Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) “supports research involving animals when it is necessary to advance our understanding of biological processes.” and provides tools for “public outreach that builds understanding and appreciation for necessary and humane animal research.”
The latest tool in their toolbox is a video “designed to be a conversation starter about the importance of animals in research and the high standards of care they receive,” titled “Love, Care, Progress,” which you can view here.
The video features
“[r]esearch professionals, including a trainer, scientist, animal behaviorist, surgical manager, and veterinarian talk about caring for the animals in their charge, and their pride in the progress made possible in studies with these animals. Several dogs can be seen enjoying their time with technicians in a facility playroom.
Other associations that support animal research, including the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), also explain why “Animal Lovers Should Support Animal Research, Not Condemn It” as NABR President Matt Bailey explained on FoxNews :
“Every year, 12 million cats and dogs in the United States are diagnosed with cancer. For their owners, that diagnosis is both emotionally and financially devastating. The initial cancer diagnosis alone can cost $2,000. Subsequent chemotherapy and radiation can run up to $10,000.
Fortunately, scientists are on the cusp of discovering treatments that could help pets with cancer at a much lower cost – if we let them continue the animal medical research needed to make those discoveries. But all over the country, self-professed animal lovers are lobbying for limits on – or even an end to – medical research involving animals.
That’s counterproductive, because animals are among the primary beneficiaries of such research. Consequently, animal lovers should be among the biggest supporters of animal medical research.
Matt goes on to describe how research has saved the lives of animals and humans.
While the use of animals in research remains critically important, efforts have long been employed to reduce, replace, and refine that use when possible. In some states, like New Jersey, if there is an appropriate alternative testing method that can replace traditional animal testing methods, it must be employed “[w]hen conducting any product testing in the State . . .[but this does not] apply to any animal test conducted for the purposes of medical research.” N.J.S.A. 4:22-59(a). If animal testing is required to comply with other state or federal laws to ensure the health or safety of consumers, the requirement does not apply.
In time, we may be smart enough to develop reliable simulators and other tools that can replicate animal models, but until that time, researchers will continue to treat animals in their care humanely, while they work to save lives.
[View source.]
