You have to pick your battles - and know when to just let it go

I feel compelled to write a blog on something which happened recently.

A good friend of mine was kind enough to share a social media article of mine. It was raising awareness of primate experiments. A relative of hers responded to her post asking (the very common question) “medicine needs to be tested on something before been given to humans, or shall we just let our children die without trying to save them????”

It’s a fair enough question and one we hear often, so I drafted a very considered (and I thought, respectful) response outlining how animal experiments are dangerously misleading and how we’d be better off if we used human-relevant research. In my response I had tried to be reasonable, understanding and outlined the reasons that animal experiments are not the most efficacious method of research and are instead, dangerously misleading. Despite my “tactful” response, they responded with “I don’t give a shit about what you say- you have your opinion and I have mine!!!!!!”

At first, I was a bit taken aback, but upon thinking upon it further, I realised that this is a common reaction. Rather than dispute the factual information I provided, this person lashed out about having a different opinion. I could of course argue that opinions could be wrong and that regardless of what someone’s opinion is, it doesn’t change the facts. Interestingly, a l book I read recently – Crimes Against Logic, by Jamie Whyte – outlines why we are NOT “entitled” to an opinion if the argument cannot be substantiated and is therefore clearly wrong, but nevertheless, the response was a perfect illustration of how people are side blinded into believing that animal experiments are necessary to save human lives.

The antagonist was quite correct in one aspect of her response – that “medicine needs to be tested on something before been given to humans”, and I responded:

“…that drugs, of course, have to be tested on something before being given to humans. The problem is that they are tested on the wrong species – animals which have a biological system that varies greatly on intricate levels such as drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (or ADME). This has resulted in a failure rate of over 90%. ie drugs which have proven to be successful in animals but go on to fail – and in some cases causing serious harm and even death – in humans. Animal testing has in fact cost tens of millions of lives – particularly when we consider that Penicillin was delayed for 15 years and blood transfusions for more than a century due to misleading data from animals

Instead of being grateful for the limited number of treatments we do have available to us today, I believe we should instead be dissatisfied that there are still no cures for cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and many others. Think of all the treatments and possibly even cures we could have available to us today if the magnitude of resources wasted on ineffective animal experiments throughout the last few decades had been redirected to species-specific research.

Many terminally-ill human patients are looking toward cures. They don’t care whether a cancer drug works on a mouse, or diabetes can be cured in a monkey. These ongoing claims in tabloids only taunt them with false hope. These people need real cures.

And there ARE new testing technologies that are based on human data, meaning that the results from those tests can be directly applied to humans without the risk of “species-differences”.

So, if we consider that the massive resources (billions of dollars and a great deal of time) were not wasted on dubious animal tests and instead used on testing methods that are far more likely to result in cures, imagine how many more lives would not have been lost prematurely.

The “facts” here were disregarded, which is quite common in emotive arguments, however the problem, is that whilst they did not “give a shit”, animals are suffering unimaginable procedures, and they do not result in positive humane outcomes.

This is a difficulty that we face when opposing animal experiments – the “opinion” that animal suffering is justified if it results in saving human lives. The problem is however, that it doesn't. It not only fails to save human lives but it actually causes delays in medical progress. 

The question we are left with, is how do we convince those people who refuse to consider scientific data and instead value human life at all costs (even when those costs bear no tangible return)? There would have been no point in pushing this argument when the opponent was unwilling to engage is constructive debate. It would have only caused further antagonism and not have done any good for lab animals nor for medical progress. 

Therein lies the dilemma that we have. Animal experiments are unethical, and they are scientifically-flawed, but they are conducted under the pretense that they will save human lives and there remain many people who will continue to donate money and support animal-based research in blind faith. 

That, in my mind, is a travesty – both for animals and for medical progress.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust