Are the opponents of animal experiments a minority that may harm the health of the majority?
One often gets the impression that there is a strong public protest in Israel against animal experiments, and not long ago a proposal to change the law on animal experiments was even placed on the Knesset's table. According to this proposal,Initiated by Knesset members Ronit Tirosh, Eitan Kabel and Dov Hanin, the research institutions will be obliged to release the animals after two years from the date of their arrival at the institution. But it seems to me that the number of people who oppose animal experiments is small and marginal and that supposedly vigorous activity against these experiments could damage the system, which contributes a lot to us.
The time has come for the silent majority to express their opinion and write to the members of the Knesset and ministers who proposed the change in the law on animal experiments. It is important to know that even the knowledge about the simplest vitamin pill that we take or give to our children was obtained from experiments on animals. Very basic processes, such as the blood clotting process, sugar metabolism, absorption of substances in the intestine, the processes of creating red and white blood cells, all these processes that today seem self-evident were understood with the help of experiments on animals. Another example is the study of the electrical processes that apply in the nervous system. These studies, which began more than 100 years ago and were all conducted in animals, are what give us today the basis both for understanding brain activity and for medical treatments for various diseases of the nervous system. Moreover, the basic knowledge produced by scientists preceded by many years the practical and everyday applications of this knowledge.
Imagine, for example, that today a researcher named Christian Bernard would submit a request to perform an experiment in which he takes a heart from one dog and transplants it into another dog. Today we would say that this is a cruel, insane and hopeless experiment. But ask the tens of thousands of heart transplant recipients around the world if they are in favor of this experiment. And the same goes for transplants of other organs. It is worth noting that not all animal experiments yield results that are immediately useful and it is difficult to predict which of them will help humanity in a practical way. However, the accumulation of knowledge is also important in itself. Sometimes decades pass between the researcher's basic idea and the execution of the experiment and between its use for the benefit of the general public (including animals).
Do not think that the researchers are a group of cruel people who perform the experiments for their own pleasure. Most of us, if not all of us, perform the experiments while making sure to minimize the suffering caused to the animals as much as possible. Furthermore, it is absolutely necessary to continue to develop methods that will make it possible to minimize as much as possible the use of animals and the suffering that may be caused to them. However, it is not worth getting dragged along by some people who oppose these experiments and turn to emotion rather than logic. However, when those people need medical help, they are not opposed to receiving treatments developed with the help of animal experiments. It is important to remember that we all want the good of the human race.
The decision makers - do not cause irreversible damage that will affect the results of the experimental research for many years. Israel is part of the scientific world and must make its contribution to scientific research like the other advanced nations. I call on you Scientific American Israel readers who understand the importance of animal experiments, to flood the members of the Knesset as much as you can with e-mails demanding that animal experiments not be harmed and to explain to your friends the importance of these experiments.
Yitzhak Ferns is a professor in the Department of Neurobiology of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the founder of the Israeli Association for Neuroscience and the founder of Belmonte Youth Labs in Jerusalem.
27 תגובות
A pig's heart in a religious man.
My observant co-worker had loose valves in his heart.
His life was on hold.
For the benefit of his life, a pig was sacrificed from whose heart the valves were removed and implanted in the heart of the young man who lives and breathes like a human being.
The man is of course a very ultra-Orthodox man who would never think of licking a pig.
Not least that some of his organs will be transplanted into his heart.
Show to all the "righteous".
As far as human life is concerned, the pig will also be a "kosher sacrifice".
If you were to ask me:
"My friend's life or the pig's life"..?
The answer is completely clear.
My former life.
Cruel??
Definitely.
But look around you first and see how people sacrifice children for Jihad when they strap on explosive belts and murder dozens of innocent people with their deaths.
They need to be reckoned with and enforced.
And what about the pig?
The believer will not slaughter him because he is "unclean" and will give him eternal life.
But he will kill without batting an eyelid a person whose program is different from the "DOS" software he was fed into.
Some "righteous" proportions.
The champion of pleasure favors this time relies on his house, the chain continues
Not true. We have no right to experiment on animals! Surely not with these cruel methods you are an evil man!
In response to A. Ben Ner
First, let me express my appreciation for the noble deed you have done. It takes a lot of mental strength to take care of an animal that has gone through suffering and pain in a closed cage for the entire period that shapes its character.
