Resources & Archives Glamour Publishes Ugly Editorial (Summer 2000) — The editorial in the April 2000 issue of Glamour entitled "Animal-Rights Wrongs?" was ugly and inaccurate. Asserting that "According to some extremists, human lives are worth losing if it means saving animals," it quotes the vice president of Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) as saying, "We all love animals, but [the animal rights movement] is hindering medical progress." The editorial also stated that "Some of these extremists are more worried about cats than kids." This viewpoint is an eerie echo of the American Medical Association's 1989 Action Plan that states: "The animal activist movement must be shown to be not only anti-science but also ... against medical progress." By attempting to cast anyone opposed to animal testing as an anti-research, people-hating extremist, Glamour ignores a key question: How many thousands of cures remain undiscovered and human and animal lives lost because of the animal research industry's false premises, false promises and genuine greed? For example, the editorial unquestioningly parrots AMP's assertion that animal-based testing was essential to eradicating polio. Yet one of the developers of the polio vaccine, Dr. Albert Sabin himself said in Congressional testimony, "The work on prevention [of polio] was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." NEAVS and its supporters know that there is "a better way" than the cruel and scientifically flawed animal model. When Glamour concludes, "Let's remember that such [animal] testing is a matter of life and death for PEOPLE as well as animals," NEAVS couldn't agree more. After all, just as animal experimentation results in the suffering and deaths of thousands of animals, extrapolating the results of animal experimentation to humans can harm and sometimes kill PEOPLE, too. Glamour's editorial writers need to face facts: the biomedical research industry is not composed of high-minded saints, and the animal rights movement is not composed of low-IQ terrorists. Let them know that being an anti-vivisectionist is neither anti-human nor anti-science. Back to UPDATE 2000 Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 Summer mainpage.