Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 21 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.929
News: Q&A
The once-quiet scientist
A former animal researcher decides to speak out.
In 2006, concern over the welfare of his family caused Dario Ringach to stop using animals in his research. A neuroscientist at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), Ringach had been receiving threats from animal-rights extremists over his experiments involving primates.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It is certainly not a right way of throwing bomb at someone's home-no matter what mistake he has made. Violent behavior will be always discarded. However I could not support anyone for any reason to distreat our animal friend. Though it may seem to rescue many other people's life. No reason we need to choose an animal to be responsible for any human. Equal right to live on the earth must be for all beings. If we human can not take it as our principle. The world peace is only an empty word. If we can not develope a cosmos love for all beings. We set a obstacle in front of us. It blocks our way to a better and peaceful future. How goodness you can get if you hurt a part of nature. We are all part of nature and children of nature. Nature would not like we kill or do harm to each other. Then one does wrong will harvest the bitter result.Sorry.
Should we adopt someother peaceful way to make the experiment for good biomedical aim ? If one choose giving up the old mehtod of inhumanity, then the wisdom of other door may open to you. We must be able to creat more humanity method to help us reaching the good goal. I do belive there must be the way. For resolving human health problem our power has been put too much to modify the result. Why shouldn't we return to the beginning and save our energy to pay attention on changing living style. Through efforts of all governments, societies,individuals to advertise good way of living, making a healthy trend of living. It will be more efficient and less problem. We are too often to fill in the endless problematic holes apperance,but absent of doing constucture of easier life. Do most people feel heavier in life. How should it be like that ? We all have the responsibility. Where is the way out? Try to be humanity for everything, things will become better.
Thank you Dr. Ringach for stepping forward with a thoughtful program to adress these public concerns by applying reason, security safeguards for investigators, and public education. The importance of nonhuman primate research is crucial to develop vaccines for HIV, for example, which could never be tested first or only in man without unacceptable safety risks. Many in the public also do not appreciate the rationale behind FDA's "animal efficacy rules" when studying protection against bioterror agents. Your efforts, hopefully, will help to change the public opinion you cite.
Public opinion of animal testing must be seen in a context that is much greater than the one Dr Ringach pre-supposes. The Biomedical lab may be his sphere of reference, but the public has to deal with a lot of conflicting information: Many animals are seen to be both endangered (through habitat destruction) and on the receiving end of some fairly grim procedures used in medicine.
I know the most emotionally charged examples are used by the pro-'animal liberation front', but without prima facae evidence that animal testing is crucial to the advance of some of the most pressing medical problems, then the public will remain sceptical, even if they are paying for it through their taxes or charitable donations. Homo sapiens has a lot to answer for when it comes to treatment of their fellow biota and our current policy of public (dis)engagement isn't helping.
Dear Yamei HOU,
Are you also against killing malaria mosquitoes? Decisions must be taken with the understanding that no outcome can be 100% "good". All suffering is not equal. No progress is made without cost. These are difficult decisions and simplistic statements like "Equal right to live on the earth must be for all beings." will not lead to any harmony with nature. Ask lions and crocodiles.
I applaud Dr. Ringach for his courage to raise awareness in public regarding the importance of use of animals in research. There are thousands of labs using animals in research, with a purpose to look for a solution for the millions of the diseased in our society. We researchers are not heartless people, and there is an ethical guideline for every use of animals that we follow. PETA is right in its own way, however, being violent is not the appropriate way to stop use of animals in research. There are millions of animals used by the human society for food, for fashion, and for pleasure; the number of animals used for research per average person is only a tiny fraction (http://www.bret.org.uk/soc1.htm). Therefore, we must not ignore the bigger impact on our society besides being kind and considerate.
As chinese scientists have proven in their studies there is no need to kill malaria mosquitos as there is an effective medical solution to the problem.
I am sure that with the collective power of the scientific community it would be possible to make the suffering of the animals for human gain a thing of the past. What is lacking is will. We simply refuse to put our minds to it.
