelph, Ont. PIR publishes a newsletter and wall posters are available. It currently lacks the financial resources to distribute them because its charitable-organization status is awaiting approval and fund-raising is therefore limited, but physicians can receive posters by send-
ing $5 to Partners in Research, PO Box 192, Stn. B, London, Ont. N6A 4V6. At the root, this is a philosophical struggle. Ethical values are established by a society and they change over time and from one culture to another. If our society chooses to embrace the animal rights philosophy, there will be a radical change in the way we conduct research, in what we eat and wear, and in the way we relate to animals. However, society is poorly equipped to understand the consequences of such a choice. We must ensure that it receives the information needed to make a rational decision. In 1988 the American Medical Association issued a white paper on the subject and it asked this question: "How humane or moral is it to deprive the human victims of Alzheimer's disease, stroke, disabling injury, heart disease, cancer, and countless other diseases or disorders, of hope, knowing that the solutions to these problems can only be [found] through the conduct of biomedical research with animals?" This moral question must be considered by society as a whole. It must consider what legacy of health it wishes to leave behind for its children. u CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
1423
cannot afford to lose the animal rights war We
Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD T here is a war going on in medical science, but it is not the war against disease that is waged by physicians and scientists. And it is not the battle investigators fight every year to obtain adequate research funding. Rather, it is the guerrilla war against scientists and research facilities being waged by animal rights (AR) extremists. It has already cost Canadian universities and hospitals millions by forcing them to protect animal laboratories from a group of zealots called the Animal Liberation Front
(ALF).
Animal rights proponents have a simple philosophy. They say that the human species has no inherent mandate to exploit other species in any way, and so they oppose animal-based medical research, the eating of meat, the existence of zoos, the use of fur and leather, hunting and trapping, the keeping of pets, and so on. Australian philosopher Peter Singer, the guru of the movement, defines all such acts as "speciesism", which is basically an attempt to equate them with racism and sexism. Animal-welfare advocates have a different philosophy. They hold that the use of animals by humans should be kept to the
practical minimum, and that every reasonable effort should be made to minimize the discomfort of ones used for research purposes. Antivisectionists have been around as long as animal experimentation and their dogma has changed little through the centuries. In 1875 Sir George Duckett of the Society for the Abolition of Vivisection declared that "medical science has arrived probably at its extreme limits, and has nothing to learn and nothing can be gained by repetition of experiments on living animals". During an open debate on animal research held at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., last year, Dr. Marjorie Cramer, a New York plastic surgeon and member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, declared that no further medical benefits could come from animal
experimentation.
Given the tremendous progress made in the 115 years since Duckett's statement, one cannot help wondering how Cramer can persist in this remarkable bit of self-deception. Consider, for instance, the critical role animalbased research played in the testing of penicillin, in the development of Salk vaccine, and in the discovery of insulin. Still, others carry Cramer's views further. "I do not believe that any useful Richard Philp is a professor in the Depart- information is being obtained ment of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Western Ontario, London. through experiments on living an-
imals", the national chairman of the US Fund for Animals stated recently.
The 1980s saw an escalation
of the AR campaign, with frequent criminal and terrorist acts in North America and abroad. Bombings, break-ins, vandalism and theft of animals have occurred on campuses across Canada. Frivolous cruelty charges, all subsequently dismissed, were brought against faculty and staff members at the universities of Western Ontario and British Columbia by a BC group called Lifeforce and its director, Peter Hamilton. In the spring of 1989 members of another AR group, Ark II, occupied the offices of the dean of medicine at the University of Toronto. Vicki Miller, who engineered a takeover of the Toronto Humane Society by packing its board with Ark II members, has been widely quoted as stating that the 1980s could see "the first vivisector shot in the streets". As if to fulfil this prophesy, an AR extremist was arrested by Norwalk, Connecticut, police in 1988 and
charged with illegal possession of explosives. She is alleged to have left a pipe bomb in the parking space of Leon Hirsch, chairman of a company that uses dogs in the testing of surgical staples. These are but some of the more spectacular episodes in a long list of harassment-related and criminal activities launched by AR extremCAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
1421
ists in recent years, both here and abroad. In the United States many institutions have hired armed guards to protect animal laboratories. One group that should be of particular concern to physicians is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Its main premise seems to be that medical research using animals is unnecessary because all disease is preventable if the correct lifestyle and diet are adopted. The organization publishes slick, glossy pamphlets on topics such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease that, to the average reader, would be indistinguishable from the educational material produced by a reputable medical organization. Although these contain some conventional recommendations for promoting better health, they advocate vegetarianism as a way of life and as a panacea for disease prevention - recipes are provided. These tracts claim that animal-based research has no hope of resolving the riddles of problems such as AIDS or Alzheimer's disease, even though almost all of our knowledge about neurochemistry and neurophysiology is derived through animal-based studies.
i..m,a-
r.
