
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, May 4, 1990                   TAG: 9005040765
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A11   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: PAXTON DAVIS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

REMEMBER POLIO?

WHAT IS commonly called "common sense" is so uncommon in crazy late-20th century America that it becomes a pleasure to salute its rare appearance. That is the case with a story reported Sunday by Washington correspondent Marsha Mercer in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The field is that of biomedical experimentation. The background is the extraordinary dust raised in recent years by the advocates of what they have the gall to call "animal rights." The occasion is the determination of American scientists - at last - to fight these nutcakes back.

Animal experimentation began on a large scale in 19th-century Europe with the discovery of the bacterial origin of much human disease and the treatment of it with vaccines, serums and chemicals. It is a staple element of medical progress.

The ability of medicine to prevent, cure or allay a wide variety of what, throughout much of human history, have been large-scale killers has depended on the use of laboratory animals. They are used for the observation of clinical illness, the examination of diseased tissue and the laborious testing of substances believed to be possible successes in the treatment, or at any rate the management, of the disease process.

One has only to read the history of modern medicine to grasp the centrality of animal experimentation.

Diphtheria, rabies, anthrax, whooping cough, scarlet fever, syphilis, gonorrhea, yaws - all have yielded to serum, vaccine or chemical attack because of long, tedious but essential experimentation on animals. One ought to add here, and to emphasize, the conquest of poliomyelitis in our own recent past, which came about through the efforts of Jonas Salk and others, all of whom used animals to develop the polio vaccine.

My point is simple and ought to be obvious to anyone who glories in the triumph of 20th-century medicine over an extraordinary range of human ailments.

Nor should one stop there. The slow conquest of a variety of other, nowadays more prevalent chronic diseases - the "degenerative" diseases of the heart, kidneys and brain, as of cancer, diabetes, arthritis and Alzheimer's - cannot occur without the use of laboratory animals.

All this ought to be understood, and by most of us is. But from the start of animal research a zealous group of fanatics - once called "anti-vivisentionists," now calling themselves "animal-rights advocates" - have lobbied, shouted, screamed and demonstrated against medical schools and laboratories.

They complain about "torture" of lab animals. They carry on about "animal rights" as if they could be equated with the rights of racial, sexual and political minorities. They criminally misrepresent how animals are used for research. They play upon affection for domestic and other animals and for threatened species.

The medical profession has reacted poorly, either with defensive answers that only allowed the animal-rights freaks to raise their voices higher or with sullen silence that implied shame.

Now, however - as Ms. Mercer writes - the profession is rising to state the crucial and inescapable necessity of animal research. The profession is making it clear that it does not "torture" animals, and that medicine has no alternative to animal experimentation.

Dr. Frederick J. Goodwin, whose animal work led to the development of lithium therapy for manic-depressive patients, also notes that for every dog or cat used in research, a thousand abandoned dogs and cats are killed in animal shelters. For every dog or cat used in brain research, 7,000 are killed in shelters.

He notes that in a nation ranking 13th in knowledge of biology among 13 developed nations, confusing domestic and laboratory animals is widespread - and may mislead our political leadership. "The climate of fear is very palpable," he says, adding that some investigators are moving into other fields to avoid harasssment by animal-rights nuts.

Well, good for Goodwin. It is a thing to wonder at when people prefer what they mistakenly call "animal rights" to the successful treatment of wasting human disease.

But then, the flat-earth people can't get their heads on right either. And many, in a country drifting into illiteracy, believe the moon is made of green cheese.

by CNB