Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

These days, it seems that everything is about bioethics. Case in point: A zoologist named Sam Zeveloff has criticized RFK Jr. in Stat News for disrespecting a dead raccoon back in 2001 by allegedly dissecting its penis. This act, the emeritus professor claims, raises “critical questions” that must be addressed.

Oh my. One wonders about the possible moral stakes of this historical cadaveric mutilation.

Such phallus-collecting, we are told by Zeveloff, is fine so long as it’s done for a valid scientific or educational purpose. In fact, the author brags that he has collected raccoon phalluses himself, some of which are displayed at the Icelandic Phallological Museum. Okaaay.

But Kennedy’s cadaveric collecting wasn’t, from a bioethical standpoint, properly “scientific”:

If Kennedy collected a racoon specimen without a defined scientific or educational purpose, the ethical justification becomes less clear. Indeed, the public has no idea about why he would stop a car filled with his family members and cut out a raccoon’s penis from a carcass.

Assisted suicide is not discussed much at the federal level. But at a recent Senate committee hearing, Senator James Lankford (R., Okla.) asked HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about his thoughts on assisted suicide. Kennedy was unequivocal (starting at minute 3:30): Lankford: I want to switch to an issue we have not had a lot of time to talk about and that is assisted suicide. We now have three states, California, Colorado, and Vermont that disability groups are filing against some of the assisted suicide laws because it seems to target those with disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, that act has worked to protect those with disabilities, not incentivize them to take their own Read More ›

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.

With Texas experiencing a measles outbreak, some might expect RFK to play down vaccines or damn them with faint praise. Nope. He wrote an op-ed piece for Fox News praising the MMR vaccines — in a manner consistent with his belief that the decision to inoculate should be a matter of choice. From “Measles Outbreak Is Call to Action for All of Us:” Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to Read More ›