A Hero’s Hope: Nonanimal Research Is Best Way to Keep Reeve’s Dream Alive
By Neal D. Barnard,
M.D.
In the movies, he was the Man of Steel. In real life, Christopher
Reeve displayed nearly superhuman courage in the face of a tragic
spinal cord injury. But determination doesn’t always carry
the day. Reeve’s recent death means he will never fulfill
his often-repeated vow to walk again.
This sad fact does not diminish the memory of this brave and honorable
man. But Reeve’s passing should provoke reflection. What will
it actually take to improve the lives and physical conditions of
people suffering from spinal cord injuries?
That question is especially urgent in light of the Christopher
Reeve Paralysis Act, a $300 million piece of legislation now before
Congress. This bill includes some useful provisions. Unfortunately,
it also allocates significant new funding to one of the least promising
lines of spinal cord injury research—experiments on animals.
Such experiments are often criticized for being inhumane. But using
animals in the quest to find cures for human spinal cord injuries
has another drawback: It has proven to be a colossal waste of time
and money. Patient-focused research is far more likely to actually
help injured people.
That’s one reason why much of the notable work being done
in spinal cord injury research today does not involve animals. Important
data are being obtained through tests on human neural cell lines
in culture, impact studies using human cadavers, and clinical observations
and trials.
In Arizona, researchers at the Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center
are helping partially paralyzed people walk by retraining the patient’s
neuromuscular circuitry. This groundbreaking research combines weight-bearing
therapy on a treadmill with electrical stimulation of the spinal
cord. While still in its early stages, this combination of therapies
looks very promising.
Meanwhile, experiments on animals consistently yield clinically
irrelevant results. According to a review in the Journal of the
American Paraplegia Society, at least 22 different agents have resulted
in improvements in animals with injured spinal cords. But not one
of these treatments has ever proven therapeutic in humans.
Even the much-heralded steroid methylprednisolone, which in injured
animals protected neurons from inflammation-related damage, has
been withdrawn as a recommended emergency-room treatment in Canada
and much of the United States. Some evidence suggests that this
drug may even be harmful to people with acute injuries.
The key problem? Animals like mice and rats are physiologically
different from humans in many important ways. Treatments that work
in rodents often don’t have the same effect on human patients.
To some extent, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act recognizes
that cutting-edge research doesn’t require animals. The bill
allocates resources to clinical studies and other promising lines
of inquiry. For instance, one provision would establish a national
network for clinical trials. That’s an excellent idea. The
bill also includes money for public education about spinal cord
injuries, which is badly needed.
Powered by such provisions—and by the national focus on Reeve's
death—this legislation could be headed for passage. Legislators
should certainly give the bill strong consideration. But they should
also improve it by taking funding currently allocated to animal
experiments and redirecting these resources to clinical studies.
Some supporters of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act have noted
that even $300 million offers only a modest boost to research on
this important health issue. Given the compelling need to help paralyzed
people, why waste any of this money on dubious animal experiments?
Neal D. Barnard, M.D., is president of the Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine.
Posted Nov. 2,
2004
Media
Center | Health | Research
| About PCRM | Catalog
| Join Us | Search
| Site Index | Home
The site does
not provide medical or legal advice. This Web site is for information purposes
only.
Full Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
|
