<doc.id=2014.a2>
<title> Laboratory animals, an honourable object? </title>
On a direct question, most people would answer that they don't like any kind of experiments with animals. If you argue against it, they look at you with disapproval and walk away, thinking what a terrible person I am.
In their minds they see poor, innocent animals in front of a crazy professor with a huge injection needle in his hand, ready to run through the skin. Of course, he does it only for his own satisfaction.
Myself, I do not agree with these people. I think it is necessary to have animals for drugs testing and helping us increase our knowledge of physiology and the way a body reacts to different treatments when it's still alive; in vivo.

Yesterday I was on the internet, trying to get some information about this very emotional and ethical issue. There were an abundance of homepages containing anti-animal-testing catchwords. For instance, you can easily find information where actions are planned to take place, etc. In Vaenersborg, the small city where I come from, a group of militant vegetarians organizes demonstrations, arsons and other kinds of destruction. Don't they understand that people can get hurt or worse, getting killed in their stupid attempts to convince people of their opinion. The way they use to put it, they fight for "the animals' rights in society".
I was on a very informative and interesting lecture here in Uppsala last year. The head vet of the university were speaking about different experiments and about the animals which are involved. He also told us about his own problems, concerning these matters as a scientist and human. He had got angry letters and threats to his home address. Sometimes he and his family were persecuted in different ways. He still gets a feeling that people dislike him, when he tells them about his work. 

Sometimes I hear people say that they don't like to tie their dog to a lamp-post in the street, in case it would be stolen and used in awful chemical experiments. They are so wrong! In Sweden, all animals for that purpose, are bred in special institutions. The scientists want to know the entire anamneses, before the tests begin. Otherwise, there are no way to make good comparisons between individuals.
The animals live in excellent environment. Well air-conditioned quarters (even better than in students lecture rooms), wholesome food and company. Social animals like dogs, have their own master for almost eight hours a day. I dare say this is much more time than many ordinary pets, which are home alone for a whole day while its family works. To say it simple, they must have a good life, so no stress hormones, heart rate, expiratory etc, affect their natural behaviour. In such case it would be impossible to see what really happens.
I've visited a breeding institution in Sweden and actually I was pleasantly surprised. Sweet little puppies, together with their mother and everywhere nice people who cuddled them. Even the mice seemed happy!

There are an ethical committee, whom you have to apply to before you get the right to use animals in scientific experiments. You only get permission if the committee doesn't consider it would lead to unnecessary suffering for the animals. As far as it's possible they prefer to use data-simulations and experiment on dead tissues instead. However, I just want to make it clear. Scientists aren't doing experiments for fun! And actually, there is a law against cruelty to animals even in the scientific world. The horrible pictures, you may have seen, aren't from any country in the EU and are probably old.

The opponents are quite short-sighted in many ways, I think. For example, when they come home with a terrible headache and without thinking any further they take an aspirin. How do they think it has been invented, if there hadn't been any testing of the effective substance at first? And the following day, when their sweet, little cosy pet get sick and they almost order the vet to find a cure immediately. Do they then want their pet to be the first one to try a new drug? Of course they won't, not, even when the vet says that he believes the chemical structure of the substance is ok. 

I checked on CFN's homepage (Centrala FörsöksdjursNämnden, the central laboratory-animals' committee in Sweden) that in 1998 the total amount of animal used for this purpose were around 300 000. That number shows all different species together. The largest group (fully 30%) was rats. And just to remember, many people use poison and traps for these "noxious animals' in their homes, without thoughts of how they kill them. Dogs, cats and horses together only represented around 0,3 %. If we compare these data to that enormous account of treatments, including drugs, vaccinations and knowledge, we get in exchange, I don't understand how people can continue to be antagonists. Perhaps they are not capable to see the connection between the animals and the complete medicine. I rather hope it is a question of ignorance.

In the future maybe the knowledge of our physical functions might be so good that we don't need any further animal experiments. To reach that goal, we need all possibilities we can get. Nobody wants to be the first one to try a new substance. If we let the scientists make experiments on themselves, as some opponents suggest, the medical development would probably slow down pretty soon. It stands clear, we must have laboratory animals!
</doc>