Animal Research

Nuland’s article struck home. As a Johns Hopkins student I participated in the hearings he mentions in which anti-vivisectionists tried to block use of dogs in research leading to a cure for blue-baby congenital defects.

However, he does not mention that the anti-vivisectionists suggested condemned prisoners as an alternative to pound animals. The insanity of this proposal was somewhat relieved by the humor of a remark from the pro-research side of the house as to the rarity of babies on death row.

Today, the descendants of those anti-vivisectionists are still active. In California alone at least $5 million in damage to public-supported research facilities is attributed to animal rights activists over the past several years.

Moreover, animal rights beliefs are now being brilliantly pushed on legislators by a well-organized, nationwide coalition. Even though the general public supports animal research humanely conducted, the animal rights activist’s belief in the total worthlessness and even criminality of animal research may well prevail and do incalculable harm if the public remains passive to this threat.

Each of us has a responsibility to counteract the power of this misguided animal rights minority. The extremism of the 1949 Baltimore hearings lives on and grows more dangerous day by day.

JAMES F. CASE

Santa Barbara