mep
Animal-based research must continue 1422
CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
AR extremists have made much of the claim that more than 1000 American physicians have joined PCRM. In an era when the public is deluged with health information in the popular press, much of it conflicting, a medical group purporting to support the stance of vegans could dissuade people from seeking essential medical attention. There are indications that this group is attempting to establish a bridgehead in Canada. Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, writes extensively on AR issues and is frequently quoted by officials of the Toronto Humane Society and other AR groups. AR activists have become masterful media manipulators and they are expert at managing public debates by packing an audience with supporters, who then dominate the microphones during question periods. They practise the "death of a thousand knives", first attacking soft targets such as eye-irritancy tests conducted to check the safety of cosmetics and toiletries. By discrediting cosmetics as vanity products, and therefore trivial, they have successfully pressured several firms into forgoing animal testing, despite the development of a modified test that uses graded concentrations and causes no more than mild conjunctivitis. They perpetuate the myth that there are "alternatives"9 to all animal experiments, notably computer models and cell cultures. Although there has been progress in developing nonmammalian tests for some purposes, in most cases these have yet to be validated. AR activists have gained substantial support from many highprofile entertainers who campaign publicly on their behalf, and they expertly exploit their media contacts. CBS released a television film last October about Jennifer Graham, a California teenager who refused to dissect a frog in biology class. It spurred the pas-
sage of a state "students' rights" bill. What role should doctors play in this struggle? Most of the tactics used by AR activists, even the legal ones, are exceedingly distasteful to scientists and physicians, who customarily shun public confrontation. Although animal rights is the number one priority of its proponents, it has a low priority and is an unwelcome distraction for most of us. There is, however, a growing belief that we will have to take a high-profile stand if we are to counter the AR
onslaught. The Ontario legislature has before it private members' bills advocating an end to the use of pound animals for research; cosmetics testing would also be banned. The politicians tell us they have been deluged by letters of support and have received few in opposition. Clinical investigators, who often have better access to the news media than basic scientists, sometimes appear reluctant to emphasize the role that experimental animals have played in their newsworthy medical advances. They may be afraid that they or their institutions will become targets of AR action, or be worried about administrators' concerns that fund-raising might suffer. In the long run, such attitudes are bound to be self-defeating. There is already agitation to introduce federal legislation to control the use of animals in research because not all provinces have a law like Ontario's Animals For Research Act. AR activists choose to ignore the excellent work performed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, which employs volunteer scientists and Canadian Federation of Humane Society representatives to conduct site inspections of research facilities. If not followed, their recommendations can result in withdrawal of research grants.
Activists also ignore the role of local animal-care committees, which review all research protocols involving the use of animals. Federal legislation would require the establishment of yet another bureaucracy, which would undoubtedly be more costly than the present system and would be unlikely to provide better protection than animals already have. Unless we become more sophisticated at, and committed to, countering this ongoing pressure, we will find ourselves hedged in by ill-conceived, restrictive regulations that might foster the use of second-rate technology in order to avoid red tape and controversy. And that in turn might discourage our young graduates from choosing careers in the biosciences. Given that acute shortages are expected in the academic field in less than a decade, this could contribute to a crisis in our universities and our medical schools. Clinical and basic investigators alike should take advantage of every opportunity to inform the public of the vital role animalbased research plays in medical progress. This policy has been advocated by such respected figures as heart transplant pioneer Michael de Bakey, Nobel laureate David Hubel, and Daniel Koshland, Jr., the editor of Science. Canada's family physicians may feel this debate has nothing to do with them, that it does not affect them directly and that there is little they can do to influence its outcome. They are wrong. Should AR extremists achieve even partial success, it will be reflected in: * increased costs in developing new medications; * a probable reduction in their safety if toxicity testing is curtailed; * a possible reduction in the availability of new and better medications. Obviously, it is neither practical nor desirable for physicians to
Canapress
"AR activists are masterful media manipulators."
discuss with patients the role animal research played in developing each drug being prescribed, but they should think of putting a poster in their waiting rooms to make the point. If a patient should express AR leanings, or concerns about safeguards for the humane care of animals used in research, a few minutes spent discussing the issue would be time well spent. We must also learn to be more effective lobbyists elected officials tend to hear the loudest voices, and for a long time these have been coming from the AR side. One noteworthy organization is Partners in Research (PIR), which comprises concerned lay persons, physicians and scientists. It is dedicated to educating society and government about the importance of medical research and the critical role animal experimentation plays in it. Chapters already exist in London, Ont., Toronto and Ottawa, and there are plans to form others in Hamilton, Ont., Kingston, Ont., and Guelph, Ont. PIR publishes a newsletter and wall posters are available. It currently lacks the financial resources to distribute them because its charitable-organization status is awaiting approval and fund-raising is therefore limited, but physicians can receive posters by send-
ing $5 to Partners in Research, PO Box 192, Stn. B, London, Ont. N6A 4V6. At the root, this is a philosophical struggle. Ethical values are established by a society and they change over time and from one culture to another. If our society chooses to embrace the animal rights philosophy, there will be a radical change in the way we conduct research, in what we eat and wear, and in the way we relate to animals. However, society is poorly equipped to understand the consequences of such a choice. We must ensure that it receives the information needed to make a rational decision. In 1988 the American Medical Association issued a white paper on the subject and it asked this question: "How humane or moral is it to deprive the human victims of Alzheimer's disease, stroke, disabling injury, heart disease, cancer, and countless other diseases or disorders, of hope, knowing that the solutions to these problems can only be [found] through the conduct of biomedical research with animals?" This moral question must be considered by society as a whole. It must consider what legacy of health it wishes to leave behind for its children. u CAN MED ASSOC J 1990; 142 (12)
1423
