Biomedical industry fights to keep animals in labs

"Ever had leprosy? Thanks to animal research, you won't."

That message, emblazoned on 15 billboards around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., strikes at the heart of a largely hidden but heated health care battle being waged beyond the national debate over access to medical care.

The billboards are part of a new, aggressive national push by biomedical researchers to promote and defend the use of animals to test drugs and medical devices. Across the country, the campaign is also playing out on cable TV commercials, Web sites, Facebook postings and Twitter tweets.

Campaign organizers say a serious drop in public support of animal research for scientific and medical reasons forced their hand. From 2000 to 2008, they say, support for research using animals shrank from 70 percent to 54 percent. A Pew Foundation poll in July found that only 52 percent of Americans support such research.

That's why the Foundation for Biomedical Research is investing more than $1 million in its "Research Saves" campaign. Pollsters told foundation president Frankie Trull that without a widespread public education effort, support for scientific animal research will drop below 50 percent next year and could lead to legislative and regulatory research restrictions that Trull says would have huge implications on public policy and human health.

"We need a celebrity spokesperson, but can't find one," said Dick Bianco, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Minnesota Medical School, who is part of the campaign. "If we could get a celebrity, that would change everything. By nature, we're a bunch of introverted nerds."

Supporters of animal research believe advances in the treatment of many diseases are at stake in this campaign. The result is a full frontal assault on the emotions of average citizens and a no-holds-barred verbal attack on the violent methods of a few extreme animal rights activists. While the leprosy billboards speak unequivocally and, organizers believe, effectively, the campaign's most effective weapon so far seems to be a TV commercial featuring a physician who is a breast cancer survivor who also conducts breast cancer research using animals. In the spot, she holds and addresses a mouse.

"One of the problems we have nationally is that people don't see the connection between science and biomedical research and progress," said Mayo Clinic research dean Dr. Michael Joyner. "Things like heart valves and statins wouldn't be here without animal research."

Opponents of animal research answer that public aversion to hurting animals is tipping support away from medical testing on animals and eventually will force academic institutions and businesses to find alternatives.

Andrew Rowan, the chief scientific officer of the Humane Society of the United States, calls it futile. "We're on the downward slope of animal research," he said. "It's going to continue to go down no matter what we do."

The Research Saves campaign "is a fairly pitiful attempt to gather support for a cruel industry," added Kathy Guillermo, vice president of laboratory investigations for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Trull says poll numbers are starting to reflect progress two months into her group's yearlong campaign. With 170 billboards in 10 metropolitan areas and 3,000 commercials airing on 33 TV networks, the Foundation for Biomedical Research says it has already boosted support for medical animal research to nearly 61 percent.

However, most women (52.2 percent) and people ages 18 to 24 (55 percent) remain opposed. Democrats (50.6 percent) barely approve.

"The big challenge is sustainability," Trull said. "We think the American people don't understand. We need animal research to cure terrible diseases." Groups opposing animal research have effectively muddled that message, Trull said. Most opponents "think they're saving puppies."

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)

Must credit Minneapolis Star Tribune