Experimentation on Animals

Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States clearly has little understanding of the nature of medical research, otherwise he would not have called the experiment to transfer baboon marrow cells into AIDS patient Jeff Getty “a failure” (letters, Feb. 13).

The knowledge we gain from scientific research is built on painstaking detail, small steps forward, and, yes, even setbacks. If scientists knew the outcome of an experiment before starting out, there would be little need to conduct the experiment.

In point of fact, Getty’s doctors have actually deemed the experiment a success: It proved that the procedure is safe and has suggested that a more aggressive suppression of the patient’s immune system is needed prior to the transplant. Future procedures with other patients will continue to help doctors refine those protocols.

The theory behind this research has broader applications than AIDS treatments. Already, five leukemia patients at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston have received bone marrow from family members that did not match closely enough for conventional treatment. The potential impact for organ transplants is tremendous.

Stephens calls these experiments “too medically questionable to warrant the killing of nonhuman primates.” Questionable to whom? Not to Getty or millions of others living with the HIV virus. Not to those five leukemia patients in Houston or thousands waiting for organ transplants.

SUSAN E. PARIS, President

Americans for Medical Progress

Educational Foundation

Alexandria, Va.

* Baron Miller, of the Animal Rights Connection, speaks of baboons as though they were humans (Commentary, Feb. 12).

We are now medically advanced enough so that we have the capability of using guinea pigs (or baboons in this case) to alleviate human suffering and to find solutions to the maladies of humankind. The species are here to survive, that is nature’s law. And by this law, one species uses another to achieve its own survival. This refers to all organic things, animal, plant and human. By using animals to “cure human illness,” we are following the most basic of nature’s laws and we have no reason to be ashamed of it.

DAVID SAXON

Sherman Oaks

* Miller perpetuates the myth, common in animal rights literature, that thalidomide was a well-tested drug prior to its use in humans. The tragedy of thalidomide actually argues for animal testing of drugs. Had thalidomide been tested on pregnant monkeys, or any other pregnant primate, its effect on limb and ear development would have been discovered before it was put on the market in Europe and Japan.

The use of thalidomide was limited in the U.S. because it was still under consideration by the FDA when its effects became known. Think about that the next time a complaint is made about the slowness of the FDA approval process.

KENNETH LONG PhD

Department of Biology

California Lutheran University

Thousand Oaks