I do not believe in a heirarchy of suffering as Lorne suggest exists. This argument is based in fundamental Christian (and other religious) theologies that state that "man is next to God" and "sent to reign over the animal kingdom". It does not bear testament to what science knows about animal's ability to think, feel and behave in manners previously attributed to human beings only. It certainly does not have much ground to stand on when set against these findings.
If you consider that Nazis considered Jews perfect material for scientific tests and that slaves have also been used in such ways in the past without people of those times batting an eyelid...ask yourself whether our use of animals will not be considered equally as barbaric by future generations?
Also the idea that progress cannot be made without cost is similarly short-sighted. If that were so, all buddhist monks should have died out many thousands of years ago rather than being at the forefront of many technological, medical and philosophical understandings of their time, we should all be suffering intolerably due to the amount of progress we constantly make – yes all of us – but we aren't are we...?
I am sure that you believe what you say to be true, and that you are acting within what you believe to be sensible boundaries. But if you step back and really think about it and move beyond current "best practices", can you really find a reason why we have to continue maltreating animals?
Should we not be using our superior understanding and technologies to remove all kinds of suffering and to move towards a more compassionate and gentle humankind?
And just to be clear, that also means understanding for those who were involved in maltreating the animals because they believed it was the right thing to do.
Doesn't anyone else see the hypocrisy of these anti-animal research activists? After all, supermarkets, via slaughterhouses, kill orders of magnitude more animals than research ever will. Yet they do not picket supermarkets, much less firebomb them. Shoppers and supermarket employees do not receive death threats for their complicity in the slaughter of animals.
'Nature would not like we kill or do harm to each other' is evidently false the reality being that nature is red in tooth and claw, a world of 'eat or get eaten,' a world in which lions kill their rivals' cubs even if not hungry.
My thanks to Dr. Ringach and other researchers who are speaking out on this issue. This is another instance where a small minority is using violence in an attempt to impose their misguided beliefs on society.
One thing that is clear from all of these comments is that the subject is one that arouses strong emotions. Like most scientists, I love animals and hate to think of animals suffering. I think the way forward is to find ways to minimize the use of animals in research, and to minimize their suffering when there is no alternative. Scientists who must use animals in their research need to be very active in explaining to the public why those animals must be used and what is being done to minimize their suffering. Those who are concerned about animal suffering need to pay attention to all the ways in which animals suffer — neglected pets, animal fights, mistreatment of domestic animals. Incidentally I recall that Charles Darwin was notorious in his neighborhood for taking on neighbors who he thought were mistreating their horses or other animals. Darwin also said that a concern for animal welfare was an important sign of a highly developed society.
While no conscientious individual wants to see or cause any animal suffering intentionally, I think the unfortunate crude reality of the situation is that we will always need some animal testing if we are to advance certain treatments, vaccines, etc.
I don't think anyone would volunteer themselves, a friend, or family member for scientific testing, thus we are currently forced to seek other alternatives. That being said, any involvement of animals in scientific research should be taken on with great responsibility and the animals treated as humanely possible and with the utmost respect.
And regarding the Nazi/Jews analogy that was previously mentioned, I'd say that a World War was a bit more than "batting an eyelid".
I agree with Dr. D. Ringach in his effort to get protection for researchers who are jeopardized by implementing their research approved by a grant body. In fact, given the increasing violence of activist groups who resort to bombing labs and may indeed resort to murder which happened to an abortion doctor, such protection is necessary. Research grant bodies should include such protection as part of the grant. Also, the government and grant bodies should also support a communication program for the public to understand why animals are necessary in our search for cures. The US National Academy of Science should take this function of helping the public understand how research is done and why there is a need to use animals and how humane the treatment these animals get during the process. We kill chickens, cattle, goats to feed ourselves, what is the difference then in using animals to find the cure for our diseases?
Is this article seriously calling for scientists to try to "reverse the trend" of increasing animal welfare? You actually want scientists to argue, politically and ethically, in favor of exploiting other species for the benefit of our own species?
