Animal research

Opponents of animal research should refuse medical treatment – Speaking of Research

February 19, 2021

We are in the midst of a global pandemic, with 105.4 million cases and 2.3 million deaths since the start of the pandemic. Fortunately, thanks to decades of animal research on coronaviruses, various candidate vaccines have been accelerated and their safety and efficacy profiles evaluated in animals and humans. As a result, two vaccines have received emergency use authorization in the United States.

Source: Nature

As highlighted in our recent guest post by Dr Michele Basso, those who oppose animal research will continue to benefit from our hard work while continuing to mount harassment and bullying campaigns against the hardworking people every day. to provide new knowledge. it will lead to exactly the kinds of treatments that they so enthusiastically accept.

Thus, we continue our “Evergreen” series with an article from ten years ago, in which we explained why those who oppose animal research should refuse medical treatment.

Originally posted 11/17/2011

In a new post, anti-animal research activist Rick Bogle laments that his camp is often challenged with a natural question:

“Would you deny a medical treatment developed through animal research? “

It is safe to assume that the vast majority of those who oppose animal research have no qualms about vaccinating their children and pets, or who, in the event of an accident, would rush to the nearest emergency room for themselves. seek treatment with the benefits of animals.

Are they not hypocrites?

Mr. Bogle doesn’t think so. In response, he writes that in order to live faithfully on our own challenge, scientists must refuse all advantages obtained in a way that we also consider unethical.

Namely, he challenges us with: (a) not to travel on roads built by slaves – if we truly oppose slavery, (b) refusing the care of a doctor whose training was based in part on the knowledge acquired by Nazi doctors – if we truly oppose the Holocaust, and (vs) so that our daughters and wives forgo gynecological care, as many of its techniques were apparently developed by Dr. J. Marion Sims with the help of unwitting human subjects.

This is a mistaken argument.

It is clear that none of the unethical practices mentioned by Mr. Bogle are accepted or prevalent today. So taking a road built by slaves is not actively supporting slavery. By accepting gynecological care, one is not actively supporting experiments on non-consenting human subjects. Etc.

In contrast, the use of animals in medical research is ubiquitous today. Animal research offers medical benefits that translate into longer, healthier lives. There is a public demand for such benefits. If the desire to live longer and healthier lives were to disappear tomorrow, animal research, along with the rest of medical research, would also disappear.

Mr. Bogle’s challenge is based on a false analogy.

A suitable analogy would be as follows. Suppose you stand up against child labor and forced labor and find out that a particular American company is manufacturing its products overseas under such working conditions.

Would you still buy such a business? Is there a way you can legitimately claim that you are morally opposed to forced labor, but still have a right to benefit from the low prices offered by the company?

Of course not.

If you buy from such a company, you are a hypocrite in all measure of the world, for you are actively supporting, funding, and carrying on a practice that you consider immoral.

Ethical principles are supposed to guide moral judgments. If you have strong moral principles that you want to pass on to the rest of society, you had better be the first to be prepared to accept the consequences of such principles.

Mr. Bogle and his ilk should stop profiting from our research immediately.

They should live by their beliefs.

Until then, they are nothing more than hypocrites.

~ Speaking of research