Many of you might think that, as a person who is currently doing research
on animals, I would have no sympathy with the animals, or that I would find
animal rights activists a deterrent to the advancement of science.  Most
animal researchers understand the history of the animal rights movement and
its benefit to research.  The post about the situation in Mexico sounded
horrible, but it is really not that different than what went on in this
country before animal rights activists started their protests and lobbying.
In addition most of us do what we do with a certain amount of, I guess it
would be fair to say, guilt and more importantly a lot of respect for the
animals.
 
I think a lot of resistance to animal research comes from the mistaken
impression that there has to be an alternative.  Right now I have to say I
don't think there is.  It's possible in the future that there will be, but
science just isn't that far along yet.  There are certain things that you
can do in a test tube or in a tissue culture that can give you a fair idea
of what's going to happen in an animal, but they can't replace a live
animal.  Believe me, testing a cell line is usually much easier, cheaper,
and quicker, but sometimes you just can't ask the right questions.
 
Many years ago medical research was done in a different way.  Some of
the very people who are revered as pioneers of medical research would be
vilified today.  They tested vaccines on their own children and themselves.
The vaccine for small pox used to be only available as the pus from the
sores of a person infected with cowpox.  To bring this vaccine to America
from England orphans would be infected with the virus and put on a ship.
This is unthinkable to us today.
 
There may be some of you that think animal research is fine on insects or
frogs or chickens, but not on animals with personalities (apologies to
those who think insects, frogs and/or chickens have great personalities).
It seems like the cuter and fuzzier you get the more resistance you have.
Dogs, cats, ferrets and primates are what you hear about when animal rights
activists start protesting.  The unfortunate fact is that ferrets are
pretty good research animals.  They are bigger than mice and rats, which
can allow for some more delicate procedures.  They are smaller and much
cheaper to buy and to house than a beagle or a pig.  They can be relatively
docile and friendly.  As the Killians stated much of what we know about
ferret physiology and diseases comes from things people have had to
discover in the course of using ferrets as research animals.  Do you think
a book like Fox's Biology and Diseases of the Ferret would EVER have been
written if ferrets were not used as research animals?  .
 
I personally have never worked with ferrets in the lab.  I'm pretty sure I
could not do it.  On the other hand I'm also pretty sure I could not kill a
cow (maybe if I was REALLY hungry), but I will eat a hamburger.  I think
that those of you out there who are violently opposed to animal research
need to really consider where the world and you yourselves would be without
it.  We gain so much from animal research that it is almost impossible to
consider all the benefits.  I'm not saying anything for or against
Marshalls in particular.  I don't know enough about it, but the government
DOES have very strict regulations on animal care and they DO enforce them.
If Marshall's is in violation of any government regulations they will be
required to correct their practices.  Another thing to be aware of...
researchers pay a lot of money for their animals, they expect the animals
to be healthy and disease free.  In a research setting infectious disease
is a disaster as it can spread through the entire facility.  If a certain
company has a reputation for shipping infected or generally unhealthy
animals researchers will find some other place to obtain them.
 
[LA]
[Posted in FML issue 3176]