While it's normally not particularly credible to cite celebrities on these issues, there are exceptions. One such example is the United Kingdom's own Jane Asher, best known for her roles in several seasons of "Dr. Who" and in the 2007 film, "Death at a Funeral." Ms. Asher has emerged as an advocate for the use of animals, when necessary, to advance medical knowledge.

Ms Asher, patron of the charity Seriously Ill for Medical Research (SIMR), was speaking at a meeting in London organised by the Coalition for Medical Progress.

"Looked at from the practical point of view, it's very hard to see how any rational person can object to carefully controlled, humanely conducted experiments used to develop drugs and medical techniques to benefit mankind," she said.

"Unless they are willing to accept inadequately tested, and therefore highly dangerous and unpredictable, drugs and treatments, then the practical argument against is untenable.

"I find it almost impossible to believe that any reasonable person could continue to call for a ban if they were to be confronted with the realities of just what they were advocating."

That's the reality, and people who understand biology know this, but the animal rights movement and many well-meaning but not well-informed people still argue against any use of animals in research. Some claim that computer modeling can be substituted, but that is, perhaps, the easiest of their arguments to dismiss as, despite all the advances in computer hardware and software, any possible models are still laughably crude compared to biological systems, Furthermore, biological systems are not binary; they are variable, fuzzy, often ad hoc, and cannot be easily predicted or modeled.

But the worst argument of all, which is still used by animal rights activists to claim that animal use in research is ineffective, is that testing done on animals is not predictive, and - worst of all - they still point to the thalidomide tragedy as an example of the failure of animal research. The opposite is true. Explaining this takes some time, so please bear with me.

Thalidomide was developed originally as a mild sedative and worked very well in this application. In the 1950s, the main body of scientific thought was that drugs would not cross the placental barrier, so when thalidomide was discovered to be very effective in dealing with morning sickness, doctors in Europe began to prescribe it for that purpose. The results are well known; many children exposed to this substance were born with horrible deformities.

The anti-animal research claims regarding thalidomide are simple; the research done with animals did not predict the teratogenic (birth defect) effects of thalidomide. A common claim in the animal rights community is that rats, mice, and hamsters did not show any teratogenic effects when thalidomide was in pre-clinical trials. This is a blatant falsehood. Several research projects demonstrated teratogenic effects in rats, mice, hamsters, and primates.

So, the truth is somewhat different. An objective analysis of the thalidomide tragedy reveals just the opposite of what the anti-animal-research people claim. The problem was, in fact, insufficient animal testing. Indeed, thalidomide was never approved in the United States, precisely because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) felt that insufficient pre-clinical (animal) testing was done.

Thalidomide's teratogenic effect still isn't completely understood to this day; however, we do know that it causes a variety of embryonic development defects by binding to embryonic DNA. This DNA binding takes place within the very first stages of embryonic development, which is why the effects remain much the same across species boundaries, as the progression of fertilized egg-blastocyst-embryo (that's a gross oversimplification) is identical in mammalian species. This DNA binding interferes with embryonic development, which is what causes the gross developmental limb malformations, along with several other teratogenic effects that the animal rights advocates never bring up. Ironically this same property of thalidomide, namely bonding to developmental DNA, is making it useful in treating cancer patients.

As to the testing itself, that much is relatively simple to describe. Test animals are administered measured doses of thalidomide, while the blood levels of the drug are measured by a gas chromatograph to determine relative dosing levels in their bloodstream. When compared to a control group, the various teratogenic effects are noted. There is often more than just limb malformation. In the case of thalidomide, problems with miscarriages were caused by high levels, along with craniofacial deformities.  

To sum up: It has been concluded that a mutagenic DNA binding mechanism during the organogenetic stage of embryo development causes the teratogenic and embryotoxic effects of thalidomide. The mechanisms of embryo development in these stages are identical across the mammalian species. Any teratogenic or embryotoxic test that produces results in rats is highly indicative of similar results in humans. 

The question to be posed to the anti-research people at this juncture is simple: "Please explain to us how the lack of application of these highly predictive tests before the release of thalidomide in the European market translates into a failure of animal research, rather than a failure to apply sufficient animal research." Or, to put it another way, "Please explain to us how it is possible that these tests would not have revealed teratogenic and embryotoxic effects before the release of thalidomide, but somehow, have done so afterward."

This is but one example. It's also important to note that animals are currently used not only in research but in the production of medical products; for instance, the production of insulin is generally batch-tested in animals genetically engineered to be diabetic, although in recent years there has been a lot of work done towards a cellular-level test that doesn't involve an animal subject.

See Related: DOD Inspector General Not Sure If We Spent $50 Million in Chinese Labs for Gain-of-Function Research 

Ben Shapiro Exposes the Terrifying Reality of DEI in Medicine 

The use of animals in research not only helps the development and improvement of human medicine but also veterinary medicine - as in the work my wife did back in the day. It's an essential part of the advancement of medical and biological knowledge, and while it should not be used casually or capriciously, it is and will remain an essential tool in research, development, and production for decades to come.