Dr. Ray Greek on Why Animal Testing is Ineffective for Preventing and Curing Human Diseases, and a Discussion on the Pros and Cons of Taking the Liberation Pledge

Listen to this show here!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Animal Models Lack Predictive Value For Human Drug and Disease Studies and Testing

Dr. Ray Greek is an anesthesiologist, President of the non-profit Americans for Medical Advancement (Los Angeles) and Europeans for Medical Advancement (London), and is the Science Advisor for both the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. He has been a professor at two US medical schools and has co-authored numerous books on the topic of animal research.

Driven by a desire to achieve scientific advancement and to see safe and effective drugs brought to market faster and cheaper in order to prevent and cure human disease, Dr. Ray Greek has dedicated the past 20 years of his life to speaking out against archaic animal testing methods which are still widely used in the scientific community. Studying diseases in animals in the hopes of predicting human response, developing drugs based on the misconception that animal studies are predictive for humans, and testing drugs for efficacy and safety in animals are not viable ways to develop drugs. In fact, these methods have caused many human deaths and researchers must abandon these methods in order to advance scientific research for human disease prevention and cures. In this interview, Dr. Greek explains the reasons why researchers continue with animal studies (including money, human emotion and ignorance) and gives the lay-person some basic arguments against animal use in scientific studies for human disease research. One of the 5 books he has co-authored, FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science, was created especially for the “scientifically perplexed” and is laid out in an easy-to-read question and answer format.

The Liberation Pledge

Many vegan animal rights advocates have taken the Liberation Pledge, which consists of 3 agreements; publicly refuse to eat animals (live vegan), publicly refuse to sit where animals are being eaten, and encourage others to take the pledge. There are pros and cons to this strong stance, and many vegans believe that it could be harmful to the cause. By taking the pledge, we miss out on opportunities to advocate for animals by engaging others in a discussion on the topic or to offer them a taste of our wonderful vegan food, while some vegans feel that it’s necessary to send a firm message that consuming animal products is wrong, not to mention that being present to these meals can evoke very uncomfortable feelings from the vegans who may be asked to share a table with those participating in animal abuse with their food choices.