Clueless Media Promotes Animal Rights Views by Permitting Research Denigration to Go Unchallenged
PETA has filed a complaint against a research lab with the USDA. Par for the course. Often (but not always) such complaints are found to be baseless.
But this entry is not about the complaint, rather the reporting about it that tells only half the story. This AP article, byline Judith Kohler, permits animal rights activists to denigrate the value of medical research using animals without challenge or opposing comments. From her story:
Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist who works full-time for a group that advocates alternatives to animal research, said animal experimentation is "inhumane and cruel" despite the best intentions of researchers...
Pippin, who works for the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine [me: an animal rights advocacy group masking itself as scientifically based], said he used to conduct research on dogs but stopped about 20 years ago after deciding it wasn't ethical or scientifically sound. He said breakthroughs in medicine and science typically happen after research with humans because most of the results in animals don't transfer. "I do believe that most people on the research side of things believe in what they're doing," Pippin said. "I also think, by and large, that looking at the big picture, they have tunnel vision."
But this is false and fails to take into account the full breadth and scope of the scientific method--a matter I will deal with in the book I am writing on animal rights. At the very least, if she was going to include the above in her story, the reporter should have contacted researchers and/or their advocates to counter the false assertion that medical research with animals does not help advance science and lead to the substantial alleviation of human (and animal) suffering! Failing to do so misinformed instead of elucidating the story's readers.
Labels: Animal RIghts. Media Ignorance
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:30 PM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
Animals have a right not to suffer unnecessarily.
However, I am not convinced about abolishing animal testing completely. However, I wonder if they want to ban using even Drosophila.
Fortunately, rats and drosophila are prevalently used, and primates are sparingly used, mainly because the aforementioned animals require less maintenance.
Animals don't have rights. Humans have duties. The so-called rights would only apply to animals as against humans, never to humans as against animals or animals as against other animals.
Preventing unnecessary animal suffering or reducing it when suffering is required to serve a useful human purpose, is an important human obligation. But the existence of suffering is, in and of itself, not determinative. The human good thereby achieved is also relevant to the proper analysis of each situation. Which is why dog fighting is and should be against the law, and using mice or, when necessary, monkeys in the search for a cancer cure for cancer should be permitted.
But again, this isn't the point of the post. The point of the post is to illustrate how only one side of the issue is often presented in media. The research sector should have been given an opportunity to rebut the notion that we receive no benefits from animal experimentation.
The well-worn false opposition between "animal rights" and "human obligations" is, in practical terms, a semantic distinction in search of a difference. It's also an excuse to avoid the real issue: the allegations that these animals at the University of Colorado suffered disturbing abuse and neglect that even the most ardent proponent of animal experiments should have trouble supporting or justifying.
Unfortunately, you could not find enough basic fairness to briefly explain the cruelty allegations, which according to the AP article, include a failure to quickly euthanize a monkey with a prolapsed colon. These allegations are based on video and photographic evidence compiled by a five-year employee of the lab in question.
You also imply (without offering any evidence) that there can be no real debate about the utility of animal experiments. At the very least, however, any fair-minded observer has to admit to the possibility that academic researchers in today's publish-or-perish environment could well be sacrificing animals in the ways that cause extreme suffering but are unlikely to yield any benefit to humans. The result of attitudes like yours is that any animal research, no matter wasteful of tax money or animal lives, can be justified if a researcher simply makes an unsupported or even clearly absurd claim that his experiments could one day help humans. Is that kind of unjustified suffering really much better than dog fighting?
Finally, it's amusing and a little disturbing that you so carelessly denigrate the physician quoted in this story. I looked him up on the web, and he's a cardiologist who worked for the Cooper Clinic and taught at several universities. He has done animal research and treated human patients. I'll wager he knows quite a bit more about the scientific method than you do. You are, what--a lawyer?
John: I linked the story if people want to see what the allegations are. But there is no point in discussing the "allegations" or opining on their veracity since I don't know--and neither do you until they are investigated. In this regard, we should keep in mind that animal liberationists have been known to make groundless charges against researchers and to alter video tape "evidence." If the charges are true, the proper punishment should apply. If not, alas, there will be no punishment to those who made groundless charges.
The Physicians Committee is not a bona fide scientific organization, it is an animal rights group dedicated to ending the use of animals in research. Its pronouncements on these matters should thus be viewed with that in mind--just as a research industry representative's statements would be viewed with that understanding.
But my point was the story did not present the latter's perspective, only the former about the usefulness of animal research. That was not good journalism.