I also admire Marita the dog who, after what she went through for the first 3 years of her life, still found within herself the optimism to trust you and the ability to give love to a human being.
Second, Rita was probably extremely lucky to participate in an experiment that went awry and was canceled. From what I know about the procedure of these experiments, at the end they were supposed to dissect it into parts in order to measure the degree of damage and side effects caused by the disease and the experimental treatment.
Thirdly, the institutions that carry out the experiments boast of the "humanity" that guides them. If they are so humane then how come they don't find the meager budget required to give the lucky animals who survive the experiments a place where they can live out the rest of their lives in comfort?
How do they rely on a few rare people like you who are able to adopt an animal that has undergone such mental and physical trauma?
And finally, what happens to the animals that survived and were not found an employer like you? I think we can guess the answer.
Well done, to all humanity, and to the sensational revelations due to removing a dog's heart, and transplanting it into another. I'm sorry, but humanity, which will soon reach 8 billion people, needs to begin to understand that finding another method to extend human life is already a worn-out reason, nothing like it.
It is appropriate that they find substitutes and many other areas in which it will be possible to engage.
To all animal lovers wherever you are
There are many animals that have "made a research career" in the research laboratories of the universities
And now, when they finish their job, they are looking for efforts that will raise them in a warm and loving home.
I myself adopted a dog named Rita from the Beagle breed, who participated in the development of a modern model at Tel Aviv University
of a pacemaker. I adopted her when she was about 3 months old and took care of her for over 10 years.
You can register at the animal shelter at the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and help animals that are graduating
their service in the public service, the medical experiments, to integrate into the circle of civil life.
If you are animal lovers, you are guaranteed to have a lot of fun. And come for the blessing.
Ale, before trying a potential substance as a drug on animals, they are usually also tested on human cell cultures outside the body.
Many of the veterinary drugs are not suitable for humans, because they are not effective in humans or create severe side effects in them that do not occur in animals.
Similarly many of the medicines for cows are not suitable for dogs and so on.
But humans are also a type of animal, so the opposite can also be concluded:
"Many of the drugs that could benefit humans are not used because in laboratory animals they are ineffective or cause severe side effects. "
Therefore, the use of animals for drug experiments is not only cruel to the animals but also to the humans, who are deprived of medicines that could otherwise be found to be beneficial.
The most effective way to discover new drugs would be to try them on patients who have no other hope.
True, experiments without strict statistical control, which is possible only in animals, will prevent the discovery of drugs that improve the condition in a small way, such as a 20% improvement among 25% of patients. But when a drug is really effective, like antibiotics or aspirin, the results are so clear that there is no need for first-rate statistical control.
It is possible that a cure for AIDS was not discovered because it did not help the SIV virus in monkeys (which is used as a simulation for HIV since HIV does not infect monkeys).
And maybe a cure for diabetes has not been discovered because the pancreatic functions of lab mice are different from humans.
That's why it's good from both a moral and an efficiency point of view. Experiments on animals are cruel to the animals, to the humans and frustrating to the researchers who have to move forward with a thumb on the side along a path full of bumps that are not relevant.
Oren, why would I tell a cat to eat corn instead of a mouse? I don't expect a cat to have moral thought or compassion or to listen to me and be able to apply. I also don't expect him to know how to make stir-fried tofu or order falafel. You will agree with me that there are some things that can still be expected from humans, but not from a cat or a wolf. Humans usually separate themselves from animals, claiming that they are intellectually, morally and culturally superior to them. To such an extent that they separate, who do not feel any need to relate to BAH in a moral way. So suddenly when it's our turn, we're animals that can't do anything but "prey" (I don't know, to pry isn't really buying a kilo of leftover schnitzel in a styrofoam box)? Give humans more credit.
There is no need to go into the question of what we were originally - you can live a healthy and long life on a balanced plant-based diet. Meat is not a very healthy food, certainly with today's breeding methods, you probably know. The "world of abundance" that you for some reason present as a justification for suffering, is exactly the reason to stop eating meat: unlike the time when we were hunter-gatherers, in this world of abundance that we live in today, the need for meat is redundant. We have an abundance of plant foods that provide us with all the nutrients. It is delicious, healthy, cheap, available and diverse - it is in the supermarket closest to your home.
