Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Searching for alternatives

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, pages 431–432 (2002)Cite this article

To the editor:

We would like to point out that your February 2002 editorial (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 101, 2002), “Hunted down and hounded out,” ignores some important and costly differences between humans and animals. Although we, too, condemn the tactics of violence discussed in the editorial, we must say that we found it misrepresentative in that it left out an important part of the controversy: the efficacy of animal testing. Huntingdon Life Sciences Group (formerly of Huntingdon, UK, now Life Sciences Research, US) and others use mice, dogs, and other animals to test drugs (as mandated by law) and explore mechanisms of disease. But are the results generated from these tests really useful to humans?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Kolata, G. New York Times September 16 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lumley, C.E. & Walker, S.R. (eds). Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, p. 59 (Quay, Lancaster, UK; 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kernan, W.N. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1826–1832 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dear Health Care Provider Letter November 1 (1999).

  5. Willman, D. Los Angeles Times December 20 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Science 249, 1007–1011 (1990).

  7. Northrup, E. Science Looks at Smoking, p. 133 (Coward-McCann, New York; 1957).

  8. Anonymous. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 6, 215 (1981).

  9. Smith, W.E., Miller, L., Elsaser, R.E., & Hubert, D.D. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 132, 456–488 (1965).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Peters, J.P. in Quantitative Clinical Chemistry (ed. VanSlyke, D.D.) 1931–1932 (Williams & Wilkins; 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer, M.D., Friedman, D., Gerald, W., & Friedland M.D. in Medicine's Ten Greatest Discoveries, pp. 158–162 (Yale, New Haven; 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, S.M. et al. Stroke 31, 347–354 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sacco, R.L. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 285, 1719–1728 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Greek, R. & Swingle-Greek, J. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. (Continuum International Publishers, New York; 2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) and National Anti-Vivisection Society, #153, 8391 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, 90048, CA

    Ray Greek & Jean Greek

Authors
  1. Ray Greek
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean Greek
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greek, R., Greek, J. Searching for alternatives. Nat Biotechnol 20, 431–432 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0502-431b

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0502-431b

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing