With long
experience in America's cancer research programs, Dr.
Bross sheds light on the monetary interests that keep
certain harms going. His considerations apply mainly
to the USA, where most biomedical research comes from
government sources (taxpayer); in Europe it comes
mainly from industry, which also finances the
universities, to insure the support and the loyalty
of the faculties. Dr.Bross writes:
Can you
believe a brash young man who is challenging dogmas
that are accepted without question by the upper
echelons of the contemporary medical and scientific
establishments? Is it likely that he is right and
that all of these eminent authorities are wrong?
The answer
to this question depends on the "rules of the
game" you use. According to the rules of modern
science that go back to Galileo, the key rule is: A
theory must fit the facts. The author (of the book of
which this is a Foreword) has diligently researched
the historical facts on animal models in cancer
research. In the tradition of the empirical sciences,
the credibility of the author would be determined by
confronting the establishment's theories with these
historical facts. By the prime directive of what will
hereafter be called "normal science", these
facts refute the "authoritative opinions"
on the role of animal experiments in ongoing cancer
research.
For example,
one article of faith in the biomedical establishment
is that the drugs used in cancer chemotherapy were
discovered in animal experiments. The historical
facts presented here show that almost all of the
clinically effective drugs were discovered in the
clinic - in studies of human patients. The only
possible exception involves the always thorny issue
of priority. Even here, however, the drug would have
been tested in the clinic if there had been no animal
studies. Therefor, by the rules of the game for
normal science, the theory that animal research led
to the discovery of the principal anticancer drugs
must be rejected.
At this
point, critical readers might wonder: Why should a
dogma be taught in medical schools and proclaimed in
the media if it is patently false? How could such
false claims continue to be made in an open society
such as ours? The answers to these questions involve
a broad range of historical facts. Since the author
sticks strictly to the historical facts on animal
experimentation in cancer research, he is at a
disadvantage. For instance, there is a simple reason
why the biomedical establishment accepts theories
that are refuted by the facts: It does not play by
the rules of normal science. This is not peculiar to
this science establishment; it is typical of these
establishments.
In the U.S.
today, the biomedical establishment is largely
supported by federal agencies. To emphasize the
linkage to government, and the contrast with normal
science, this research will hereafter be called
"official science". Official science is
actually older than normal science. In other
countries and other eras, however, support for the
establishment came from other sponsors. Thus Galileo
faced official science in the form of Aristotelian
theories approved by the Roman Catholic Church, such
as the doctrine that the earth is the center of the
universe.
It has been
historically true in general that "he who pays
the piper calls the tune". So what is deemed
'officially true' is what is in line with the
sponsor's policies, not neccesarily with the facts.
Moreover, "authoritative opinion" nearly
always supports the policies of its sponsors. Hence,
the decisions in official science are political
decisions that only masquerade as scientific ones.
Those in official science have the illusion that they
are not politically controlled, and at times the
public may share this illusion. Whatever may be said,
when the time comes to act, the actions are in line
with the official medical policies.
Consider,
for example, the fact that the National Cancer
Institute has spent billions of dollars on animal
experimentation. The myth that such research produced
the main chemotherapeutic drugs supports the
continuance of this funding. The medical schools and
research facilities of the biomedical establishment
that share in this bonanza are certainly not going to
let mere facts interfere with this lucrative business.
So even though the historical facts show that animal
experiments were worse than useless in selecting
clinically effective cancer chemotherapies - they
were consistently misleading - the 'concensus of
authorities' will continue to say just the opposite.
They may claim to love the truth, but when it is a
matter of truth versus dollars, they love the dollars
more.
...Normal
science has shown that most chronic diseases,
including cancer, are mutagenic. They are due to
minute lesions in the DNA of human genetic material.
After the defective cells have cloned to a large
enough population, the misinformation in the DNA
results in failure of host defense systems. Denial of
the mutagenic theory of chronic diseases has resulted
in tens of thousands of Americans dying each year
from cancers that could, in principle, have been
prevented.
