Can Medical Research on Animals be Justified?

Recommend (0) Comments (1)

Here's one recent example of how animal research helped scientists quickly prevent a pandemic.  In late 2002, public health professionals were terrified.   A new and deadly disease given the name of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome--or SARS—had sickened thousands of people in Vietnam and China . Hundreds had died. The threat of a worldwide pandemic was real and growing.  

A crucial step in combating the disease was identifying its cause. Based on the symptoms and condition of the tested tissue samples of its victims, many scientists suspected that a previously unknown coronavirus—a virus closely related to the microbe that causes the common cold—was the SARS pathogen. But they weren’t sure. There was also evidence that it might be caused by the matapneumovirus, an altogether different microbe.  

To find the precise cause of the deadly and fast spreading disease, scientists conducted a standard research protocol used in such cases to learn what virus or bacteria causes a particular disease.  They placed the suspect coronavirus into the nostrils of monkeys to see if they would become ill. Most did. After the animals died or were euthanized, their lungs were studied microscopically to see whether the damaged caused by the induced disease was similar to that suffered by its human victims. The results matched. As a direct consequence of these necessary animal studies, on April 16, 2003 —only months after the disease first appeared—World Health Organization researchers announced that the “SARS-associated coronavirus” caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. [i]   Successfully identification of the SARS virus empowered public health officials to move on to the next steps of combating the disease. First came a reliable diagnostic test. Efforts also began to develop a vaccine—a process that also requires animal testing.  

If animal rights/liberationists had their way, this urgent mission of mercy to identify SARS would have been hampered significantly because researchers would not have been able to use animals in their work. Moreover, the alternatives that animal liberationists promote in lieu of animal work—e.g., computer simulations, human cell lines, autopsy reports, case studies, and the like—would simply not have been sufficient to get the job done. Indeed, the swift and accurate identification of the cause of SARS aptly illustrates why animals are so important to medical and scientific progress and the alleviation of human suffering.