To Avi Blizovsky - everything is in my head. Do not preach mythical power that can only be given to the week, try and find out. Vegetarian soup full of beans, a beautiful bowl of hummus with pita bread, healthy and delicious quaker porridge in the morning - there is no reason not to have a week of them.
Elsa
Would you tell a cat to eat corn instead of a mouse?
For a wolf to eat legumes instead of a rabbit?
Let's start the debate about whether man is a vegetarian who was raised to eat meat or an omnivore with teeth and a digestive system that allows him to eat meat (and he did eat meat before there was a civilized man)?
Perhaps the orderly and efficient methods that man developed for growing his food became horrible to think about or watch (and they are horrible to me). But this is the price of an abundant animal world and a world with 7-8 billion people.
I would rather "hunt" my food than buy it at the supermarket / butcher. But we are no longer a gathering/hunting company...
Animal testing is a necessary evil.
But the treatment and quality of life enjoyed by the animals participating in the experiments, before, after and during the experiment, are often beyond criticism. This is not "cruelty" or "sadism" but a necessary darkness of the senses and an instrumental reference to the object of the experiment.
My personal objection is not to the experiments themselves, but to the way in which they are carried out - a way that favors the lowering of costs over the welfare of the animals.
Not Elsa. If I don't eat meat I'm hungry. Even if I eat a ton of vegetables.
Yes, my father. This is the meaning. You must "must" meat because it is "scientific".
Yes, this is brainwashing of the worst kind. What does it mean - that we don't eat meat?
Is that what you call brainwashing?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7294975991929906674
Reader, your angry reactions are unnecessary. In any case, if you read what I wrote, you will understand that this is a balance regarding the issue. It is possible to start the discussion on the basis of agreement (which I think you would also agree to receive) and that is that scientific research should at least strive for research that is not required for animals. If this claim is accepted, then the required action is to examine where the use of animals for experiments can be reduced. That means that the hand approving experiments on animals will not be easy. To this end, criteria must be formulated for these experiments and there should be no rush to use animals. Also, these criteria must be formulated, experiments are allowed to confirm and what is the treatment required for the animals after the experiment. These criteria will not make life easy for researchers and will also require additional costs. But this is exactly the problem, the preference for animal experiments is not always due to a lack of choice, but is sometimes motivated by narrow economic considerations of the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, etc. companies. If a mechanism is established with full public transparency regarding these experiments, then it will probably turn out that a significant part of the experiments are completely unnecessary and are not for the purpose of saving human lives. And if indeed so, scientific research can be delayed a little until alternative means are developed. The aspiration for reduction to complete elimination should be part of scientific research and for this research resources should be directed. This kind of research will ultimately benefit everyone.
"Do you want medical experiments? Do experiments on humans.
What is wrong with the animals we want to develop medicines for?!
If the gay Spaniard wants experiments, let him perform them on himself!"
– "You"? I mean you and your family are not part of humanity? After all, you have never gotten sick and you will never need medical treatment. As usual, hypocrisy at its best - just like with the other opponents of the experiments, who probably the second their child collapses on the floor they will run to the hospital and put him in the emergency room. I wonder what they will have to say about the experiments when their child is connected to a ventilator and drugs are injected into his blood to keep him alive.
"Actually, there are plenty of studies that have no scientific benefit, and are done for the sake of the researcher's prestige. The research reality is that researchers, with the intention of increasing their prestige, must find a small and new angle that has not yet been explored, however esoteric and meaningless it may be. This is how it is in every field of research and the whole academy works."
- You didn't read the article, did you?
"The main problem is with experiments with cosmetics, deodorants, hair sprays. There is no reason to try them on animals, whose skin and hair structure is different. The neurological experiments are indeed necessary, but it should be taken into account that the stress to which the monkeys are subjected may disrupt the results."
- and below is the wise man on duty. Tell me, do you think that a biology professor who has been in the academy for 15 years does not know something about the structure of the skin and hair of the animals on which he performs the experiment? Or about the stress come data monkeys?
"More serious supervision will require researchers to develop new research methods that do not require animals. Both science will benefit from this and so will the animals. I believe that at some point these experiments will be a thing of the past and there will be better means of doing both good science and more moral science."
- It is already in development. But what to do if you can't stop all the research and wait? You don't want your child, heaven forbid, to get a disease that has stopped research, right?
Experimenting on animals is shocking, horrible and terrible
But is it possible to conduct medical research to advance medicine without these experiments?
