In 2004, an article published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed British Medical Journal posed the question: “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” The authors concluded that there is virtually none.
So, Stop U of T Animal Research decided to organize a debate. We wanted to know whether or not animal research is good science.
Dr. Ray Greek agreed to argue the scientific case against animal research. Dr. Greek is a medical doctor who used to perform experiments on animals. Now, he is the leading authority on the scientific case against using animals to predict human drug and disease response. He argues that, not only are animal “models” not helpful, but they actually impede medical progress, to the detriment of human health.
Animal researchers at U of T frequently assert that their work is valuable to humans. So far, however, none are willing to publicly defend that position with evidence-based arguments.
We invited any graduate student or professor from the Faculty of Medicine to debate Dr. Greek. The Strategic Communications office of the Faculty of Medicine declined the invitation, without providing any explanation. In addition, several individual animal researchers were invited, but, to date, have not responded to our request.
Dr. Greek notes that “an immense body of empirical evidence” has, for decades, supported the conclusion that animal models are not predictive for humans. Furthermore, says Greek, “new knowledge about genes, gene regulation, gene expression and gene networks — gained in large part as a result of the Human Genome Project — has significantly increased our understanding of why animals cannot be used to predict human response to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases. Despite the development of an all-encompassing theory as to why animals are not predictive, there remains — much to the detriment of human health and medical progress — extraordinary resistance to abandoning the use of animals as predictive models.”
We have experienced this resistance first-hand, not only in the unwillingness of researchers to debate Dr. Greek, but also in the absence of the research community from several well-advertised academic lectures we organized on the subject. While trying to engage with the scientific community, we have generally been met by a ‘wall of silence.’ That silence, we believe, stems from the unwarranted demonization of those who question animal testing, and by a strong resistance to unorthodox ideas, which shuts the door to academic debate, and effectively protects entrenched ideologies and institutional power.
The Faculty of Medicine’s rejection of our invitation runs contrary to the spirit of the academic pursuit of truth through knowledge, which demands thorough, free, and open debate on controversial topics. U of T’s own Statement of Academic Freedom states that “The existence of an institution where unorthodox ideas, alternative modes of thinking … can be debated contributes immensely to social and political change … Often this debate may generate controversy and disputes among members of the University [but] the University must allow the fullest range of debate. It should not limit that debate by preordaining conclusions.”
The decision not to debate Dr. Greek suggests a predetermined conclusion regarding the scientific validity of animal research. The Faculty of Medicine, which is connected to the University Health Network, is a major site of animal testing in North America. A great deal of money is invested by governments and pharmaceutical companies in animal testing. It would not be presumptuous to suggest that there is a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. To debate the question at all is to admit that the old paradigm can be questioned.
The refrain that animal research is an evil necessary to the advancement of human health, is a common one, but what if this is not the case? What if, in fact, animal research has a net negative impact on human health, as its critics contend? And, please, continue to ask: why won’t the scientific community at U of T defend the scientific validity of its work?
Join STOP U of T Animal Research to debate this issue in the Hart House Debates Room on September 19th at 7 pm.
Anna Pippus (J.D., U of T) and Paul York (PhD Candidate, U of T) are members of the group STOP U of T ANIMAL RESEARCH.
