The Mercenary Aspect
Maybe this single aspect is so strong that it might well sweep away the necessity of examining all the previous ones.
Human nature is contradictory, so that we are not only endowed with irrational instincts or feelings that may land us in some metaphysical impasse, as happens to the deeply religious, but we can also be rationalizing in the extreme, especially when it comes to satisfying another characteristic of our nature: the miser's rapacious inclinations, a thirst for riches, which can become addictive, and, once born, seldom stops growing.
Of this, almost everybody is well aware. But very few realize to what extent their own minds are constantly being manipulated by the gigantic, venal interests that mold public opinion and influence the decisions of science at top levels.
As related in Naked Empress (CIVIS, 1982), some 90 percent of commercial advertising, the wherewithal of the mass media, derive from the petrochemical combine and its business partners. And the media manipulate public opinion according to the interests of their main clients. Not so much through the seductive display ads, which only serve to sell products, but much more determiningly through editorials, articles, reports, even letters-to-the-editor, which serve to sell ideas and to justify government policies.
Most of the big petrochemical combines use animals as testing material. Are those animal tests necessary? Indeed they are, but not for the reasons generally stated. They don't serve to reveal the dangerousness of the tested products but, on the contrary, to conceal it.
What if there were no animals? Then the industry would have to test its products in some other way, with some scientific method, using human cell cultures, for example, or any of the more than 400 other scientific methods available, which would quickly reveal the products' noxiousness. If such methods had been used, all-encroaching world-pollution would not be what it is today.
To what extent commercial interests determine the consumption of test animals is shown by the following: a small country like Switzerland, with only 6.5 million inhabitants but with a huge pharmaceutical industry, uses more laboratory animals than all of [former] Soviet Russia with its 170 million inhabitants, but where nobody can get rich from the sale of drugs.
As a corollary to this situation, Switzerland has not only the highest consumption of laboratory animals in the world compared to the population, but is also, along with the USA, one of the sickest nations. So it was to nobody's surprise when a 1987 survey showed that Switzerland was world champion in AIDS cases, proving once more what only the health authorities profess to ignore: that modern medicine, thanks to its therapies and medications, has become the main cause of disease.
Of course, it would be the animal-welfare organizations' task to draw the public's attention not only to the cruelty of animal-testing, but principally to the damages deriving from a fallacious system of research. But this, most of the big organizations fail to do, being no less infiltrated by commercial interests than the media and governments.
There is indeed nothing easier than to infiltrate an animal protection society. The wolf always arrives in sheep's clothing, the devil always knocks at the door flashing smiles and a golden halo of sainthood; so that the overworked, sometimes underpaid and more often unpaid animal-welfare workers in the big societies will sooner or later be glad to relinquish their post to the genial newcomer, who seems to have even more enthusiasm and energy and no pecuniary problems.
This explains such a phenomenon as that of the largest, richest animal-welfare society in the world, the RSPCA, whose patron is Her Gracious Majesty the Queen; RSPCA propagandizes the necessity ofvivisection, never advertises the damage deriving to the people from this false method of research, and has invested most of its huge assets in bonds and stocks of industries that practice vivisection."
Dr. Irwin J.D. Bross, with long experience in America's cancer research programs, sheds light on the monetary interests that keep vivisection going, in the Foreword to (DVM) Brandon Reines' Cancer Research on Animals: Impact and Alternatives (1986). His considerations apply mainly to the USA, where most biomedical research comes from government sources (i.e. taxpayer); in Europe it comes mainly from industry, which also finances the universities, to insure the support and the loyalty of the faculties. Writes Dr. Bross:
"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.
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 unnecessary 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."