Sonia T. Felipe

Already in its first sentence, the regional secretary of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science, Campinas, SP, pharmacologist João Ernesto de Carvalho, commits a serious error, to write things that are not in the article which I wrote published by Folha de S. Paulo on Saturday 09/11/07, in which I argue that science can forgo the use of live-animal model, for serving up this model, without success in "curing" the ills that affect huge portion of human beings around the planet.

In the article which I wrote you can not even read a sentence denying that vivisector research has produced drugs to treat the symptoms of chronic and acute diseases that represent the cause of most human deaths each year. What I say is that despite more than six decades of intense research vivisectors were not fulfilled promises to "cure" for cancer, do diabetes, Hypertension, of circulatory disorders, vulnerability to infections, Alzheimer's, of Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, etc..

My statements are not "no scientific basis", or "completely untrue", as the author says in the letter released to the Editor, Folha de S. Paul on the day following the publication of my article.

The author states that "it is very easy to prove" that there are drugs that "cure" or "control these diseases". I do not deny that there are drugs that minimize the symptoms of certain of these and other diseases, in "some" human patients. The truth is that these drugs do not result in "cure", or the "disease management" in many other human. If the results of these experiments were "scientific", should not solve the same problem in all cases? Why the failures?

To advocate the abolition of vivisection, do not say that nothing has been done to date had any results. What I say is that the results are meager, taking into account six factors: 1.) more than half a century of vivisection following a single model that promises to be able to take a scientist to the expected results, without human ills have been cured by drugs developed based on this model; 2.) trillionaires investments made by governments and companies in the production of drugs, not in the prevention of human disease; 3.) the pride of the vivisectors who claim public opinion that their research model is essential for the production of human knowledge about the devastating diseases of human health; 4.) the very small number of cases of "cure", compared with the staggering number of "deaths", suffered by humans who used drugs created and sold them to rid them of diseases; 5.) the diversity of expression of the same disease in different human subjects, impossible to be "mirrored" in-vivo animal model employed by vivisector; 6.) the pride of the vivisectors who claim that "all knowledge" stagnate if vivisection were abolished. With respect to the latter question, is true that science would cease to exist vivisseccionista, but then to say that "science" would cease to exist, and mergulharíamos in Medieval Darkness, makes no sense. All science would have enormous progress, because investments today consumed by vivisection would be earmarked for research relevant to human health, no profit for the chemical.

Considering the context of the devastating diseases that affect the human population around the world has not diminished in the last two decades, despite the hundreds of thousands of drugs marketed by the pharmaceutical industry with the promise to patients and their families, The "cure", a cure in the majority of cases never arrives, and considering that investments in money, brains, equipment, physical space and intellectual power centric model vivisector no longer effective in proportion to the amount, would not be reasonable to conclude that the whole amount should be multiplied further, with the cost to more than 500 million animals annually exterminated in these experiments, around the world vivisseccionista.

Therefore, the author should not "be terrified" to read "statements" contrary to science vivisector. If you make a minimal effort to put on the pencil investment that this model of science consumes governments, funding agencies and the pocket by patients or their families, paying expensive remedies that never rid of all those evils, regional president of Campinas SBPC can conclude that something is going wrong, something bulky is escaping through the drains of sinks laboratories vivisectors, not just cut off the blood of animals in the experiments, but also the scientific intelligence of youth forced to mold itself to this single model for the cure of human disease, when this same intelligence should be directed to the search for prevention of most of these diseases, that there are genetic order, more "environmental" and "cultural".

As for toiletries and cosmetics, it is true that until the mid- 80 twentieth century, in Europe and the United States were necessarily tested on live animals (Draize Test e LD 50), leading to death in agony million rabbits, to cite just one of the species used in these tests, in whose eyes the components were tested. But, you would get a little more information, Mr. João Ernesto de Carvalho would have read something about what was done to permanently eliminate such tests in the production of these items. Moreover, the European community decided that from 2010 can no longer be sold such products in its territory, precisely because they are tested on animals. I get Estarrecida, with their disinformation.

For additives in foods placed, is regrettable that you have not read how toxic they are and how account for the high rate of cancer in humans. In other words, instead of defending vivisection as a way apologetic defense of artificial chemicals used by the food industry to ensure that the product does not rot inside the cans and bags before being consumed by humans, the writer should regret that human food has become a synthesized product to the point that the nutrients expected to ensure human health should no longer are present in it. In their place were introduced, by research vivisector, all kinds of synthetic, color, flavor and aroma. Vivisection is responsible, yes, By this disaster in which the human diet became. This is not a merit of the research vivisector. It is harmful result. Can not be computed as a positive, something whose name must defend the practice vivisector. With regard to sweeteners, yes, were developed in vivo animal model, and see what is discovered only twenty years later, with respect to aspartame: is carcinogenic, and alters the metabolism of the wearer prolonged, causing the person can no longer lose excess weight.

As for vaccines, Needless to say, himself acknowledged that Sabin lost a decade of his life following the wrong path by adopting the animal model, when their predecessors had accumulated invaluable information obtained from studies in humans infected. The "work on prevention [polio] [afirma Sabin] was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of human disease, false based on experimental models in monkeys ", apud Grief & Trez, The true face of animal experimentation, 2000. Scientists had found the virus in the digestive tract, but those who used animal model insisted on making the vaccine focusing on respiratory.

With this is not to say that every effort of so many intelligent and well-intentioned never resulted in anything. What is meant, is that all this effort, is employed with non vivisectors, would also have led to valuable results. Today, prevailing logic is as follows: if the findings do not lead to the proposition of any drug, but the proposition directed project to redesign the way we are living and eating for over three decades, such a model, that does not bring any profit to the drug industry is swept under the carpet. This is what happens today with the research not geared for selling drugs, but for disease prevention.

Regarding your last question, the coherence of moral, there is no doubt that it is the only valuable contribution to your article: we must give up animal products, animal is alive or dead, and all others that have been produced by the industry vivisection. Thanks for writing that those who do not strictly follows the principle of non-violence is hypocritical. I agree absolutly consigo. Moreover, I try to live for more than two decades, according to this principle. Regarding the last paragraph of your article, As regards the increase in life expectancy, physicians themselves recognize that it must in particular hygiene habits and nutritional care, incorporated throughout the twentieth century, a significant portion of the enlightened human, not to vivisection.

Thanks for rebut my position.
Graciously,
Prof.. Pull. Sonia T. Felipe / UFSC
Author of: Ethics and animal experimentation: abolitionists basics (Edufsc, 2007, 351 p.) and, As a matter of principle (Cripple, 2003, 211 p.)

[Posted on Sheet S. Paul in 12/11/07]

---

Sonia T. Felipe, 53, Dr. em moral philosophy and political theory pela University of Konstanz (Germany) with postdoctoral fellow in bioethics, animal ethics by the Center for Philosophy, University of Lisbon (Portugal), is a professor of undergraduate and postgraduate doctorate in philosophy and interdisciplinary humanities at the Federal University of Santa Catarina.