Your complaint about media bias is baseless. The AP article offers extensive quotes from a University of Colorado spokesperson who defends both his program's treatment of animals and animal research in general.
You offer no defense of your ad hominem attack on the doctor in the piece who is critical of animal experiments. Your only response is that you believe he works for an organization that is somehow not a bona fide scientific organization. To restate, this guy is a cardiologist who has taught at major universities and conducted animal research himself. The fact that he opposes animal experiments is striking.
And frankly, I'm surprised you feel so free about throwing around the "not a bona fide scientific organization" remark, given your affiliation with the Discovery Institute. You're not an expert on science or medicine or human health. You are a lawyer who works for a think tank that promotes creationism.
People can read the story for themselves. I didn't say it was biased, I said it was incomplete. The attack on animal research was not responded to. The Committee is not a science organization--they deal with animal issues from a liberationist perspective. It was also involved in the shameful Atkins smear after he died, claiming he was obese, based on an intentional misreading of leaked medical records.
As for the DI, it is not creationist. But don't let the facts get in your way. If you have a beef with intelligent design (which is far from all it does), take it up with them.
Yes, I can clearly see that I'm dealing with a lawyer. Let me recap your arguments: You didn't say the article was biased, just that it was bad journalism. The article did quote a proponent of animal research--but you're upset with the reporter because that spokesperson wasn't one of the proponents you favor. The Discovery Institute doesn't promote creationism, it promotes "intelligent design." The fact that the Discovery Institute promotes the pseudo science of intelligent design has nothing to do with you--even though you are a Discovery Institute senior fellow and link to the organization's website from the top of this very blog page. Fascinating.
John,
You are coming on a little strong and accusing Wesley of things he has not done.
First, Wesley states clearly that his reaon for posting this is the imbalance in reporting. He then describes the imbalance as the reporter not offering a substantive response to Dr. Pippin's assertion that there is no benefit to animal research. That there is no response to this assertion is a FACT. Read the story, the statements from the Colorado research facility are to the allegations not the utility of animal research.
Point 2, your attacking of the Discovery Institute as retribution for a perceived slight against Dr. Pippin is childish.
Point 3, you statement:
*The well-worn false opposition between "animal rights" and "human obligations" is, in practical terms, a semantic distinction in search of a difference.*
This is incomplete at best. You fail to make a distinction between natural and positive rights and clarify which postition you are arguing from. If we are arguing natural rights, then it is not semantic but central to say that animals lack the natural rights and moral duties that apply to humanity. If not then chimpanzees that rip monkeys limb from limb before eating them are behaving in an immoral fashion instead of simply pursuing their animal nature. If you are arguing from a positivist position then you run the risk of arguing that all moral distinctions are semantic.
Please clarify your point.
Johnny,
Hostile, much? LOL
Let me see - Wesley is a senior fellow in a group that does tons and tons of research, not only on ID but on ethics and economic science and politics and - goodness, the list keeps going!
So here he is, writing a blog about a newspaper article that had incomplete information and leaves the reader without both sides of the story like fair journalism should offer.
Yet you come in screaming about how he's a lawyer, like that's some kind of crime in itself (I'm sure you'd be offended to know that -=gasp=- some of our Presidets were lawyers by trade, given how violently you seem to oppose him on that score). You also scream how he's associated with DI.
What the *hell* does that have to do with anything? Instead of solidly making your point (and amazingly enough you seem to have one up there), you go off on a tangent that makes you look like a hysterical whiny-boy who has to poke fun and call people names.
I give you a C- for incoherent rambling, straying from the topic, name-calling, and appeals to emotionalism instead of trying to explain something rationally.
Bravo for your attempt, though.
Yes, Wesley, human life matters, but so does all animal life. And animal research is lousy science as well as lousy ethics: it's bad for humans AND bad for animals. Dr. Pippin is quite correct. If you want to find a cure for the complex of diseases known as cancer, the answer is not in animal research, or it would have been found by now.
Wesley makes a good point. For some odd reason reporters are often quick to print animal rights claims without checking the facts or getting the counterpoint.
This happens all the time. It is as if, because they care about animals, the activists get a free pass. However in reality, people who work in labs care about animals too and it is about time they were given a chance to defend outrageous claims by people like Dr. Pippin who interestingly enough is also named John.
In response to ardeth01, are you blind to the fact that animal research has already led to treatments for diabetes, heart disease, transplantation, polio, smallpox and countless other diseases including some forms of cancer? It is as if you threw out your history books and hope nobody else ever read them.
I am the Dr. Pippin to whom Mr. Smith refers in his criticism, and I stumbled on this blog while seeking some animal research media pieces. Since I'm here, I'd like to set a few things straight from my perspective.
