Sérgio Grief

The movement to end animal experimentation is not an irresponsible move, how they want to make it seem many scientists interested in the continuation of animal experimentation. There is a movement that is opposed to science and human health, but a movement that seeks a transformation in scientific approach, in order to prioritize the health of the population at the expense of the economic interests of narrow groups.

Position against animal experimentation is seeking serious science, correct. Defenders of science-based animal testing argue that scientific advances occur when human diseases are induced in experimental animals. However, despite the time and billions of dollars invested by the taxpayer, the results of these experiments do not apply to human.

This is because genetic differences that determine each body responds differently to different treatments. These differences become even extrapolation of data between human populations difficulty. Indeed, drugs developed at the expense of human experiments are effective only for 30-50% population. For the rest of the population are nothing effective or dangerous drugs, since it can produce serious side effects.

Animal models, beyond these blatant facts concerning their own biology, also have the added problem of being healthy animals. The diseases need to be induced in these animals, and many scientific resources are specifically intended for this. But how can we trust these models with induced disease, when they ignore the origins of our own diseases?

Extirpating the pancreas of a dog can induce the animal a state similar to diabetes. But the disease is diabetes more than a pancreas that does not meet its function. The human being develops the disease determined by the action of genetic and environmental factors, and we only know this because clinical and epidemiological data have shown us that. Only by working upon these factors we think of tackling diabetes in humans.

No dogs will be forced to inhale the equivalent of smoke 1.000 cigarettes to obtain data on the effects of smoking in humans. It is obvious that only the observation of the smoking population can produce reliable. The induction of cancer in animals by applying drugs will not answer for the cause or the treatment of cancer in human populations. This would not apply even to veterinary research, because one thing is a domestic dog developing cancer naturally, and quite another is that this cancer will be induced.

While these examples may seem simplistic, they reflect well the defense line on which rest those fighting to end animal testing. We are not a religious sect trying to kick the medicine and all its advances. We want to advance medicine and to do based on correct assumptions, free system hooked, the forms as found.

---

Sérgio Grief, Biologist group Vedder, in São Paulo (SP), Master in Food and Nutrition, co-author of the book “The True Face of Animal Experimentation: Your health in danger” and author of “Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals in Education: responsible for science”.