THE DECEPTION OF "ALTERNATIVES" TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS

 

by Henry Turtle

 

 

"Now we are expected, by endeavoring to discover new lines of treatment, or by advertising and supporting lines of treatment discovered by others, to compete with these fanatical followers of a faIse and pernicious creed. We wish to insist that we are not concerned...with the thousand and one remedies for the thousand and one ailments of the human race. It is not our job. We are out to smash the whole vile system of those pseudo-scientific debauchees who uselessly torment living animals under the absurd idea of finding remedies for the diseases of human beings."

 

From an article headed "What is our policy?" by the campaigning medical doctor WaIter R. Hadwen, M.D., J.P., (1854-1932) in THE ABOLITIONIST, October 1, 1925, the journal of an anti-vivisection society which he led. What were once held out to anti-vivisectionists as new lines of treatment or remedies worthy of promotion to combat vivisection and denounced by Dr. Hadwen as a diversion, have been supplanted by what are today called alternatives or replacements to animal experiments. However, the intention behind them remains the same, which is to act as a smoke-screen behind which vivisection can continue unabated. Dr. Hadwen's concern about the malign intention behind new lines of treatment and remedies is vindicated by the deceit revealed in the concepts of "alternatives", and "reduction of animals used" shown by the American letter reprinted below.

 

October 5, 1984

 

Mr. Edward Kavanaugh, Cosmetics, Toiletries & Fragrance Associates, 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington, D. C. 20005

 

Dear Mr. Kavanagh:

 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you ("commiserate" would be a more appropriate word!) about the problem created by the anti-vivisectionists. It is indeed regrettable that anyone who can afford a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and can gather a thousand marchers in New York City can create so much difficulty as the anti-vivisectionists did for the Revlon Corporation. In the recent past, 2,000 anti-vivisectionists marched on UCLA. In addition, they have committed criminal trespass and stolen valuable experimental animals at UCLA, at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. They recently arranged to pass legislation in the state of Massachusetts which precludes the use of pound animals for research and testing and which makes unlawful the importation of animals into the state for such purposes. The Speaker of the Senate in the state of California (Mr. Roberti) has sponsored legislation to do the same thing in the state of California.

 

The foregoing activity has galvanised the medical research establishment into action. Under the direction of Dr. John Sherman at the American Association of Medical Colleges (Washington, D.C.), a coalition is being formed of the professional organizations who use animals for research and testing. I attended the first of these meetings as a recent past president of the American Surgical Association and as a current Regent of the American College of Surgeons. We anticipate that this coalition will, by assessing a head tax on membership of the major professional organizations, initiate and fund a major effort against the anti-vivisectionists. In addition, the coalition will deal with problems of legislation, networking, information exchange, etc. Because these are voluntary scientific organizations which meet only once a year, there will probably be a lag time of six to 18 months before the coalition becomes fully effective. Under the sponsorship of several major Eastern universities and a dozen major pharmaceutical companies, the Foundation for Biomedical Research (Waltham, Massachusetts, soon to move to Washington, D.C.) has been founded to fund a major effort against the anti-vivisectionists. A very substantial sum of money has been donated for this activity on the national level.

 

Under the sponsorship of the various major universities in California (the campuses of the University of California, Stanford and California Institute of Technology), a California affiliate of the Foundation for Biomedical Research has been established. The University of California put up approximately $200,000, the prinicipal objective of which was to defeat the Roberti bill. In recent weeks, that effort was successful, in that the bill was defeated in committee. The California Biomedical Research Association is now moving forward to form a broad coalition of citizens' groups. This will include the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, etc., such that we have, in a period of a few months, established an organization of perhaps 200,000 California citizens. Under the auspices of the California Biomedical Research Association, a number of brief "disease papers" have been published (samples enclosed), with the purpose of establishing a network of millions of individuals in the state of California who are victims of specific diseases.

 

It is my personal assessment that our efforts against the anti-vivisectionists have over the past three decades been entirely too "defensive" in nature. Whenever legislation threatening our freedom to do research and testing in animals was introduced at the city or state level, my colleagues and I would put on a "dog-and-pony" show at the legislature, and we inevitably were able to prevent passage of legislation which would restrict the freedom to research in a humane manner on animals. This tactic is no longer effective since, I believe, the public no longer understands the critical necessity of the role of animal research in scientific discovery and testing in the assurance of safety of commercial products to which the consumer is exposed.

 

Two examples of our defensive posture are the "alternative method" program currently funded under the National Institutes of Health. (Our emphasis) Obviously, the people at the NIH and its civilian consultants (like myself) believe in animal research, but felt it desirable to mollify our adversaries by seeking ways other than the use of animals to make scientific discoveries. (Our emphasis.) Another example is the public utterances of medical scientists in the recent past indicating that we are "successfully reducing the number of animals used in biomedical research." (Our emphasis.) We believe both of these approaches are inappropriate to the challenge we face at the present time. It would be more appropriate if we were to point out that 15 million dogs are exterminated each year in the gas chambers of the local pounds and that only two to three percent of this number of animals are needed for our current research needs. Rather than reduce the number of animals used, we should take an aggressive point of view, i.e., that ways must be found to improve the health of man and animals by finding scientific use for the 14.7 million animals now being uselessly exterminated. Since commercial and scientific laboratories are currently paying approximately $70 per dog, the needless extermination of 15 million pound animals means that we are wasting a national resource worth $1.0 billion.

 

The "alternative method" defensive posture, cited above, is supported with federal funds by the National Institutes of Health, a diversion of money from the regular research program. As you may have heard, the federal government is in the process now of considering revision of guidelines for the use of laboratory animals, and has called for public comment. The principles are laudatory, and I believe any humane and ethical scientist would concur with them. However, the proposal promotes the concept of the use of "alternative methods." There is certainly nothing wrong with scientific methods that will produce equivalent answers to those experiments performed in animals, particularly if they lessen the cost of research, are more expeditious, and produced results that are not achievable by animal research and testing. It happens that I personally am one of the originators of computer simulation for the solution of complex biological and biochemical problems. I agree that such simulations can be helpful, but that they actually require more rather than fewer animal experiments. (Our emphasis.) I have presented this point of view in the enclosed letter written in response to the federal request for comments. I enclose with this letter the agreement in principle with this point of view by Dr. John Cooper, who is putting together the national coalition of scientists at the American Association of Medical Colleges.

 

I realize the reasons for, and am appreciative of, the action of the CTFA in funding to the extent of $1.3 million the search for alternative methods at John Hopkins Hospital. I am also aware that Revlon has given $1.5 million to the Rockefeller Institute for similar purposes. Both of these actions are in keeping with the general approach that we in the biomedical community have taken in dealing with our adversaries. Unfortunately, we have now learned, after 30 years, that the anti-vivisectionists are never satisfied with our efforts. Rather, with each compromise we make, they get more aggressive. Their current tactic is the theft of animals and animal data directly from research institutions. I believe the only reason the commercial laboratories have not yet suffered these thefts is that the security is far better in commercial than in university settings.

 

Several of us who are intimately involved in dealing with this problem feel that the approach taken by the scientific community and industry in the past is inappropriate to the task at hand. We believe that what is required is a major multimedia educational program, the objective of which would be to bring the public to an understanding of the threat which they are under. We believe that it is going to take a multi-million dollar media program for a period of two to three years, followed by a long-term program of perhaps ten to 15 percent of that level, for the indefinite future. To this end, Frankie Troll (Executive Director of the Foundation for Biomedical Research), Larry Horton (Vice President for Public Relations, Stanford University and a prime mover in the California Biomedical Research Association), the head of one of the major pharmaceutical houses, and I believe that we should initiate a test program in California to determine the most effective form of advertising, the most appropriate legislative approach, and the best type of coalition to set up to achieve our objective. It is our intention to do a scientific study using one of the major polling organizations to monitor the effectiveness of the program. After 12 to 24 months, or as when indicated by measures of public opinion, we would then proceed, with (appropriate legislation or referenda). California offers an ideal test area because we are reputed to have "more crazies per acre" than any state in the country, and because we represent an otherwise fairly typical area with a huge concentration of industry and scientific research laboratories. I estimate that we will need about $1 million to initiate the program here (it cost about $200,000 to defeat the Roberti bill). Perhaps my estimate is low. I am initiating the financing with a $25,000 donation myself from funds made available to me from grateful patients. In addition, I am lining up a dozen very prominent national film and TV personalities who are either friends or patients who will donate their services to the program. I am asking a number of my friends who are CEOs of California foundations or of companies manufacturing scientific materials to make a contribution. It is my hope that the cosmetics and toiletries industry, which has been as much under the gun as the scientific community, might be willing to put up $250,000.

