Daniel T. Oliver

February 1994

"If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. . . . We have no basic right . . . not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to."

So says animal rights author Tom Regan in his 1984 book The Case for Animal Rights. This view, echoed by a growing "animal rights" movement, should concern everyone interested in finding improved treatments and a cure for AIDS.

Unlike the humane movement, which for decades has worked to improve the treatment of animals, the animal rights movement seeks to end all uses of animals, including for food, clothing, medicine, and even pets. Animal rights proponents typically make three arguments against using animals in research:

1. Animal research is painful.

2. Animal research produces useless results.

3. There are effective alternatives to animal research.

According to the most comprehensive study of pain in animal research (conducted by the USDA in 1984), 92 percent of research animals experience no pain, or have it relieved. In contrast, over 300,000 Americans suffer severe traumatic injuries each year that leave them permanently disabled. The AMA notes that "If experiments seeking a better understanding of these injuries and ways to treat them are banned, . . . those and future victims will have to live without hope, . . . for there is no other way to gain the knowledge . . . necessary to help them."

The claim that animal research is useless is discredited by the crucial role it has played in developing treatments or cures for numerous infectious diseases and chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes, measles, polio, and smallpox. Medical breakthroughs generated through animal research include coronary bypass surgery, heart transplants, intravenous feeding, and open heart surgery.

Already, animal research has increased our understanding of AIDS:

1. Data obtained from studies of mice infected with a type of leukemia virus related to HIV have shown that AZT is an effective anti-HIV agent. Studies of mice have also clarified the means of HIV transmission.

2. Research on cats infected with another type of leukemia virus have shown that AZT can halt HIV infection if administered immediately after infection occurs. Persons accidentally exposed to HIV have benefitted from this finding.

3. Studies of rhesus monkeys have shown that a chemically inactivated form of a virus similar to HIV produces an immune response. Understanding why this occurs may be critical in developing a vaccine for HIV.

The NIH notes that "[i]n the future, animal studies will continue to be needed to identify appropriate drugs in suitable doses and combinations, to expand our understanding of viral infections, and to provide systems for developing and testing AIDS vaccines." Further, "[b]ecause AIDS is a fatal disease with no known cure, . . . people cannot be deliberately infected . . . to enable the testing of experimental vaccines. Ethics and human compassion dictate the use of animal studies. . . ."

Animal rights proponents say there are alternatives to animal research -- such as computer simulations, chemical screening tests, and the study of cell cultures -- that make experiments on animals unnecessary.

These, however, are more commonly adjuncts rather than alternatives to animal research. Neurosurgeon Robert J. White asks, "How can researchers using cell cultures, which do not have bones, develop a treatment for arthritis or other bone diseases? How can cell cultures help us to perfect the surgical techniques used in organ transplantation?" The AMA notes that "The validity of any [computer simulation] depends on how closely it resembles the original in every respect. [But much] about . . . the various biological systems of humans and animals is not [yet] known. . . . [Thus], no model can be constructed that will in every case predict or accurately represent the reaction of the system to a given stimulus."

Animal rights activism is having a major impact on medical research. Research laboratories spent as much as $2,000,000,000 in 1990 complying with new federal regulations -- promoted by animal rights groups -- that cover the feeding, housing, and sanitation of animals. While critics doubt that these regulations have improved conditions for animals, as much as 15% of the total 1990 medical research budget was reallocated into regulatory compliance -- an amount equal to the entire budget for research on AIDS, Alzhei mer's, and heart disease combined. As former Congressman Vin Weber says, "[C]ures for cancer, AIDS and heart disease . . . are being delayed because the money that should be spent on them is being spent on complying with [regulations]."

Fringe elements of the animal rights movement have also perpetrated nearly 100 acts of vandalism and arson against federal, private, and university research facilities, resulting in increased costs for security and the replacement of damaged equipment, lost records, and stolen animals. An estimated 20% of the federal budget for medical research is now used for security and regulatory compliance. Threatening phone calls, picketing of family homes, and death threats have also generated fear among medical researchers and students, deterring them from research. As NIH scientist Steven Wise says, "If the chain of scientific talent is broken, society won't be able to reverse that trend easily. In five or 10 years, when we desperately need good scientists to solve another health emergency like AIDS, the scientific talent just will not be there."

In order to find treatments and cures for diseases that plague mankind, researchers must be free from unnecessary regulation and protected against violence. Reasonable people agree that animals should be treated humanely. But our concern for animals should not allow us fall prey to false arguments of animal abuse or useless research, nor to complacency toward undue regulation, illegality, and terrorism. These must be challenged and fought. Our lives and the lives of those we love depend on it.