Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research

Chris Patten , Oxford University’s chancellor, stealthily tiptoed his way past a recent march in support of animal research. He refused to take to the podium and stay long. Why all this caution? The university’s press office says, “There is no mechanism for deciding whether the university should do so (support animal research)”. Unofficially, however, university officials admit that keeping a low profile is the best option to beat fanatical animal rights activists.

This behaviour is predictable after what befell Prof. Colin Blakemore, a neurobiologist at Oxford. Animal rights activists sent him letter bombs packed with tiny HIV-infected needles because he chose to debunk many of their claims.

This is plain terrorism. Animal rights activists, however, demur. True, the two aren’t comparable in terms of the scale of destruction and loss of life, but both are united by a common purpose: to terrorise people into changing their viewpoints. Animal rights activists have spelt doom for biological research from ancient times. The most blatant example of this is Susruta, who introduced the concept of surgery in India. His followers, however, couldn’t contend with Buddhism, which as the historical avatar of modern day animal rights activism made sure that further advancements in this field were discouraged. And the result was that knowledge advancement made no progress in India.

Animal research has played a vital role in most of the medical achievements of the last century. From dialysis to organ transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to dopamine replacement ? everything is based on knowledge attained through animal research. Therefore, we will be grossly wrong if we think that the mutually exclusive goals of animal rights and medical research can be attained simultaneously.

The fear of animal activists about too many animals being killed remains unfounded. There are laws in place to check the gross abuse of animals and the laws are getting stricter.

In her article supporting a moratorium on animal research in the British Medical Journal, Pandora Pound identified 277 systematic reviews (review of all published papers to reach a balanced judgement) of animal research. Out of this, they offered six reviews to criticise animal research. However, Blakemore and Prof. Tony Peatfield, another supporter of animal research, debunked most of these arguments as misinterpretations. In a letter to the journal, they argued that five of the reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested.

Seeing the bigotry and fanaticism of animal rights activists, how can they profess love for animals and at the same time harbour ire for their fellow humans?