Not too long ago it was common practice for scientists to exploit lower classes and racial minorities using this same logic- that the results would benefit the masses. As our society has hopefully realized, the fact that something is useful does not make it moral.
Primates especially are emotionally and cognitively complex creatures who do not exist for our benefit. Keeping them in cages, putting them through painful procedures, and murdering them because it helps us is an abuse of power like any other. It takes thousands of animals and hundreds of studies before cures are found, and I for one would rather die of a disease than live knowing that so many innocent creatures suffered for my benefit.
I am a Medical Oncologist with 30 years of practice; I am also a cancer patient. With such credentials I want to add my opinion AGAINST the animal lab experiments. While subscribing to all the above said in the same line, I have only two supplementary commentaries.
First, I recommend to anyone to read the summaries of any medical journals dedicated to pain. One may learn from there about animals specially transformed to mimick the chronic pain of humans (one method consists in the partial destruction of a nerve). I am horified to be called the "colleague" of these sinister "scientists". Just imagine from the point of view of any living creature how it is to be transformed into a heap of atrocious pain for all the rest of its life.
On the other hand, I am amazed of the lack of adequate CLINICAL research in the field of pain. Pain is a completely subjective symptom, pain is what a person choses to describe as such. Consequently, the animal experiment shall never be able to reveal satifactorily the same sensation in humans. The pain must be studied in humans, using the grossly and versatile, underestimated clinical tools, not conceiving hideous methods of creating pain models following Mengele's footsteps.
Secondly, on should remember that the science can be done in many ways. You may not need to harm animals, you may not even need to kill mosquitos – you just may find a new way of keeping them away from humans, for example, only one example. Had not the computed tomography been invented, we would have been equally content with the MRI exploration; we are using more and more clothes from vegetable or synthetic fibers instead of furs; and America has been discovered twice, first time 10,000 years ago by land, second time five hundred years ago by sea.
This is why we are so proud of our brains, for enabling us to find new and ever better ways.
Aparently, the scientists unable to understand this do not deserve their titles. However, I suppose, the vast majority of people shall re-learn this disputed problem, in the light of a morality inclusive for our earthly co-locators, the animals. I myself am not sure for having always been this defender of the rights of animals despite of my great love for them. We were all prejudiced early in life by being told humans are more important than animals. I am not convinced of that anymore.
Dumitru NUTU
The point of this article is not to reverse the trend of decreasing animal use in science. It's to ask the public to make up their minds: biomedical advances and new cures, no humans harmed, or no animals harmed. One can balance the 3, but you cannot achieve all 3 without compromises. It's like asking the national army to switch to non-lethal weapons exclusively.
The most erroneous public impression is that (some) scientists insist or prefer to use animals in research when equally good non-aniaml alternatives are available. Animal experiments are not only undesirable from an ethical point of view. They're also bad in terms of resources because they are incredibly expensive and slow. Additionally, animals are prone to batch-to-batch variations (horror!) and can seriously mess up your experiment results. ANY scientist would have long switched to an 'equally good' alternative if one is available. However, the alternative method must be validated objectively. If scientists are forced to switch to untested alternatives out of other concerns (including animal welfare), then they might as well give up that area of research.
Most, if not all, animal experiments have to go through a series of vetting and approval before commencement. How many meat-eaters out there are medically certified to require meat in their diet every day? In fact, what medical conditions are there that require the person to eat meat every day?? I know many (not me) think that vegetables are not equally good in taste relative to meat, but they are almost certainly healthier. Seriously, if the population in developed countries restrict their meat intake to just one day per week, the number of animals saved would probably exceed that achieved by a total ban on animal experiments, not to mention the environmental benefits ...
In the end, animal lovers or animal extremists alike should sit down and start thinking logical. If you want to save more animals, or the Earth, practice and promote vegetarianism or at least do something about those promotion of animal meat for consumption (hint: scientists are not responsible for promoting this). In fact, just practicing birth control and stop procreating save more animals than the acts of these animal extremists.
