J Oral Maxlllofac
Surg
49.329, 1991
An Attack on Human Rights found in humans. It is difficult to conceive that those who abhor the possibility of pain and suffering in research animals would be willing to accept it in their pets as the result of disease when they know very well that such research could lead to ways of eliminating the problem. What role can we play in counteracting this serious animal rights movement? Obviously, the first step is to lend moral and financial support to programs designed to educate the public. But such support is not sufficient; we also have to actively participate in such programs. To do this we need to familiarize ourselves thoroughly with the arguments presented to the public by the animal rights activists and learn the true facts about biomedical research that will enable us to refute them. In particular, it must be made clear that, in most instances, animal research is done when there is no other alternative. When given the choice between animal rights and the right of human beings to be free of such dreaded conditions as cancer and heart disease, it would seem that even the most zealous persons would understand the rationale for choosing the latter. Unfortunately, emotion rather than reason often influences their thinking. In addition to supporting and participating in public education programs, we also need to take an active role in defending the rights of investigators and in opposing any local, state, or federal legislation that is designed to impede or prohibit animalbased research. Legislators are constantly being lobbied by animal rights organizations and they have to know that the general public and the health professions, as well as the scientific community, are against any restrictive legislation. Although the animal rights activists are a minority, they are a well-organized, well-funded, and vocal group. To defuse them requires that we too are well organized, well funded, and make our message heard. This is not an option, it is a responsibility. As Michael DeBakey has indicated, we cannot allow them to hold human health hostage in the pursuit of their personal objectives. This is not a battle about animal welfare; it is a battle about public welfare. The stakes are too high for us to merely stand by and watch.
As a specialty in which many important clinical advances have been based on research in animals, it is essential that we become aware of the growing opposition to such activities. Although there has always been a concern about the humane treatment of experimental animals-a concern shared equally by the researcher and the public-recently the emphasis has been more on animal rights than on animal care. Those activists who espouse this philosophy believe that experimentation on animals is an immoral act that needs to be abolished and have vowed to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal. As a result, facilities have been entered, animals have been released, records and equipment have been destroyed, and research has been disrupted. The Foundation for Biomedical Research estimates the cost of damage in the past 7 years to be in excess of $7 million. This does not even take into consideration the intimidation and harassment of investigators, the research time lost, or the unjustified damage done to the reputation of both researchers and institutions in the eyes of the public, which cannot be measured in dollars. Such insidious attacks stand to undermine the future of research and seriously impede biomedical progress. In the attempt to discredit animal-based research, the animal rights activists play on the feelings that we all have regarding animals, and especially pets, by creating a perception that all such research is cruel, that it is driven by academic pressures, that most of the important clinical problems have already been solved, and that those that have not can be resolved without the use of animals as research subjects. Nothing could be further from the truth! The public needs to be informed that research on animals is only done when it cannot be done on humans or by other means, and that there are still many serious clinical problems that require such an approach. They also must be made aware that researchers are not cruel and heartless people, but are dedicated persons who use animals in their research, despite their own natural feelings, to benefit all humankind. The public forgets that animals also suffer from many of the same diseases as humans, and thus they too benefit from much of the research. Moreover, they need to be reminded that sometimes research is done on animals solely for their own benefit because they often suffer from conditions not
DANIEL M. LASKIN
329
Surg
49.329, 1991
An Attack on Human Rights found in humans. It is difficult to conceive that those who abhor the possibility of pain and suffering in research animals would be willing to accept it in their pets as the result of disease when they know very well that such research could lead to ways of eliminating the problem. What role can we play in counteracting this serious animal rights movement? Obviously, the first step is to lend moral and financial support to programs designed to educate the public. But such support is not sufficient; we also have to actively participate in such programs. To do this we need to familiarize ourselves thoroughly with the arguments presented to the public by the animal rights activists and learn the true facts about biomedical research that will enable us to refute them. In particular, it must be made clear that, in most instances, animal research is done when there is no other alternative. When given the choice between animal rights and the right of human beings to be free of such dreaded conditions as cancer and heart disease, it would seem that even the most zealous persons would understand the rationale for choosing the latter. Unfortunately, emotion rather than reason often influences their thinking. In addition to supporting and participating in public education programs, we also need to take an active role in defending the rights of investigators and in opposing any local, state, or federal legislation that is designed to impede or prohibit animalbased research. Legislators are constantly being lobbied by animal rights organizations and they have to know that the general public and the health professions, as well as the scientific community, are against any restrictive legislation. Although the animal rights activists are a minority, they are a well-organized, well-funded, and vocal group. To defuse them requires that we too are well organized, well funded, and make our message heard. This is not an option, it is a responsibility. As Michael DeBakey has indicated, we cannot allow them to hold human health hostage in the pursuit of their personal objectives. This is not a battle about animal welfare; it is a battle about public welfare. The stakes are too high for us to merely stand by and watch.
As a specialty in which many important clinical advances have been based on research in animals, it is essential that we become aware of the growing opposition to such activities. Although there has always been a concern about the humane treatment of experimental animals-a concern shared equally by the researcher and the public-recently the emphasis has been more on animal rights than on animal care. Those activists who espouse this philosophy believe that experimentation on animals is an immoral act that needs to be abolished and have vowed to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal. As a result, facilities have been entered, animals have been released, records and equipment have been destroyed, and research has been disrupted. The Foundation for Biomedical Research estimates the cost of damage in the past 7 years to be in excess of $7 million. This does not even take into consideration the intimidation and harassment of investigators, the research time lost, or the unjustified damage done to the reputation of both researchers and institutions in the eyes of the public, which cannot be measured in dollars. Such insidious attacks stand to undermine the future of research and seriously impede biomedical progress. In the attempt to discredit animal-based research, the animal rights activists play on the feelings that we all have regarding animals, and especially pets, by creating a perception that all such research is cruel, that it is driven by academic pressures, that most of the important clinical problems have already been solved, and that those that have not can be resolved without the use of animals as research subjects. Nothing could be further from the truth! The public needs to be informed that research on animals is only done when it cannot be done on humans or by other means, and that there are still many serious clinical problems that require such an approach. They also must be made aware that researchers are not cruel and heartless people, but are dedicated persons who use animals in their research, despite their own natural feelings, to benefit all humankind. The public forgets that animals also suffer from many of the same diseases as humans, and thus they too benefit from much of the research. Moreover, they need to be reminded that sometimes research is done on animals solely for their own benefit because they often suffer from conditions not
DANIEL M. LASKIN
329
