Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine believe that medicine based on animal experiments is unscientific because of the insuperable  barriers of species differences.  Laboratory animals (so-called models for man) do not reflect human physiology, psychology, life-style, or diseases.

These differences inevitably lead medicine astray, resulting in harmful side-effects from drugs, misdiagnoses of existing diseases, and the loss of potential cures for current health problems, as well as the creation of new diseases.  This only adds to and causes further horrific suffering, both to humans and to animals.....

There are many who oppose or disagree with vivisection purely on the grounds of animal welfare, which is certainly reasonable in view of the misery and pain endured by laboratory animals - and senselessly endured at that, since the results of such work are, in fact, spurious.  Each wanton cruelty is a strong ethical argument against vivisection, but this argument detracts from the fact that results from animal experimentation do not work and should be stopped IMMEDIATELY for that very reason, whether or not one sympathizes with the animals, which many do not.

So, also, the call for REDUCTION of animal experiments, the so-called "3 Rs" (REDUCE, REFINE, REPLACE) much loved by those who profess to oppose animal experimentation ostensibly on animal welfare grounds, but claim it is necessary to continue until ALTERNATIVES are found.  There are, again, those who genuinely wish to end vivisection (also on the grounds of animal welfare) and mistakenly believe REDUCTION to be at least a step on the way.

Firstly, this is small comfort for the millions of animals still to be subjected to the laboratory experiments.  Secondly, it would imply that those animal experiments remaining are valid and useful, which they are not because of species differences.  What is the point of continuing any such research when it is unreliable and harmful to those it is intended to help, namely humans?  DLRM does not accept the "3Rs".

A further frequent argument states that it is simply a question of finding ALTERNATIVES to the unacceptable use of animals; but this gives false credence to vivisection, since the world "ALTERNATIVE" implies a simple choice from equally valid options, and vivisection can never be scientifically valid.  This argument also disregards the fact that medicine researched by such a false method, even when effective and apparently safe, is so despite, and not because of animal testing.

The case for banning animal tests for cosmetics - incidentally, less than one percent of the total of animal experiments - is similarly flawed.  It is mistakenly justified on the sole grounds that cosmetics are not essential in the way that medicine is - which again confuses the issue as animal tests are not valid in either field.  But this argument is welcomed by those who wish to sustain and perpetuate the practice of animal experiments, since it may well serve to appease anti-vivisectionists to some degree and so act as a delaying tactic and diversion from the wider issue....

We now have seriously to ponder on what we are doing to our planet and what we are bequeathing to our children.  We already have genetic engineering, cloning and the imminence of xenotransplantation with their inherent dangers and potential horrors.  Are we going to continue on this obviously wrong path, thus wasting the talents of great present and future doctors and scientists?

We should also bear in mind the enormous waste of resources behind what has become a multinational industry - a huge profit spinner - instead of the source for genuine cures for current illnesses and of research into preventive medicine.

Throughout history, it has tended to be the concerned few who have brought about great changes to civilisation.  We cannot leave this one to chance or to "other" people - the gamble would be too great.  It is late.  We all of us have a share in the burden of this responsibility.

DLRM address is PO Box 302, London N8 9HD  UK 
Phone 0181-340-9813