Scientists have a duty to talk to the public. Why? Because social policies need to be decided on the basis of rational grounds and facts. These include important issue ranging from climate change, to the goals of the space program, to the protection of endangered species, to the use of embryonic stem cells or animals in biomedical research. Both the public and policy makers need to understand not only the scientific justification for our work but also, in some cases, why we deem our studies to be morally justifiable.

The time is ripe for a more open, public and honest debate about the role of scientific experimentation in animals. What follows are some of my thoughts on this topic. I hope this perspective encourages other scientists to join the discussion and prompts opponents of animal research to create an atmosphere where civil discourse can take place, free of the threats, harassment and intimidation (恐吓) that are increasingly directed at biomedical scientists and their families.

Criticism to the use of animals in biomedical research rests on varied scientific and ethical arguments. One extreme view holds that information gathered from animal research cannot, even in principle, be used to improve human health. It is often accompanied by catchy slogan such as “If society funds mouse models of cancer, we will find more cures for cancer in mice”. It is argued that the physiology of animals and humans are too different to allow results from animal research to be extrapolated (推断) to humans.

Such a blanket statement is falsified by numerous cases where experimentation on animals has demonstrably contributed to medical breakthroughs. The experiments on cardiovascular and pulmonary function in animals that began with Harvey and continued with the Oxford physiologists established the understanding of what the heart and lungs do and how they do it, on which the modem practice of internal medicine rests. Modern medical practice is inconceivable in the absence of the insights gained from these experiments. Anticoagulants were first isolated in dogs; insulin was discovered in dogs and purified in rabbits; lung surfactants were first extracted and studied in dogs; rabbits were used in the development of in vitro fertilization; mice in the development of efficient breast cancer drugs and so on.

For the sake of completeness, it must be noted that the other extreme — the notion that all medical advances are a result of animal research — is false as well. Important medical advances, such as sanitation and the discovery of aspirin, were conducted without the use of animals.

What message does the author try to convey about the scientific experimentation in animals?