Doug Ford has found himself a new cause célèbre to fixate on, not something he has ever expressed an interest in before, as far as I know. I guess he maybe sees it as a vote-winner?
The province of Ontario is to ban all testing on dogs and cats - "pets" as he calls them, in an attempt to play on the emotions - whether for cosmetics or medical research. "We're gonna catch you", warns Ford, who has decided that the practice is '"cruel" and cannot be allowed in his province.
This Paulian conversion seems to have happened overnight, after Ford was alerted to the use of young dogs in medical research at the Lawson Research Institute at St. Joseph's Health Care in London, Ontario, in pursuit of "groundbreaking research that has resulted in major strides in cardiac care and treatment".
The Institute uses dogs, mainly puppies, for tests. The puppies are then killed and their internal organs examined. As the Institute points out, all experiments are conducted under proper authorities and following all the relevant rules and regulations. Animal testing is only carried out when there are "no scientifically valid alternatives".
It also notes that both Health Canada and the US Food and Drugs Administration require "animal-tested protocols as proof-of-principle for efficacy and safety, before a new treatment can be used in human patients". So, I'm not sure how Ford's plan is going to work out.
There was a time when I would probably have applauded Ford's stance, and I would still applaud it in the case of cosmetics testing (Canada banned animal testing for cosmetics back in 2023). But as regards medical testing, my response is more muted and nuanced these days, now that my wife is suffering from an incurable neurodegenerative disease, and I have had several friends suffer from (and die from) various cancers and other medical conditions. As you get older your perspective changes.
The whole ethical issue of animal testing is of course a fraught one, and nothing like as simple and black-and-white as Ford makes it sound. On one side, the sentience of animals, the unreliability of predicting human outcomes, and the availability (in some cases) of alternatives. On the other, the contribution to medical advances, the similarities of animal physiology and responses to humans', and the minimization of overall suffering.
And then, of course, you get into which animals are ethically appropriate for testing - worms and fruit flies, mice and rats, dogs and cats, monkeys and primates? And what the animals are used for - non-invasive interventions, deliberate disease transference, organ harvesting, stress-testing until death? And then you get into the number of animals involved, the number of humans who might benefit, the value of the end product for humans, the difficulty of measuring animal pain and distress, the conditions animals are kept in, etc etc.
The general rule on animal testing is to observe the so-called "three r's": replacement (use non-animal alternatives wherever possible), reduction (use the fewest animals possible), and refinement (try to improve experimental methods, housing and care to minimize pain and distress). Commonsense stuff, but not really a solution to all those tricky ethical dilemmas.
We use much fewer animals (especially mammals) in research than we used to. But, at some point in the development of new drugs or procedures, testing on animals is a necessary evil (subject to to rigorous protocols and review by ethics committees, of course). And, contrary to what Mr. Ford says, these are not people's pets; these are animals raised for the very purpose (maybe you think that makes it even worse, but it needn't be). And if we don't test on animals, then we would need to test more on people, which of course has even greater ethical challenges.
Then, there is the narrative that animal testing is useless anyway because animals are too different from humans. There is a statistic doing the rounds of the internet, especially since Doug Ford's announcement, that 90% of drugs ultimately fail in human trials following animal tests (usually attributed to an NIH research study). But this, it turns out, is highly misleading for a whole host of reasons, ably explained on the Understanding Animal Research website, not the least of which is that it doesn't include the 40% of potential new drugs that are withdrawn completely during pre-human animal tests. In fact, animal tests are very good at predicting whether a drug will be safe in human tests.
The ethics of animal testing is not for the faint of heart. Kudos, in some ways, to Ford for jumping into the fray. But I get the impression, at least from the language he uses, that he is maybe only looking at one side of the equation (the emotive side, rather then the scientific side; heart, not head). Just wait till he, or someone close to him, gets diagnosed with cancer...
No comments:
Post a Comment