The answer is probably: No! And so these experiments are a necessary evil, thanks to them
People today live much longer, and much better than in the not so distant past.
It seems to me that the public movement opposing the experiments in the stock market is more of a reaction
for progress and education than love for animals. The opponents of education and scientific research
Dressing up as animal lovers on the one hand - in their fight against medical research
And lovers of corpses on the other hand - in their struggle in historical-archaeological research.
In their struggle with physical research, they disguise themselves as lovers of God (religious Jews)
And in their struggle with evolution research - their true face is revealed - haters of education and knowledge.
Do you want medical experiments? Do experiments on humans.
What is wrong with the animals we want to develop medicines for?!
If gay Spaniards want experiments, let them perform them on themselves!
I completely understand the importance of research and the dilemmas of researchers, but I also understand those who call for an end to animal testing.
Harming one species in order to improve the condition of another species is, in my personal opinion, unethical even if there is a significant improvement in the condition of the other species.
"The day will come when people like me will treat the murder of animals the way they treat the murder of human beings today" Leonardo da Vinci
I agree with Reuven's words. It is appropriate to create clear and strict standards for animal experimentation. There are many unnecessary or negligible experiments which do not justify animal experimentation. The field of cosmetics is one of them. Also, there are many experiments on animals that are done even though there is prior knowledge that allows conclusions to be drawn without the experiment. In some cases the experiment was done as a joke and not for scientific purposes.
I believe that the first criterion must be that only the necessary experiments to save lives should be allowed on animals and even then under the strictest control. As for the rest of the experiments, I believe that it is possible and possible to think of alternatives that will provide no less good and reliable answers for the researchers. Animal testing is a convenient and relatively cheap alternative. However, it is not the only one and certainly not the moral one among the existing alternatives. More serious oversight will require researchers to develop new research methods that do not require animals. Both science will benefit from this and so will the animals. I believe that at some point these experiments will be a thing of the past and there will be better means of doing both good science and more moral science.
Emanuel, even to create computer simulations you need experiments on animals - from there you take a significant part of the data on which the models are built.
A very painful subject
The problem is not only with the experiments, the problem is how these animals are treated,,,,,
There is no doubt that these experiments contribute a lot to human knowledge, but in my opinion some of the experiments are unnecessary and cause only sorrow and pain to the animals
I believe that in 50 years the computing power and accumulated knowledge will prevent the need for real experiments and computer simulations will be able to symbolize reality
Lior
Those who conduct research want to succeed in their research. Therefore, trust that those who need to take into account the stress of monkeys or other variables, take into account.
The main problem is with experiments with cosmetics, deodorants, hair sprays. There is no reason to try them on animals, whose skin and hair structure is different. The neurological experiments are indeed necessary, but it should be taken into account that the stress the monkeys are subjected to may disrupt the results.
As always, researchers with vested interests want to present the subject of trials in the BHA as if every trial is of a life-saving drug for cancer or multiple sclerosis. This is a demagogic image, the purpose of which is to silence those who wish to tighten the supervision of experiments, and allow glorified "scientific freedom" for researchers. In practice, there are plenty of studies that have no scientific benefit, and are done for the sake of the researcher's prestige. The research reality is that researchers, with the intention of increasing their prestige, must find a small and new angle that has not yet been explored, however esoteric and meaningless it may be. This is the case in every field of research and the whole academy works. There is no problem with this when it comes to a researcher in the social sciences or the humanities; But in these professions, any such adventure that is not necessary involves enormous, unnecessary suffering. The animal organizations request that an external ethics committee consisting of scientists and ethicists weigh the necessity of the experiment against the degree of suffering for the animals. There is no reason for a moral researcher to object to this. The trial for the essential drug for cancer will be approved in no uncertain terms.
To say "most of us, if not all of us, perform the experiments while making sure to minimize the suffering caused to the animals as much as possible" is paying lip service at best, and underestimating intelligence at worst. Those who should be entrusted with the welfare of the animals in the experiments cannot be the people who carry them out, and they alone. More supervision is needed for the humane execution of painful experiments. Are the investigators cruel? Not necessarily. But the cheapness in life and the suffering they absorb from everything around them during their years in the profession, as well as the outdated teaching methods from the first day in the academy - encouraged even the moral and those sensitive to suffering to dull their feelings, and to see the sufferers only as a sample, who have no moral debt towards them.