animal testing

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made big news recently when he declared that he wanted to eliminate federal funding for research on primates and eventually end all government support for animal experimentation. RFK Jr. says he’ll work with federal agencies to wind down animal testing. One can certainly understand his reasons. Animal suffering makes anyone with a conscience flinch in empathetic revulsion.

But scientists do not engage these methodologies out of sadistic purpose. Rather, their goals are to find new medical treatments, cure diseases, and generally reduce human (and animal) suffering. Indeed, without animal research, the many medical and veterinary advances achieved since World War II would have been impossible. That is why we must think about this important moral issue and not just “feel.”

Most animal work involves basic research—investigations about how bodily systems function. Here’s the story of just one such use that resulted in tremendous reduction in human suffering.

Years ago, Dr. Edward Taub hypothesized that brain function could exhibit greater plasticity than then believed. To determine whether he was right, the nerves in monkeys’ forelimbs were severed surgically. Taub’s purpose was to train the animals to reuse their numb forelimbs; research he hoped would prove valuable in ultimately rehabilitating human stroke patients.

I rise to second the opinion of neurologist and university professor Cory Miller, published here on NRO, opposing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s apparent intention to end all research on primates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Miller writes:

Reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plans to end research involving monkeys — a move framed as modernization — strikes at the heart of America’s biomedical capacity at the very moment global competitors are expanding theirs.

This is the latest step in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to phase out animal research in the U.S., an ideologically driven effort that sidesteps scientific evidence by exploiting our understandable desire to reduce animal suffering. And make no mistake, ending research with monkeys is not the end goal. It is only the beginning.

Yes, we should reduce animal testing as much as is practicable. But we should use alternatives, as Miller puts it, as a “complement” to animal studies, not a total replacement. Sure, using animals to test cosmetics and the like can probably be eliminated safely. And by all means, use cell lines, AI computer programs, and other alternatives as much as possible to reduce animal use, consistent with protecting human safety.