The failure
of the NCI's "Conquest of Cancer" program
was in large part due to failure to understand the
nature of cancer and the kinds of research that were
needed to conquer it. To protect the status quo in
the treatment of cancer (by methods that will seem as
barbaric and ineffectual to twenty-first century
scientists as nineteenth century "bleeding"
seems to us), the biomedical establishment promotes
research based on myths instead of facts. Naturally,
it does so "in the name of science".
...Animal
models are useless for mutagenic diseases. The host
defense systems of other species are not like those
of humans. Nor is genetic damage in a human cancer
cell like that in a transplanted or induced tumor.
When a human tumor is transplanted into an animal, it
interacts with a different host defense system which
has to be suppressed. Since for current drugs the
only hope is to try to balance the killing of tumor
cells against the damage to the host-defense systems,
the animal model is not an analogue of the clinical
situation. A delicate balance is required, not the
brute force or the "heroic" chemotherapy
that was "justified" by animal model
systems.
In sum, the
failures of animal experiments in cancer research,
the false claims for these failed systems by official
science, the unjustified faith in animal
experimentation by the biomedical establishment are
all part of an historical process. The continued
refusal to face the facts in the real world which is
so characteristic of official science has resulted in
the useless sacrifice of hundreds of millions of
animals... But it results in unneccesary suffering
and deaths for humans as well. Tens of thousands of
Americans die each year from preventable cancers and
many more thousands get treatments for cancer which
do no more than prolong the agony.
At this
point a skeptical reader might ask: ...Why haven't
the scientists spoken out about this shameful state
of affairs. Some of them have. It is not easy,
however, to reach the public with this message since
the media treats cancer research as a sacred cow.
Moreover, professionals have a long tradition of
speaking only to their peers, not to the lay public.
The practitioners of "normal science" often
do not do as well as official scientists in public
speaking. Finally, there is another deterrent to all
those who need federal funds to carry out their
research - their funds will be cut off.
Official
science has always punished any scientist who speaks
out publicly against whatever is the current dogma.
This started with Galileo who was charged with heresy
by the Inquisition and put under house arrest. It has
continued through the present when Sakharov was put
into a "hospital" to cure his heresy. One
might think that that is Soviet Russia, and that
"it can't happen here". Not so. For
example, all of the U.S. scientists who have come out
with positive findings on the hazards of low-level
radiation (myself included) have suffered reprisals.
When NCI cut
off all my grants, the Village Voice asked why.
The NCI spokesman replied: "He bit the hand that
fed him". My Biostatistics Department at Roswell
Park Memorial Institute was constantly harassed by
the RPMI administration. Eventually I was forced into
early retirement, and the department was abolished.
But what happens to individual scientists may not be
nearly as important as what happens to the public,
when it may take 50 years for official science to
catch up with normal science.
Control of
cancer, which was feasible by 1970, may have to wait
until the next century. Can anything be done to
reduce the delay? One might hope so, though it is
unlikely. Official science reflects the priorities
and self-interests of the power structure of its time.
The U.S. biomedical establishment protects current
radiological, chemical or surgical technologies
despite the factual evidence that they are
ineffectual or dangerous.
Still, an
author can try to give the public information that it
needs for effective action. Showing the uselessness
of animal model systems in cancer research can do
more than prevent the pointless suffering of
laboratory animals. It can demonstrate why the public
cannot afford to put its trust in official science.
It can show that there is no rational basis for the
hope that government agencies will prevent "cruel
and unneccesary punishment" of animals or, for
that matter, of human patients. It can point the way
to more effective action by animal welfare groups,
concerned citizens at toxic dump sites, and other
groups who must go against official science.
The way to
stop useless and unneccesary animal experimentation
is simply to make it unprofitable: eliminate the
funding by the government agencies or eliminate the
agencies. Reasonable approaches will not work with
official science. Guidelines or legal limitations by
government agencies are made to be evaded. It is
pointless to present factual evidence because it will
only be ignored. Protests by animal welfare and other
organizations are easily put off by official evasions.
Even for official science, however, there is one
persuasive voice - money talks.
If the flow
of taxpayer dollars that supports the foolish or
cruel or dangerous practices of official science is
cut off, these practices will stop."
Irwin D. J.
Bross, MD, PhD.
Eggertsville,
New York
September
1984
The Smoking Gun /
Brandon Reines
Index