Why Animal Research Is Bad Science: The Government Is Wrong to Support Vivisection-And Not Only Because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human Creatures. Most Human Diseases Are Unique to Us, and Testing on Other Species Is Downright Misleading

By Tatchell, Peter | New Statesman (1996), August 9, 2004 | Go to article overview

Why Animal Research Is Bad Science: The Government Is Wrong to Support Vivisection-And Not Only Because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human Creatures. Most Human Diseases Are Unique to Us, and Testing on Other Species Is Downright Misleading


Tatchell, Peter, New Statesman (1996)


The government is determined to ensure the expansion of animal research, arguing that investment, jobs and medical breakthroughs depend on it. It's a view that the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, and a coalition of powerful drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, share--as does the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. In the face of protests that have halted the construction of an Oxford laboratory where animal experiments were to take place, Blunkett is proposing new laws to crack down on "animal rights extremists". He seems more concerned about the harassment of a handful of researchers than about the industrial-scale infliction of pain and death on more than two million living, feeling animals, including 4,000 experiments on non-human primates last year.

Yet some scientists doubt that vivisection can provide accurate models of human diseases and treatments at all. They point out that drug therapies can have vastly different effects on different species. Strychnine, for example, kills people but not monkeys, and belladonna is deadly to humans yet harmless to rabbits.

We have witnessed many tragic consequences of blind faith in animal testing. The anti-rheumatic drug Opren killed 76 people in Britain and caused serious illness to 3,500 others, despite having been declared safe after seven years of animal research. Likewise, thousands of people with heart trouble suffered adversely after taking the animal-vetted drug Eraldin. Subsequent experimentation has failed to find a single species that reacts to Eraldin in the same way as humans do. Undeterred, the big pharmaceutical corporations have exploited public fears concerning life-threatening diseases such as cancer and HIV to demand more money for animal experiments and to oppose animal welfare legislation restricting their activities.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The battle against HIV provides a classic example of the pitfalls of vivisection. Protease inhibitor drugs have made a major contribution to cutting the death rate; enabling many people with the virus to live a more or less normal life. HIV infection has been transformed from a death sentence into a manageable condition.

The initial development of these highly effective anti-HIV therapies was, however, seriously compromised by reliance on animal testing. In one of the biggest medical scandals of recent times, there was a four-year delay in the clinical trials of protease-inhibitor treatments. This may have contributed to the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people worldwide.

In 1989, researchers at the pharmaceutical giant Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD) were working on a promising protease drug. Development was going well until the scientists decided to test the new therapy on dogs and rats. They all died. According MSD's former vice-president of worldwide basic research, Bennett M Shapiro, the company "stopped development" of its most promising protease inhibitor. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Why Animal Research Is Bad Science: The Government Is Wrong to Support Vivisection-And Not Only Because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human Creatures. Most Human Diseases Are Unique to Us, and Testing on Other Species Is Downright Misleading
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.