May 1, 2006
Nora Volkow, M.D.
Director
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5213
Bethesda, MD 20892-9561
Re: Use of nonhuman animals in drug-addiction research
Dear Dr. Volkow:
I am writing you in order to express my profoundly felt objection to
the use of nonhuman animals in drug-addiction research studies. While I
understand that animal models can help us to understand the
biological effects of drug abuse, they cannot hope to address the
many complex socioeconomic factors that lead to, and allow for the
continuation of, such abuse in humans. Moreover, I along with
many others have come to believe that there is a moral imperative which
holds that the use of nonhuman animals for research purposes not only
violates those individual animals' right to live free of
exploitation, but also degrades human beings as well. The
anthropocentric belief that we humans are intrinsically superior to
nonhuman animals, and are thus justified in using those animals to
increase our own sense of safety and well-being, is a position which
undermines our relationship with the world of nature: it
creates an us and them scenario which not
only results in suffering for those animals selected for use in
research studies, but also constitutes a violation of the integrity of
our relationship to the natural world from which we ourselves sprang,
and with which our lives remain inextricably intertwined. There
is, in reality, no us and them; rather, we
are all part of a greater whole – and the damage we inflict upon
nature and its other inhabitants is, ultimately, a damage we inflict
upon ourselves.
Although I am not a scientist and cannot pretend to understand the
intricacies of the biological aftereffects that drug addiction causes (and
which are now being studied via animal models), the "gains"
in understanding touted by those who have performed animal studies in the
past are, to speak frankly, difficult to take seriously. I have, for
instance, read that: "The discovery that animals will
readily self-administer addictive drugs when given the opportunity
has reshaped the health community's view of drug abusers. It is now
widely understood that addiction – both physical and psychological –
is a neuro-behavioral problem to which all people are susceptible."
In other words, many or perhaps all human beings have an inherent proclivity
towards getting high. How can I put my response to this discovery politely?
"Duh," I'm afraid, will have to do. Again, I
have read: "Animal research demonstrating the power of
behaviorally conditioned responses to the environment has helped
explain why relapse into drug abuse is common. Even after the
physical dependency has been eliminated, an animal or person placed
again in the environment associated with drug abuse will reacquire
the desire for drugs." In other words, if you continue to
hang out with people who like to get high (and/or do not deal with
those stressors that make you want to use drugs for escapist
purposes in the first place), you will likely fall back into your previous
pattern of addictive behavior. Again, duh. I apologize for my rudeness
here, but these sorts of "discoveries" represent insights any
sociological study into the problem would readily reveal.
Other research involves exposing animals ranging from mice to baboons
to drugs commonly abused by humans in order to discover how they may
damage the brain. This form of research is one I most particularly
object to, for in this day and age virtually everyone understands
that methamphetamines, cocaine, "ecstasy" (MDMA), etc. will
endanger their health; certainly everyone is aware which drugs our
society has deemed legal to use and which not. That we should
continue to subject nonhuman animals to research procedures which
involve repeatedly, and often forcibly, exposing them to addictive
chemicals in order that we may later examine their brains to observe
how much damage has occurred is to condone the purposeful infliction
of suffering and death on other sentient beings so that we can better
understand how those humans who indulge in behaviors already recognized
to be both dangerous and illegal will be affected. Not only is
this morally reprehensible (it treats nonhuman animals as a means to
an end rather than acknowledging them as having desires and interests
of their own which are deserving of respect), it also, once again,
undermines the importance those animals have as constituent members
of that larger whole of which we humans are but a part. By
undermining that fundamental understanding, an understanding which is
of primary importance if we are to successfully repair the damage we
have already done to the natural world, drug-addiction researchers
become part of the problem, not part of the solution. The
dysfunction which currently characterizes the relationship humans
have with our natural environment endangers us all; that dysfunction
is exemplified by the use of nonhuman animals as research
"tools," and such use must, therefore, cease. The
problems we humans have with regard to dealing with the stressors
inherent to our modern, "civilized" way of life are of our own making;
how we deal with those stressors is our own responsibility. To shirk
this responsibility and place it on the shoulders of nonhuman animals is
ethically irresponsible, both to them and to ourselves.
Other areas of investigation into the realm of drug-addiction exist,
and offer greater insights into the problem without the dangers
touched upon above. These include the use of ethical human
clinical trials, genetic studies, treatment assessments, behavior
modification trials, and pathology studies. Please stop funding
the abusive treatment of innocent animals in drug-related studies and
fund these more effective alternatives exclusively.
Yours sincerely & etc. . . .
|