Replies

Inhuman Animal Protection

John D. Young, V.M.D., M.S., Dipl. A.C.L.A.M.
Source: The Washington Times
July 28, 2002

Despite its name, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine pursues extreme animal rights campaigns against health charities and vital biomedical research.

In weighing Neal Barnard's rant about biomedical research, ("Animalistic Methods of Testing," July 14) it is important to understand that his perspective is intrinsically linked with an extreme animal rights philosophy.

Throughout its 17-year history, Dr. Barnard's organization, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), has found common cause with its sister group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) whose leadership equates the life of a rat with that of a child. Both PCRM and PETA have launched initiatives aimed at stopping the humane and responsible use of laboratory animals in biomedical research. In the process, both PCRM and PETA have attacked several of the nation's leading health research charities and have sought to drive physicians and scientists away from their quest to improve human and animal health.

In response to PCRM's campaign of misinformation against important animal research on AIDS, the House of Delegates of the California Medical Association "voted unanimously to register the strongest objection to the lies and misrepresentations promulgated by (Neal Barnard's) organization."

Despite its name, only about 5% of PCRM's membership are physicians. Recently PCRM has been spending much of its $2.9 million dollar annual budget attempting to re-invent itself as a health/consumer watchdog group and draw media attention away from its adherence to the animal rights agenda.

Nevertheless, PCRM has continued to promote that agenda in its joint campaign with PETA against America's leading health charities that fund animal based biomedical research. We are not only talking about the March of Dimes, but also the American Heart Association , the American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, American Foundation for AIDS Research, The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, The American Red Cross and, yes, even Boys Town. Seventy charities in all are currently on PCRM/PETA's "don't donate" list. These are organizations that through their grants and contributions to biomedical research are responsible for hundreds of specific achievements in medical progress. These achievements range from development of the polio vaccine to the latest in genetic discoveries including identifying the genetic basis for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many types of cancer.

News of the fruits of medical research using animals can be found nearly every day in The Washington Times. Medical research using animals has been vital to the development of new antibiotics, blood transfusions, kidney dialysis, organ transplantation, vaccinations, chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement. Medical research using animals has also produced CT scans, PET scans and other state-of-the-art diagnostic devices that Neal Barnard incorrectly alleges can replace animals in medical research.

Even other animal groups disagree with PCRM's stance on animal-based research. Just this past week, Andrew Rowan, a senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States told a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer, "It is probably not possible to (halt testing on animals) without harmful effects on humans."

I am a veterinarian involved in biomedical research, and along with my colleagues and Dr. Rowan, I look forward to the time that it will no longer be necessary to use laboratory animals to achieve the medical advances we seek. But PCRM is being disingenuous in suggesting that their use could be ended today. The "humane seal charities" championed by Neal Barnard--the majority involved in patient assistance, not research--do provide "essential health services" and they deserve our support. But the vital and necessary work performed by an AIDS hospice provides no hope for effective treatments or cures for millions of AIDS patients worldwide.

Dr. Barnard can barely contain his glee over the departure of researcher Michael Podell from Ohio State University. For three years Dr. Podell courageously withstood not only relentless criticism of his research into HIV/AIDS by groups such as PCRM and PETA (not the public as stated by Neal Barnard), but also death threats that targeted him and his young family. Dr. Podell's experience is matched by those of many other scientists throughout America whose vital work has been impeded by a small, vocal minority of activists on the fringe of the animal rights movement.

Dr. Barnard's mischaracterization of Dr. Podell's research is an example of how PCRM works to discredit research methods important to understanding disease. Dr. Podell's studies involved the use of cats infected with the feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), a well-documented model of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Both the HIV infection in humans and the FIV infection in cats cause a slow degeneration of the nervous system as the virus thrives in the body.

The very week he announced his departure from OSU, Dr. Podell and his team published a finding in the prestigious Journal of NeuroVirology. Dr. Podell's work demonstrated that methamphetamine abuse results in a drastic stimulation of FIV replication which results in accelerated brain cell death and spreading of the virus throughout the body. This finding could answer important questions about how lentiviruses such as FIV and HIV can gain a foothold in the brain. This knowledge is vital in slowing or lessening the dementia that often accompanies AIDS and similar diseases. This research will also help scientists learn more about the mechanisms at the root of this debilitating and brain damaging disease complex, knowledge that can be applied to other neurological diseases, such as stroke, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's diseases.

Ironically, PCRM is opposing research that could help animals, too. FIV is a serious problem in the cat population, and therapies that result from Dr. Podell's studies could be applicable to this natural cat disease.

Readers interested in learning more about this research and the extremely
high standards of care that laboratory animals receive at Ohio State University (and at research facilities throughout America) can see more on the OSU website. For more information on the ethical and humane nature of scientists' necessary work with animals in biomedical research, I encourage your readers to visit the Americans for Medical Progress website.

John D. Young, V.M.D., M.S., Dipl. A.C.L.A.M.
Chairman, Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation

Copyright retained by The Washington Times.