Experiments With Animals

Thank you, Eric Malnic and The Times, for the fine article on the Animal Liberation Front, appearing on the front page Dec. 30. It is about time people were confronted with the truth about the tortures inflicted on millions of animals in the name of research.

If our society rejected the option of using animals for research we would quickly find alternatives to curing and preventing man’s ailments, such as developing life styles that prevent cancer, heart disease, birth defects, etc. Animals don’t smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs, wear cosmetics or dump toxins into the environment--why should they suffer because we do?

It is only mankind’s colossal ego that permits him to believe that his species is more valuable than others. He assumes that his intellectual capacity and free will give him the right to use (abuse) animals as he sees fit.

We believe that as long as man can rationalize the abuse of animals, he will continue to rationalize the infliction of his will on other human beings as well--whether through crime or war.

We can and we must find alternatives to this suffering. One way to start is for each of us to take responsibility for the choices we make daily to keep ourselves healthy and to produce healthy children, thus eliminating the need for transplants and miracle “cures” to rescue us from diseases that should (and can) be prevented.

We can choose to exercise, eat healthy foods and cultivate a positive outlook. We can also choose to purchase items that are produced through non-cruel (no animal experiments or killing) means, whether it be food, clothing, cosmetics or household products.

Thank you, ALF, for having the courage to show us the evil perpetrated in the name of research--perhaps exposure will bring about the much-needed change.

LEE STEWART DDS SUSAN STEWART RN Malibu Regarding the article on the activities and goals of the Animal Liberation Front: As a victim of severe heart disease and a grateful recipient of successful state of the art treatment, I feel that I have the right and a duty to speak out concerning the dangerous actions of these smug, self-righteous and self-appointed regulators of the fates of countless millions who have not given them this mandate.

I might suggest that, if these people feel that they have the right to try to deprive the rest of us of the benefits of new drugs and procedures, which only can be developed and found to be safe and effective by the use of experimental data that must be obtained from animal testing, that they offer themselves or their families to take the risk of the first trials until safety and effectiveness for the rest of us could be established.

Furthermore, I feel that it would be totally consistent with the other stated principles of these high-minded persons that all and any drugs, surgical procedures, or vaccines be withheld from them or their families as use of such would be repudiation of their forcefully stated goals. Let us see what a little polio or sudden death by heart failure would do to bring more people into their activities.

Everything is a matter of degree. The idea that all life is to be totally respected would bring us to where the flea or louse who feeds upon us has the same right to life and of all pleasures as its host--us.

Think further: Veggies have life also; who are we to inflict suffering upon the family rutabaga just to satisfy our own need for survival?

FRANK MAYER San Pedro I would like to commend Malnic for his excellent article and also to thank The Times for publishing it.

In the past I felt that your paper did not present both sides of this ongoing issue. We need to have more articles like this to show the anti-vivisectionist point of view. We need to let the public know that the only way “animal research” benefits people is in the pockets of politicians, animal breeders, manufacturers of surgical and torture instruments, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

The Animal Liberation Front members are not terrorists--they are obviously loving people concerned with the inhumane treatment of the innocent and the helpless. I take my hat off to them.

MAXINE LAKE Encino The approach of the Animal Liberation Front to animal rights is futile and dangerous. Animals taken from disrupted experiments will be replaced. Subjecting more animals to the same treatment. Nothing can be achieved by these acts of destruction except a mutual frustration, which is bound to escalate the violence.

Ultimately the ALF seeks to destroy the life sciences--an impossible goal because it requires eradication of man’s natural curiosity about life.

It is a reverence and awe for life that draws many to the study of the life sciences. A good scientist has respect and compassion for experimental animals but must treat them as research tools. To work effectively the scientist must become desensitized to the fate of these animals: Animals used in biomedical research are destroyed at the conclusion of the experiments they are used in. This is because release is strictly forbidden and the expense of animal care in a vivarium typically exceeds the cost of replacement in a short period of time (primates are an exception).

A scientist must be able to communicate ideas with his peers. Hard, logical criticism is appreciated. Undoubtedly the anti-vivisectionists have valid points but are they ready to listen as well as speak out?

The zealots would impose their particular brand of moral self-righteousness by force if necessary. If they were interested in saving animals they would have their hands full working with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. What they seem to want is publicity, excitement and a sense of self-importance.

Were they to become interested in communicating they would find that many life science professionals who vigorously oppose their violent radicalism sympathize with their ideals and would support more conservative measures of reform.

For example, in some instances a researcher may become insensitive to the condition of experimental animals, leading to excessive cruelty. It is not always easy for a subordinate to correct such a problem without risking his (her) job or career. An impartial authority could mediate a solution without a confrontation of risk to either party. Life is fraught with violence, but peace can only be attained through nonviolence. Let others be terrorists. We can reason together.

STEVEN LYON GUTH Los Angeles The foolishness of both the “animal liberators” and the “research establishment” is evident in your excellent article on the recent medical laboratory thefts.

Dr. J. Michael Criley of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center failed to deal with what could be considered the legitimate issues of what procedures, if any, exist to prevent cruel experimentation. Instead, he chose the cheap shot of comparing the “animal liberators” to the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Burglars they are, but terrorists they are not. His comparison is a bad joke.

The Animal Liberation Front, drawing for its membership militant vegetarians and refugees from the peace movement, seems unwilling to exploit its most popular issues. The ALF takes a doctrinaire stance for ending all experimentation and achieving this through their “raids.” Instead, what will happen is that legislators will be persuaded to spend more money on tighter and more sophisticated security systems to protect university or hospital grounds. These improvements could lead to some of the ALF serving time in prison, and make it even easier to cover up laboratory abuse.

If they want to influence legislators and the public, why haven’t the videotapes allegedly showing the cruelty at the University of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, been distributed to the media?

Sympathetic legislators could then hold hearings on research practices, the use of pound animals, and the extent to which city pounds try to locate an animal’s owner before releasing it to researchers. This would draw the widest possible popular support and could result in abolition of the most objectionable practices. By licensing the institutions, those found guilty of inappropriate, cruel or inhumane practices could be put out of business by lifting the authority to continue their research.

The medical establishment would resist such regulation, but legislators could support it in the name of constituents concerned that Fido might be shanghaied into some experiment at a local college.

An alternative to animal research not covered in your otherwise excellent article is that of offering Death Row inmates the option of being executed or the voluntary subject of medical experimentation.

GORDON LUNDENE Downey