Animal Research

Most of us in this room have probably not suffered from a debilitating illness or a life-threatening
disease. But maybe you know of someone who has. Has either of your parents or grandparents been
diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or some other illness? Has someone you know had
surgery, chemotherapy, or a drug treatment? Both of my grandmothers died from cancer; my
grandfather had heart disease; my great-uncle suffered from Parkinsons disease for 20 years and
participated in all kinds of experimental treatments. My 16-year-old brother has a friend who is
currently undergoing a bone-marrow transplant in Boston for leukemia. And Im sure all of you are
aware that Michael J. Fox and Mohammed Ali suffer from Parkinsons disease and that Christopher
Reeves is paralyzed with a spinal cord injury.

No matter where we live or who we are, illness and disease affect us all. In order to develop
cures and treatments for the illnesses and diseases that exist in our world, scientists conduct research
and experiments. This research is presently under attack because these experiments involve the use of
many different animals. Today, animal-rights groups want to ban the use of animals in scientific testing.
They claim that animal experimentation and the killing of animals for research is unethical, cruel, and
unnecessary. One of the most influential animal-rights groups is PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals. Their motto is Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.
But what if one of their children developed a rare disease or a life-threatening illness? Wouldnt they
want the best medical treatment and the latest techniques? Do they realize that it is only because of
animal research, experimentation, and testing that we have treatments and cures for many of the
illnesses and diseases that afflict us?

The primary question in this debate over animal research asks: Is it acceptable to experiment on
and kill animals to make scientific and medical discoveries that might save human lives or should all
research stop that harms or kills animals because it is morally wrong?

While animal-rights activists make some convincing arguments, I believe that animal research is
critical for the future of public health and deserves precedence over concern for animals. According to
the American Medical Association, Research that involves animals is essential to improving the health
and well-being of the American people. I hope that by the end of my speech many of you will agree
with me.

Opponents of animal research argue that animal experimentation and animal testing is
unethical and cruel. They claim that causing animals to suffer and die for any reason is morally wrong,
including medical discoveries and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Many animal-rights
activists believe that animals deserve the same right to life as humans and deserve the same respect.
They maintain that since humans do not have the right to use other humans for food, clothing,
recreation and medical experiments, then humans do not have the right to use animals for these
purposes. By alleging cruelty to animals, animal-rights groups work diligently to end the use of animals
for food and clothing and in circuses and rodeos. These groups pressured cosmetic companies to reduce
the amount of testing done on animals. Now, however, animal-rights activists want to stop the use of
animals for scientific and medical research. They claim that even if animal research achieves good
results, the use of animals is still morally wrong.

I, like other advocates of animal testing, object to the argument that animal experimentation for
any reason is unethical, cruel, and unnecessary. The scientific-research community defends animal
testing, claiming that animal research is necessary to develop life-saving medicines and technologies.
And according to the American Medical Association, since 1901, 60 of 82 Nobel prizes in physiology have
been awarded for work involving animals. In fact, most of the medical procedures we take for granted
today resulted from animal testing. (time-line)

In addition, the American Physiological Society supports the humane use of animals in medical
research, claiming that the research benefits both humans and animals and that only animal studies can
answer certain questions. The APS says, Animal research is the most humane response to human
suffering from disease and that depriving sick human beings of the benefits of animal research is
inhumane and reprehensible.

While many people oppose animal testing because it causes injury or death to the animal, I
believe animal research is necessary to develop and test drugs and surgical techniques. According to
Nobel Prize winner Sir John Vane quoted by the Research Defense Society on the web, The medicines
of tomorrow will depend upon research being done today, for which animal experimentation is
essential. Researchers agree that the use of animals is absolutely critical for most of the HIV/AIDS
research conducted today. Every drug presently used to treat HIV-infection and its complications came
about from animal experimentation. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was quoted by the
Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation on the internet as saying, We would be in utter
darkness about AIDS if we hadnt done decades of basic research in animal retroviruses. And according
to the GLAA, Animal research is essential to progress in the study, treatment and prevention of
HIV/AIDS, including the development of new approaches that may ultimately lead to a cure.

Furthermore, scientists need to develop and test new surgical techniques in living, breathing
whole organ systems with pulmonary and circulatory systems like humans. Doctors who perform
todays delicate cardiac and brain surgeries first worked on animals to develop the necessary skills
before performing surgery on human patients.

Opponents of animal experimentation also argue that researchers should employ alternatives to
animal use. These include test-tube experiments, clinical research involving the study of human
patients, and computer programs that model biological responses. Critics of animal research declare in
Facts on File on the web that animal studies are an example of bad science---animals and humans
are quite different biologically and data obtained from animals does not always apply to humans. They
feel that since animals differ from humans in certain biological aspects, then the results of animal
studies might be misleading when applied to humans.

I would oppose that argument along with other advocates of animal research. No computer
model or cell culture can simulate flesh, muscle, blood, bones, and organs working together in a living
system. Without observing and testing the entire living system, scientists cannot explore, explain, or
predict the course of many diseases or the effects of treatments. While medical researchers study cell
and tissue cultures, these isolated tests provide only isolated results. For example, testing a drug on
isolated tissues or organs will not show how a drug affects the whole body. Also, when developing
compounds to treat HIV/AIDS, many appeared promising in computer models and in test-tubes, but they
proved to be extremely toxic in animals. Even if computer programs could simulate a persons reaction
to a drug or treatment, it would not be ethical to try new drugs or treatments out on humans without
first trying them out on animals, whose bodies resemble humans in relevant ways. !

For example, scientists use small animals like rats to determine the possible side effects of new drugs
including infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, liver damage, and cancer. If animal tests prove the safety
of new drugs, then human patients participate in further studies. So until scientists find suitable
alternatives, animal research remains crucial to developing life-saving medicines, treatments, and
technologies.

While some animal-rights activists claim that laboratory workers mistreat animals, scientists and
researchers defend their treatment of animals. There are various federal laws and regulations to
safeguard the welfare of laboratory animals. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, which
set minimum standards for the care of animals in laboratories and required government-run and private
labs to submit to random inspections by the Agriculture Department. Facilities that use animals covered
by the Animal Welfare Act must register with the USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and
be inspected by it. Additionally, researchers who get funding from the U.S. government must follow
certain rules concerning animal welfare.

Today, animal research remains controversial. I believe it is morally justifiable to use animals in
experiments and research in order to develop a treatment or a cure for a disease or illness affecting our
world today. Not allowing these experiments to be done could cause the untimely death of millions of
men, women, and children. Heloisa Sabin, wife of Albert Sabin who developed the oral polio vaccine,
stated in the Wall Street Journal, Those who support an animal rights agenda that would cripple
research and halt medical science in its tracks are slamming the door on the possibilities of new
treatments and cures. If PETA has its way, spinal cord research being done on rats will stop and
Christopher Reeve and a quarter of a million other Americans with spinal cord injuries will be denied
their dream of one day walking again. Every day, all around the world, millions of people with HIV/AIDS
hope that advances in scientific research will save their lives. I am not willing to take away someones
hope for a new treatment or a cure. Animal research might one day save my life, your life, or someone
close to you.