| |
Better Science
$1.5
Million in Funding Pays off in Better Science, Saved Animal
Lives
Researchers Receiving Funding from
New England Anti-Vivisection Society Report Successes at International
Scientific Congress
Boston (September 2, 1999) - Hoping
to "reduce, refine and replace" the numbers of animals sacrificed
each year in laboratory experimentation, some 750 scientists,
physicians, veterinarians, educators, and representatives
from government agencies and animal advocacy organizations
gathered at the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal
Use in the Life Sciences, August 29 - September 2 in Bologna,
Italy.
The attendees, from countries including
Europe, Japan, India, Russia and the U. S., met to review
the latest and most scientifically sound alternatives to animal
testing, experimentation and use in education and to express
world-wide commitment to refining, reducing and replacing
animal experimentation with alternatives.
Two of the projects that drew great
interest were those of Bjoern Ekwall, MD, PhD, of the Cytotoxicology
Laboratory in Sweden, and of Rodger Curren, PhD, of the Institute
for In Vitro Sciences in Maryland. Both projects have received
significant funding from the Boston-based New England Anti-
Vivisection Society (NEAVS).
Theodora Capaldo, EdD, President and
Executive Director of NEAVS, along with members of other U.
S. anti-vivisection groups, was on hand at the Congress to
meet with Drs. Ekwall and Curren and to hear of their projects'
successes. She also welcomed Dr. Ekwall and his wife, Barbro,
as members of NEAVS' 1999 Advisory Board.
NEAVS, founded in 1895, is one of
the country's oldest and most respected animal advocacy organizations,
dedicated to exposing, opposing and ending animal experimentation
in laboratories, product testing, medical and veterinary education,
and public and private classrooms. In the past 10 years, NEAVS
has allocated an estimated $1.5 million for the research,
development and use of alternatives to animals in scientific
experiments and education, according to Dr. Capaldo.
"NEAVS' goal is to show both the ethical
and scientific benefits of ending experimentation on animals
as the route to human health," Dr. Capaldo said. "Once the
scientific community commits to replacing the animal model
with non-animal, in vitro methods, which are ethically and
scientifically superior, we believe scientific preference
for non-animal methodologies will grow rapidly. Science and
people will benefit and the lives of countless animals will
be saved.
"The ethical decision and commitment
not to use animals in these ways has proven again and again
to produce the scientific ability not to have to do so and,
in the process, has led to better science," Dr. Capaldo noted.
Dr. Ekwall's research is a prime example
of how both animals and people are well served by a scientific
and ethical commitment to non-animal methods, according to
Dr. Capaldo. "His work recognizes that animals are not the
same as humans and, therefore, are not predictors of what
happens when humans are exposed to certain chemicals. For
example, Dr. Ekwall has demonstrated that in vitro [non-animal]
testing using human cells can predict toxicity at a precision
rate of 77%, compared to only 65% with traditional LD50 tests
using animals." The "Lethal Dose 50" test forces animals to
ingest toxic and lethal substances and die horrible deaths.
"In spite of pro-vivisection scare
tactics, the work of Dr. Ekwall and others makes it readily
apparent that animal experimentation is not the way to successfully
advance human health," she said. "Every day, the assertion
that vivisection is 'the only way' is challenged by bright,
humane, pioneering researchers from within the scientific
community itself. NEAVS is committed to developing replacement
alternatives to the estimated 20 - 40 million animals sacrificed
annually in biomedical research and product/cosmetic testing
in the U.S. alone.
"These figures represent a tragedy
for animals, for science, for people and for the environment,"
Dr. Capaldo said. "The public that reluctantly endorses the
cruelties of animal experimentation because they have been
convinced that this is the only way to save the life of someone
they love, can now be assured that there are better ways to
achieve human health. And they, too, must begin to demand
that the biomedical and scientific communities listen to the
millions of people who want a 21st century of cruelty-free
science."
|
|