US researchers defend animal testing

Feb 21, 2011
A Chinese researcher injects a monkey with an experimental solution at a laboratory in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. US researchers defended animal testing, telling a small group at one of the biggest science conferences in the United States that not doing animal research would be unethical and cost human lives.

US researchers defended animal testing, telling a small group at one of the biggest science conferences in the United States that not doing animal research would be unethical and cost human lives.

The researchers, who are or have been involved in , told a symposium at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that testing on animals has led to "dramatic developments in research that have improved and affected the quality of human life."

"To not do animal testing would mean that we would not be able to bring treatments and interventions and cures in a timely way. And what that means is people would die," Stuart Zola of Emory University, which is home to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, told AFP after the symposium.

Treatments for diseases such as diabetes and polio were made possible through animal research, the researchers said, and animals are currently being used in hepatitis-, HIV- and stem cell-related research, among others.

But animal rights activists continue to bring pressure on laboratories that use animals to develop drugs and vaccines, urging them to stop the practice and use other means to develop the next wonder drug, treatment or cure.

Animal rights activists also insist they will never use medications developed through , but the researchers said they probably already have done.

"I get a lot of emails from animal rights activists, and one of them said, 'I have , and if you discover any drugs using that help C patients, I'm not going to take them,'" John Vandenberg of the Southwest National Primate Research Center in Texas told AFP.

"I didn't communicate back to him that if he's taking any drug whatsoever for hepatitis C, it was developed with chimpanzees. There's this ignorance in the world as to where these drugs come from, where vaccines come from," he said.

The researchers also argued that animal research in the United States is covered by a bevy of rules and regulations to ensure that the animals used in testing are treated humanely.

"It is quite dramatically regulated," said Zola.

Institutions that receive federal funding have to have an "animal care and use committee that reviews every protocol that uses even a single rodent," said Zola.

That protocol is then reviewed by another panel, which includes veterinarians, experts in medicine, and a representative of the public, and only when everyone has signed off on the protocol can testing proceed.

Explore further: Monitoring the rise and fall of the microbiome

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EU drops mouse tests for shellfish

Apr 15, 2006

The European Union has dropped a requirement that tissue from shellfish being tested for human consumption be injected into mice.

Chimps' future prompts debate over NM primate lab

Sep 22, 2010

(AP) -- A decision to move 186 chimpanzees from a southern New Mexico facility to Texas is pitting government officials and scientists against a coalition of elected officials and animal rights advocates, ...

Recommended for you

Monitoring the rise and fall of the microbiome

1 hour ago

Trillions of bacteria live in each person's digestive tract. Scientists believe that some of these bacteria help digest food and stave off harmful infections, but their role in human health is not well understood.

Antioxidant biomaterial promotes healing

9 hours ago

When a foreign material like a medical device or surgical implant is put inside the human body, the body always responds. According to Northwestern University's Guillermo Ameer, most of the time, that response can be negative ...

Immune response may cause harm in brain injuries, disorders

11 hours ago

Could the body's own immune system play a role in memory impairment and cognitive dysfunction associated with conditions like chronic epilepsy, Alzheimer's dementia and concussions? Cleveland Clinic researchers believe so, ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
not rated yet Feb 22, 2011
While I'm not arguing against animal testing I'm wondering whether the people promoting animal testing don't have any sounder justification than "it saves human lives".
With this type of justification there's nearly nothing to refrain from non-consensual experiments on humans.

And in fact, exactly this kind of justification is systematically put forward when the topic "collateral damages" is raised.

Thus, there is no sound justification. People are using , hurting, and killing animals just because the _can_ do it.
The criterion of the Categorical Imperative is not met.