Animal research reveals little now about humans

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/252529

Greek: Animal research reveals little now about humans
Jean Greek - 10/22/2007 2:07 pm

As a veterinarian that trained at the University of Wisconsin, I found the
Frankie Trull's op-ed column supporting animal research misleading and
disingenuous.

For centuries people have opposed the use of animals in scientific research
based on ethics. Their argument was that any animal close enough to us to
be of value in research was close enough to be valued for itself; an end in
and of itself, not a means to an end, to paraphrase Kant.

Today we understand why that argument was correct in what it confirmed
but incorrect in what it denied. On the gross level humans and animals
have much in common. All mammals are put together essentially the same
way; hearts pump blood, livers detoxify chemicals, while bones, ligaments,
connective tissues and muscles hold everything in place.

That mammals can experience pain and are sentient is explained by
examining them at this gross level. In the past, studying animals certainly
shed light on these commonalities.

But science is no longer asking questions about gross commonalities.
Our level of examination has become much more fine grained. Today
we want to know why men respond differently to drugs and disease
than women, why different ethnic groups are more susceptible to certain
diseases and react differently to drugs, and why even identical twins
suffer from different diseases. To answer questions like these we must
study the species inquestion.

The questions we are asking today cannot be answered by studying animals.
For example, many studies have examined the predictability of animal tests
for drug efficacy and adverse effects. The conclusion is always the same:
The chance of animals reacting as humans is less than would be expected
from a coin toss.

Today we want to understand what genes do. What a specific gene does in
a mouse has no predictive value for what it will do in humans. It does not
even have predictive value for what will happen in another strain of mouse
if it is removed.

Most mammals are composed of the same genes. Just as pianos have the
same keys so humans and animals share the same genes. So what makes
us different? The way the genes or keys are expressed. Play the keys in a
certain order and you hear Chopin, a different order and you hear Ray
Charles; same keys but very different outcomes.

The same is true with genes. Mice and humans have essentially the same
genes; humans even have the gene that in mice allows them to grow a tail.
The difference? In humans that gene is never expressed (or played in our
analogy). The different expression and differing combinations of genes
separate species and in some cases even individual humans.

This is the level where science is today -- finding the differences between
individual humans, not wondering what the purpose of the liver is.

It is impossible for me to, in a few paragraphs, disprove the myriad
erroneous beliefs and historical revisionism the special interest groups
have been propagating for decades. An understanding of gene expression
and regulation, the Theory of Evolutions, the differences between simple
and complex systems, and a familiarity with the actual scientific studies
comparing animal results with what happened in humans will go a long way
to settling how taxpayer money should be allocated for medical research.
But when considering this controversy, if you are unable to examine the
above, just ask yourself if you treat your sick cat like you would your sick
dog and vice-versa.

I agree that whenever science is challenged by faulty logic, science wins.
The question for you today is who is representing science and scientific
method: the person whose livelihood depends on research with animals or
those without a vested interest in the outcome? I suggest you read more
about the subject and decide for yourself.

Jean Swingle Greek lives in Goleta. Calif., a suburb of Santa Barbara. She
graduated in 1990 from the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary
Medicine.

Jean Greek - 10/22/2007 2:07 pm




"Tests on animals have led to around 100 drugs being thought potentially
useful for stroke; not one has proved effective in humans. You don't need
to be a balaclava-wearing animal rights activist to question the value of
animal studies in this area of medical research."

TheFirstPost. 25 January 2007.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:40:54 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:

>
>Animal research reveals little now about humans
. . .
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.

There are several reasons for this:

    *  Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research. 
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals 
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research 
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in 
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative 
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.

    * Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds, 
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to 
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test 
their effectiveness and toxicity.

    * The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of 
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making 
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives 
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds 
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals. 

In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species. 
[...]

http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