The comments above illustrate the diversity of opinions on this topic.
It seems to me that there are two central topics to be debated. Â The first issue is whether basic research with animals generates knowledge that is useful in advancing medicine and human health. Â The second is about the ethics of animal research.
Let me be crystal clear: we welcome this debate. Â But too many animal rights activists have allowed their cause to be hijacked by a small minority of extremists who criminally threaten scientists and their families in their effort to stop scientific research.
We sincerely hope the core of the animal rights movement will take this opportunity to openly and clearly repudiate the use of violence, threats and harassment by extremists within their movement. Such as step will take us a long way into creating an atmosphere where all sides can defend their views and express their opinions freely in a national debate about the use of animals in biomedical research.
in my personal opinion before we claim that animals suffer in medical research we must first define what suffering is to that animal. I have discussed this with my vegetarian friends and it is often impossible for them to even comprehend that animals could have a non-human thought process. it seems like quite a stretch to me to assume that what we consider as suffering is the same as that of all animals. sure it may be similar for close relatives of ours such as chimps but I find it hard to put the thoughts of humans inside the mind of say a mouse. Personifying the mental state of animals will simply impare the process of medical research for no real logical reason
The scientific community should welcome animal rights groups with open arms – these groups have, after all, been the only ones to have highlighted the gross ineptitude that goes on behind locked doors in laboratories that use animals. I am not talking about bludgeoning rats to death to save expensive anaesthetic (which does happen commonly), but about compromising the whole experiment because of negligence. One vivid example of this is the film "Unnecessary fuss", videotaping (ostensibly) experimental work carried out in the 80's. The reality is that, without the burden of the public eye, researchers working on animals may be as sloppy and ineffectual as they wish and still secure funding.
The traditional argument that all animal research is "useful" does not hold much merit, either. Many animal models in medical research have led nowhere. There are even cases of animal models being used to study genetic conditions for which genetic counseling is a reliable cure. In many biomedical fields, non-invasive equipment may render the last several decades of animal research methods in some fields obsolete. And where there may be some validity in studying laboratory animals (f.ex. electrophysiology), experimenters keep them in unrealistically impoverished environments which prohibit them from developing suitably.
The ethical concern that animal research is causing suffering to many animals for the sake of a few (i.e. humans) cannot be dismissed, either. All mammals display feelings of maternal love, dogs show sequellae after experiencing trauma, and even insects suffer from emotional stress. There is no denying that lower animals can feel as much as humans. They are simply less intelligent and unable to organize: in other words, more vulnerable. I fail to see any moral justification for abusing the vulnerable to promote the health of the strong; indeed, it is the exact opposite of morality.
I'm delighted to see Dario Ringach and other scientists stand up against the extremists who are attempting to use intimidation and violence to prevent important and necessary animal resarch from being undertaken, and to see that they appreciate that communicating to the public just how important animal research is to advancing medical research. It's easy to point to past advances such as heart surgery, vaccines and the development of new treatments for Parkinson's disease, but what proportion of the public appreciates how important animal research has been to the development of new fields such as iPS cells and the creation of GM animal models of inherited diseases such as CF and DMD. It's also surprising how little attention is given to the way that animal research is contribution to the development of computational models that may one day replace them in many aspects of research and safety testing.
Animal research is like most other areas of biomedical science in a constant state of change, there are many procedures that were common 20 years ago that have been largely replaced by newer non-animal or animal methods, but advancing technology has also enabled the development of powerful new animal research methods that allow scientists to address questions that were previously beyond their reach. At the same time the regulation of animal research has strengthened tremendously (and with good reason) and most of the bad practices of the past (though to be fair often greatly exaggerated by anti-vivisectionists) eliminated. Todays neuroscientists are well aware that their non-human subjects need to be well cared for and handled humanely if their studies are to produce meaningful results.
This is the time for animal researchers, and the far greater number of scientists and doctors who depend on the information their studiesn yield, to stand up for their science and against the extremists who threaten medical progress.