gointodrugfrenzies.Andasanothertoxicologisthassaid:“If
penicillinhadbeenjudgedbyitstoxicityonguineapigs,it
might never have been used on man.”^61
Afterdecadesofmindlessanimaltesting,therearenowsome
signsofsecondthoughts.AsDr.ElizabethWhelan,ascientist
andexecutivedirectoroftheAmericanCouncilonScience
andHealth,haspointedout:“Itdoesn’ttakeaPh.D.inthe
sciencestograspthefactthatrodentexposuretothesaccharin
equivalentof1,800bottlesofsodapopadaydoesn’trelate
wellto our daily ingestion ofa fewglasses of thestuff.”
Whelan has welcomed the fact that officials at the
Environmental Protection Agency recently downgraded
earlier estimates of risks of pesticides and other
environmental chemicals, noting that the evaluation of
cancerrisk,derivedfromanimalextrapolation,wasbasedon
“simplistic”assumptionsthat“straincredibility.”Thismeans,
shesays,that“ourregulatorsarebeginningtotakenoteofthe
scientificliteraturerejectingtheinfallibilityofthelaboratory
animal test.”^62
The American Medical Association has also admitted that
animal models have questionable accuracy. An AMA
representative testifiedat a congressional hearing on drug
testingthat“frequentlyanimalstudiesprovelittleornothing
and are very difficult to correlate to humans.”^63
Fortunatelymuchprogresshasbeenmadeineliminatingsuch
animaltestingsincethefirstedition ofthisbookappeared.
Mostscientiststhendidnottakeseriouslythepossibilitythat
effectivesubstitutescouldbefoundforteststhatuseanimals
tomeasuretoxicity.Theywerepersuadedtodosobythehard
workofalargenumberofopponentsofanimalexperiments.