Scientific argument

Objective, rational and logical considerations lead Pro Anima to reject the animal model as scientifically worthless.

No living species can stand as a biological model for any other species, however close they may be in evolution. The reaction of members of a given species when exposed to some toxic products or afflicted with a health-threatening fundamental defect, may be similar, different, or opposite to the reaction of members of a different species. This issue can be settled with some degree of confidence only if the reaction has been observed in both species. However, even if the reaction of test subjects appears similar over a short period, responses may differ later and yield quite different final results in the long run. The assumption that the reaction of a species can be assessed from the reaction from some "model" species is therefore sheer guess work. Clearly, guess work is not acceptable when human health issues are at stake.

Trust in the animal model has a disastrous impact on human morbidity and mortality. Many lives are lost prematurely every year because of substances which have proved to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, hepatoxic, nephrotoxic, etc. in humans, even though they had successfully passed the test in animal models. How many lives would have been saved if the mechanisms responsible for human pathologies and appropriate therapies had been searched for in human cells, tissues and organs, rather than in animals which never develop these diseases or even develop a species-specific version of them?