

                ANIMALS MUST DIE SO PEOPLE CAN LIVE

           (reprinted from the Minneapolis Star Tribune)




       Demonstrations against the use of animals in medical 
research bring out some interesting personalities.  The 
demonstrators are all vegetarians, because one cannot object to 
killing animals for medical research while continuing to eat 
them.  And since more than 90% of animals used in medical 
research are mice or rats, animal rights zealots should never use 
mousetraps.

       Demonstrators wear rubber-soled canvas shoes, and if the 
weather is cold, woolen, not leather, gloves.  And since research 
on contraception medication involves the use of rabbits, most of 
the women in the groups probably are pregnant.

       None of these demonstrators would have been immunized 
against polio-myelitis, diptheria, whooping cough or other 
childhood diseases, or cured of potentially fatal infections by 
antibiotics.  Accident victims, salvaged from death by blood 
transfusions, are disqualified from participation, as are 
diabetics who depend on insulin for their continued existence.  
Responses to these medical situations required animal research.

       Anyone with a prosthetic joint, a transplanted kidney or 
a cardiac pacemaker, or a history of heart surgery, chemotherapy 
or immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer or of successful 
treatment of glaucoma, could not, in good conscience, represent 
him or herself as an opponent of the use of animals in biomedical 
research.  Relatives of those with Alzheimer's disease must 
disqualify themselves as marchers, since current research on 
monkeys may eventually suggest effective ways to treat this 
disorder.

       One would not expect protesters to bring along their pet 
animals, since most domestic pets are protected against 
distemper, infectious hepatitis, parasites and even rabies by 
medications perfected through animal experimentation.  And since 
the 100 million cats and dogs in North America are carnivores, 
requiring food obtained by killing other animals, pets must keep 
a low profile to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.

       For consistency, one would expect animal rights groups 
picketing rodeos, where animals are mistreated for 
entertainment.  And why not release cattle from slaughter houses 
where they are killed without general anesthesia?

       The conscientious objector must also refrain from eating 
animal flesh, but must also protest against others eating it.

       Fourteen million dogs, more than one third of the total 
dog population in North America, are destroyed in public pounds 
and animal shelters.  Animal pounds and humane societies engaged 
in animal control kill more than 50 cats and dogs for every one 
that is sacrificed for research purposes.

       Although computer simulation, test-tube experimentation 
and tissue cultures are gradually supplanting some types of 
animal research, it would be a serious error to suppose that such 
alternative techniques will soon be available for all research 
that now uses live animal subjects.  No other method can fully 
replace the testing of a drug, a procedure or a vaccine in a 
living organism.

       Successful alternatives to some types of animal-related 
research have indeed been developed in the last decade, with a 
40% drop in the number of animals used in research between 1968 
and 1978, with still further reductions since that time.

       The human body, however, is far more complex than a 
tissue culture, with physical and chemical interactions that 
cannot be reduced to a computer programme.  Just as a new type of 
aircraft can be tested in a wind tunnel but must eventually be 
tried out by a test pilot, a new surgical operation, a new drug 
or new treatment must be tried on the first human being.

       Who among healthy protesters would volunteer as a subject 
for the study of AIDS?  This disease must be studied in an 
environment that provides for an immune system found only in a 
living animal.

       The dispute regarding the use of laboratory animals has 
heightened the research community's sensitivity to the need for 
strict safeguards against pain and suffering when conducting 
experiments.  Let us hope that reason will prevail, and that 
these well-intentioned efforts will not bring biomedical research 
to a state of virtual paralysis as it has in England.

                                        John A. Kirchener  Ph.D.
h 
to a state of virtual paralysis as it