Anti-vivisectionists use a two-pronged argument to substantiate their case against animal experimentation. They oppose animal experimentation on both ethical and scientific grounds. Both perspectives of this argument provide compelling testimony that vivisection is cruel and inadequate, and that it wastes time, money and resources that could be better put to use in relieving human suffering.

Why, then, do researchers continue to conduct and defend animal experiments in light of insurmountable evidence, even from within the scientific community, that it provides meaningless results? The answers are many and varied, but they all lead down the same path: money.

Despite the fact that animal experimentation has been shown to be a flawed methodology, animal research continues because it is in the best financial interests of scientists, as well as a number of other entities. These entities include universities, regulation bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies, scientific journals, animal breeders, lawyers and even the news media. All of them profit, either directly or indirectly, from animal research, and are therefore deeply committed to maintaining the status quo.

Consider the scientist whose job security and prestige rest upon the number of scientific articles he or she can get published. It's called the "publish or perish" syndrome, and it's alive and well at academic institutions all over the country. It is not the quality of research that's important, but rather the quantity. The more articles a researcher publishes, the more secure his or her position will be. Researchers who don't publish often enough end up untenured or unemployed. And the competition is fierce. Only about 15 percent of all research applications are accepted.

Scientists are often put on a pedestal, exalted for their intelligence and investigative powers. But they too have bills to pay and families to support. It all comes down to financial security and career advancement, and animal experiments provide an efficient route. Unlike clinical research (working with human-based data), animal experimentation generates faster results with less effort. It is estimated that for every one paper a clinician can produce, an animal researcher can produce five. That's because animal research doesn't take as long to produce; animal life spans are much shorter than that of humans, and diseases progress much faster.

Often, researchers follow the easiest path of all: taking a concept that's already been established, then "tweaking" it a bit by injecting a variable (such as a different animal species or dosage) to justify an additional study. It's done all the time, and results in an enormous amount of virtually duplicative studies. Moreover, the "concept" often has already been proven using human-based data.

Although profit is probably the greatest motive for researchers to conduct animal experiments, it is not the only one. People and society in general are resistant to change. If we have always done something the same way, it is unlikely we will change unless something catastrophic happens to make us change. Many scientists are rooted in tradition, and tradition tells them that animal research is an appropriate method of investigation. Large academic institutions reward convention over innovation, and so creative thinking is generally not welcome in the hallowed halls of science. Those scientists who understand the worthlessness of animal experimentation are quickly silenced. Those who refuse to be silenced do so at great career peril.

Another reason animal experimentation continues is the human ego. People who experiment on animals have published hundreds of papers in the scientific literature. Their entire self-image is that of an animal researcher. If you take away their importance, vis-à-vis, their publications, their self-worth will plummet. Most people will not allow that to happen.

Physicians often support animal research out of sheer habit. They are taught to memorize in medical school, not to think critically or to study the history of their profession. Physicians who work for the vested interest groups such as university hospitals, will maintain the party line as their institutions make millions from animal research each year. There also exists a significant gap between the people who perform animal research, and the clinicians who actually treat your illnesses. The right hand in medicine really does not know what the left is doing. There is a split between what the clinician does, and what he is taught in the first 2 years of medical school by animal researchers.

Most clinicians were taught that all medical breakthroughs came from animal experiments, and they just repeat this throughout their careers. The typical clinician usually does not have, or make the time to look up where real breakthroughs came from. The private practice physician has probably never questioned animal experimentation--since medical school he has been working long hours, and has not been in a conducive atmosphere for questioning authority.

There is great deal of spin control in medical research. Werner Hartinger, M.D. a surgeon in West Germany stated in 1989, "There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."

Some who perform research on animals, mainly researchers with a PhD, are far removed from patient care. They are naïve. Many are very ethical honest people but because they do not see patients on a daily basis they do not see the disconnect between what they are doing in the lab, and what actually works in the clinics.

And yet, another reason animal research persists is guilt. More than once we have heard people say, "If what you say is true why have I killed all those animals?" Many people do love animals, including some who experiment on them. They honestly think they are doing the right thing, and if they ever saw otherwise, the guilt they would suffer would be severe.

Follow the money trail...

Now let's follow the money trail a little farther down the road-to the pharmaceutical companies that also benefit from animal research. When drug companies develop a new compound that has potentially therapeutic effects for humans, they will give large sums of money (in the millions of dollars) to an academic research institution to study the drug. The researchers test the drugs on animals. If the drug passes animal tests, it moves on to clinical (human) trials, and then to the marketplace where it will generate untold profits for the drug companies.

The animal tests are used as a quick stepping stone to clinical trials, while providing a legal safety net for the drug companies. Animal tests are used to prove, or disprove, personal injury claims against drug companies (and the government) that result from unforeseen side effects. Thus, they protect companies from lawsuits which can cost a great deal of money.

In addition to scientists and pharmaceutical companies, animal research puts money into the pockets of biological supply houses that supply animals, as well as the equipment and materials used to maintain them, in laboratories. Most publishers of scientific journals are predisposed to animal experimentation because it provides a steady source of material to publish. They have profited by creating more and more journals, which bring in tremendous revenues from advertising (by drug companies and biological supply houses).

Even as a few benefit from this vast and interrelated web of profit-taking, there are many, many losers. Untold numbers of animals suffer unimaginable fates. Sick people who could benefit from treatments that are delayed by the machine of animal research are, in many ways, as victimized as the animals. And the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer, who foots the bill for the vast majority of animal experimentation through government research grants, is wasted away while far more worthwhile programs remain underfunded or cut due to lack of funds.