|
Yesterday, the Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical
Defense (USAMRICD) at Aberdeen Proving Ground announced that the Maryland
facility will "phase out" animal testing that simulates a nerve gas attack. During
these tests, vervet monkeys are injected with high doses of nerve-blocking drug
called physostigmine that is also used to treat the nerve disease myasthenia gravia in humans (although at
much lower doses). The Army medical personnel who treat their primate patients then
learn how to respond to chemical weapons attacks on troops.
As the Washington Post reported, the Army's decision came "after
sustained pressure from animal rights groups and a member of Congress," Rep. Roscoe
G. Bartlett, who once worked at the Navy's School of Aviation Medicine. The Post
also described how high doses of physostigmine affect vervet monkeys, and even
featured a screen capture and video from past tests. (Viewer discretion is advised.) Although the
newspaper succeeded in appealing to the sentiments of animal lovers, the Post failed to substantiate its claim
that "trained actors, computer programs and high-tech, mannequinlike patient
simulators" can adequately replace live animal testing.
So how well will these substitute methods work? Is
information about these technologies so secret that Post reporter Brian Vastag
couldn't describe them in some detail? Or is it simply easier to tug at readers'
heart strings than to explain how computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can be
applied to the dispersion of chemical and biological agents? By interviewing experts such as Eric Toner of
the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Post did describe the scientific
shortcomings of animal testing. But it failed to make a convincing case that "there
are lots of technologies they can use instead," as Rep. Bartlett claims.
| 
Re: Science and Sentiment - U.S. Army Ends Controversial Chemical Program
