Animal extremists' threats to neurologic research continue: Neuroreality IIAuthor Response

Editors' Note: In WriteClick this week, the discussion centers on the Beversdorf et al. article, “Animal extremists' threats to neurologic research continue: Neuroreality II,” and the controversies surrounding animal experimentation. Dr. Pistollato asks scientists to consider return on investment when beginning or continuing animal research, while Drs. Akhtar and Lopresti-Goodman both call for researchers to engage with critics and opponents in order to move science forward. The authors respond. Dr. Dees emphasizes that while there are many questions open to healthy debate, animal researchers should not be harassed. —Megan Alcauskas, MD, and Robert C. Griggs, MD Beversdorf et al.1 reviewed the tactics used by animal rights activists to oppose animal research and discussed appropriate responses. However, encouraging a defensive and strategic attitude will not advance scientific knowledge and progress. Within the scientific community, it would be worthwhile to discuss the actual value of animal models in several areas of biomedical research. For instance, murine models have been extensively used to depict genetic, molecular, and cellular traits of Alzheimer disease (AD). Data generated from animal experimentation have led to many clinical studies, yet there is still no meaningful treatment to improve the course of AD in humans.2,–,4 This disconnect cannot be ignored any longer, for the welfare of both humans and nonhuman animals. If the goal of biomedical research is to advance human …