First, some comments regarding the silly ad hominem attacks on me and on PCRM. I joined PCRM's team specifically because it is a physician- and scientist-based organization that promotes best practices in medicine, education, nutrition, and other areas. We have 6,000 physician members and many thousands of other medical professionals, scientists, educators, and nutritionists. Many of them, like myself, exchanged lucrative and highly respected careers for the opportunity to bring solid science and medicine to the advocacy arena. For which we occasionally get beat up by bloggers with agendas.
In addition to staking ethical and scientifically sound positions regarding issues such as animal use in medical research, drug testing, and education, PCRM does quite a bit of what Mr. Smith would agree is mainstream medical research. We have published important studies in the areas of nutrition and diabetes, have developed the first commercial animal-free insulin assay, have established a widely-acclaimed Cancer Project focused on nutritional issues, have performed NIH-funded clinical research, and have collaborated with Georgetown University and the University of Toronto, among other respected institutions.
The arguments I offer in opposition to animal research are based on solid science, alarming data (largely unknown to the public), and my own experiences as a former animal researcher. I am the author or co-author of more than 60 peer-reviewed publications in medical journals, and have served on the faculties of several medical schools, including Harvard and the Medical College of Virginia. So I didn't come to this calling because I wasn't good at anything else and needed a job.
With all due respect for Mr. Smith and his opinions, I suspect he does not bring these balanced credentials to the debate. What he does bring is an inclination to shoot the messenger, which is often the method of choice for those unable to engage the actual issues at hand.
So I must challenge this blog author's claims regarding the credibility of both PCRM and me.
Second, the evidence that animal research is a failed paradigm is substantial. It could be the subject of a series of long discussions, but just allow me to throw a few pretty damning facts at you. Please refute any of them if you can.
There have been more than 150 treatments for stroke that have been successful in animal tests and then were tested in humans. They ALL failed, and as you know we have no effective treatments for stroke.
There have been more than 80 successful HIV/AIDS vaccines in monkeys and chimpanzees, and ALL have failed in human trials. The most recent failure was the much ballyhooed Merck vaccine V520, which actually led to more HIV infections than did the placebo.
There have been more than two dozen cures for diabetes and more than two dozen treatments that prevent or mitigate paralysis -- and again, ALL have failed in human trials.
The Chief of the National Cancer Institute Surgery Branch wrote in a review article in 2004 that the entire field of cancer vaccine animal research is a failure. The standard mouse heterograft model that has failed to correlate with human cancers for decades is in such disrepute that the NCI uses its own panel of human cancer cell cultures instead. There has been minimal benefit and no cures from animal research efforts against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, arthritis, and many other broad areas of medicine.
And need I remind anyone of Vioxx, the drug that killed 60,000 Americans (more than died in the Vietnam War), and that was labeled the single greatest drug safety catastrophe in world history by FDA official David Graham in 2005? Vioxx was safe in eight studies using six animal species, yet began killing people as soon as it was marketed.
If animal testing is useful, why do 92% of drugs tested safe and effective in animals fail during human testing (FDA data)? And why are half of the remaining 8% withdrawn or relabeled due to serious side effects undetected during animal testing?
This litany could truly go on as long as you wish, but you see my point. The arguments against continuation of such a dismal scientific approach are compelling, and those who bring those arguments should not be treated dismissively by those who don't know the facts behind the fraud.
Thanks for the opportunity to use this forum, and try to be willing to exchange old ideas when they are proven false.
Don't have time to fully respond now, but I will say this: First, animal studies are more than just drug testing. Far more, as you know. Second, you said the following:
"If animal testing is useful, why do 92% of drugs tested safe and effective in animals fail during human testing (FDA data)? And why are half of the remaining 8% withdrawn or relabeled due to serious side effects undetected during animal testing?"
That means that only 4% of drugs, all of which involve or have involved animal testing, fail or are relabeled." Interesting.
Of course, animal testing prevents many drugs from ever being tried on humans, which is a very big part of the point.
But more on this in my book in due time.
Oh, if PCRM is so authentic and ethical, how explain the little Adkins fiasco?
Thanks for stopping by. I'll look into what you wrote.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS146141+06-Aug-2008+PRN20080806
The American Medical
Association in 1991 issued a news release stating that, 'The AMA finds the
recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health
and welfare of Americans. [PRCM is] blatantly misleading Americans on a health
matter and concealing its true purpose as an animal 'rights' organization.'
The California Medical Association also has criticized PCRM for 'lies and
misrepresentation.'
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home