TRUTH
Or consequence
They say the truth hurts - but lies hurt even more. Animal Aid's
director, Andrew Tyler, comments on the reality behind animal experiments.
In the Cambridge
campaign pages, we describe Cambridge University's plans for a massive new
laboratory complex in which, every year, hundreds of monkeys would be subjected
to traumatic and ultimately lethal brain experiments. The declared purpose is
to advance knowledge of human neurological conditions, such as Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's and schizophrenia.
Not only are the disease constructs inflicted upon the animals phoney (done
by mutilating their brains through surgery or with chemicals) but there are
vital biological and behavioural differences between a human being and, say,
a marmoset, that render the experiments pointless. Most people, applying what
is (often dismissively) called common sense, recognise that human beings are
not marmosets, nor are they mice - and it is a dangerous fraud on the part of
the research community to act as if they are.
But for those behind the Cambridge proposal, the truth itself is a hurtful
thing. Animal experiments have become for them an addiction. They have built
their careers on the back of the 'animal model'. They have conducted 'important'
research into important diseases and been published in important specialist
journals. Along with the status this brings comes intellectual arrogance - and
money too; riches in the form of lucrative research grants (often paid through
your taxes) and collaborations with drug and biotech companies whose overriding
concern is profits.
How painful is it for such people to say: 'We got it wrong. Let's change direction'?
But how much more pain is caused by their refusal to come clean; painful not
just for their animal victims but for all the current and future sufferers of
human neurological conditions who require that honesty be at the heart of the
endeavours of all those conducting medical research or delivering treatments.
The penalty paid for using primates in an attempt to advance human medicine
is no more starkly illustrated than by the case of polio vaccine research. Ten
years ago, in my previous life as a national newspaper journalist, I wrote a
lengthy article for The Independent that investigated a huge trial in the Congo
region of Africa of an experimental polio vaccine. The trial took place during
the 1950s and the production process for the experimental vaccine involved 'culturing'
a 'safe' version of the polio virus in mashed-up kidney obtained from African
green monkeys or chimpanzees. The evidence pointed to some of the kidney tissue
being contaminated with Simian Immune Deficiency Virus (SIV) - the monkey equivalent
of the organism that causes AIDS in people. Given the facts of where and when
human AIDS subsequently developed, the hypothesis I explored was whether this
Congo vaccine trial was the start of the catastrophic human AIDS pandemic.
Three years ago, came publication of a massive, thoroughly researched book
by writer Ed Hooper, called The River, which explored the same theory.
The scientific establishment took fright but support gathered from brave, dissenting
scientific voices. Eventually, the Royal Society was forced to stage a special
conference on the subject - even though the agenda and format were fixed in
favour of the anti-Hooper camp. (And his best-qualified supporter was killed
'by malaria' on a final fact-gathering trip to Africa just prior to the meeting.)
Needless to say, the Hooper hypothesis is an appalling prospect for mainstream
medical research: the biggest infectious disease catastrophe facing Africa and
much of the rest of the world having been caused by cutting edge science; caused
because of its stubborn fixation on animal tissue and animal data.
If the Congo hypothesis is valid, then where does that leave the vaccine manufacturers
who still insist on using monkey kidneys and other animal tissue to make their
products? And let's remember that the evidence shows that SIV is just one dangerous
organism amongst an unknowable number that are harboured by monkeys and other
species; organisms which can, and have, transferred to people - sometimeswith
devastating effects. Other monkey-borne pathogens include SV40 and herpes B.
Truth or consequence?
Whether the penalty paid by our own species for using monkeys is a viral pandemic
or loss of medical progress by chasing up the wrong trail, the price is too
high. The price paid by the animal victims is also a tragedy of such immense
and unsettling proportions, you wonder how those responsible sleep at night.
|
