Context
In his performance of ‘Cont’, Tim Minchin sings, among other things, “I hate the rich, I hate the poor”, before realising that he has half the lyrics covered up. The song is actually called ‘Context’ and the line should be sung as, “I hate the rich who use their wealth as an excuse for bigotry. I hate the poor who use their poverty as an excuse for bigotry.”
We are often presented with arguments significantly lacking in context. This may be because our attention spans have shrunk in a social media era. Other media also has something to contribute as they cannot fully communicate the context of a research project in the couple of minutes in which they are allowed to present a segment. In the twenty-first century, everything is subject to reductionism.
An opinion piece by the president of a biomedical research foundation posted by The Washington Times claimed that “Activists are trying to slow down lifesaving medical research”. In it, the author writes that animal activist groups advocating for a ban on using non-human primates in research will cause the prevention of 15,000 new drugs coming to market. “Many of the nearly 15,000 drugs and vaccines currently in preclinical development may never make it to market.”
In 2017, 74,498 primates were used in biomedical research. That same year, 46 novel drugs were approved by the FDA. Forty-six is significantly less than fifteen thousand. Understanding Animal Research, a research industry advocacy group, explains that there are an array of reasons why a drug may fail to make it to market. “[F]or every 100 potential new drugs at the start of the process, 6 will become drugs in the pharmacy”.
The Washington Times opinion piece certainly got its point across, squarely placing blame for the failure rate on animal activists. However, the context adds that the failure rate is due to a range of circumstances which are a consequence of the research process, not the activists. “[T]he truth is that 94% of drugs that pass animal AND non-animal preclinical tests will fail in human tests.”
Many research projects additionally neglect to mention the primary ‘tool’ of research at all. ‘Error-detector’ James Heathers has made a name for a simple yet effective X (formerly Twitter) account which adds this context to research reports. Each post shares the media report or research publication, and simply adds, “in mice”.
We are conditioned to swing-decisions placed on our lifestyle by media reports and medical publications claiming a new or different way to cure cancer or prevent ageing, but they often fail to include that these ‘advances’ are observed in mice and not in humans. Ultimately, as recognised in the previously mentioned failure rate, these treatments do not have the same impact in humans. Former director of the National Cancer Institute Dr. Richard Klausner famously said, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.”
Researchers may exclaim that a requirement to report on the number of animals used in their medical research is impractical as it lacks the context of their research project or objective, but it stands that their own reporting already lacks this context when it is communicated to the public. If researchers are to criticise animal advocates for a lack of context in their campaigns against animal research, the researchers need to start leading by example.
September 2023: The Washington Times and the Foundation for Biomedical Research have been contacted for comment. We are yet to receive a response.