 

I wish to emphasize that raising money is not the major way you can help us. We need considerable help and advice from the advertising people in the cosmetic industry. What are the most effective media for reaching the average citizen? What are the relative costs of the various media? What are the best advertising agencies (we would like to hire one in California at the national level). We have no particular desire to "receive and spend" the money ourselves. Our principal interest is in getting the message to the public. For example, I could conceive a major advertising program by a company like Revlon under the title "Revlon Cares." The program would consist of full-page magazine advertisements, or 30-second prime-time TV spots in which Revlon showed the testing and safety precautions (using animals, of course) which enable it to produce products consistent with healthy people and a healthy environment. Certain companies (for example, our pharmaceutical supporters) prefer to keep a "low profile." Certain other organizations, such as the American Heart Association, we anticipate will wish to sponsor their own advertisements. The function of our local and national biomedical research associations is to provide the television personalities, the connections in the film and TV industries, and general coordination and direction to convince the public of the need for research and testing in animals. The cosmetic industry has a superb record for getting its message to the public, and we very much need the experience of its advertising personnel in helping us to go about our task.

 

It is my hope, Mr. Kavanaugh, that we can interest the companies supporting your organization in joining us in this national campaign. I would be pleased to come to Washington, to bring with me Frankie Trull of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, Larry Horton from Stanford, Vice Chancellor Al Barber from our university, or the leaders in the pharmaceutical industry who have already joined the program.

 

All of us have a great deal at stake and it is clear that we must move rapidly. Time is running out because our adversaries have achieved unprecedented success in their efforts to stop research and testing in animals.

 

Your sincerely, James V. Maloney, Jr., M.D.

Lewis D. Beaumont, Professor of Surgery

Associate Dean for Extramural Programs Dept. of Surgery, UCLA.

 

A copy of the letter also reached the (British) National Anti-Vivisection Society and was likewise reproduced in its entirety in its journal ANIMALS' DEFENDER AND ANTI- VNISECTION NEWS, March/April 1985. The editor of the NAVS' journal regarded the letter as particularly important, but it is a matter for conjecture why he chose to publish it, since the NAVS has a department called the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research and readers of ANIMALS' DEFENDER might wonder how the Lord Dowding Fund could appear in the light of Dr Maloney's observations.

 

Dr. Maloney's remark that "computer simulations...actually require more rather than fewer animal experiments" fits in with a reference to 'alternatives' in leaked correspondence between the British Government and the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research. In response to a proposal by the Lord Dowding Fund to the Government to set up a special institute to develop 'alternatives' the Government in a letter of 12 September 1979 stated that it was "assured that any such establishment or even any individual scientist engaged solely in devising 'alternatives' for other research workers, would waste intellect, time, resources and, indeed animals (because the 'alternatives' would have to be tested in animals to see if they were indeed alternatives)" (Our emphasis.)

 

The Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research has since joined forces with the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research (Registered Charity Number 261096) to set up a national centre for the replacement of animals in experiments.

 

The Dr Hadwen Anti-Vivisection Memorial Unit has no connection with the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research (RCN 261096).

 

This leaflet was produced by the Dr. Hadwen Anti-Vivisection Memorial Unit, established to promote or reassert the anti-vivisection views of Dr. Walter Robert Hadwen that may have been neglected or suppressed or misrepresented or plagiarised.

 

DR. HADWEN ANTI-VIVISECTION MEMORIAL UNIT