Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better is Critical to Human Welfare (Palgrave MacMillan Animal Ethics) [Hardcover]

Aysha Akhtar (Author)

Book Description

Release date: March 13, 2012 | Series: Palgrave MacMillan Animal Ethics

It is often assumed, particularly by those in the health fields, that the welfare of animals is in opposition to that of humans. Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., dispels that notion by presenting scientific evidence that demonstrates just how intricately related human and animal health and welfare are.

In a lively and engaging manner, this highly accessible text takes the reader through a diverse array of health topics and explores the link between the way we treat animals and how it affects human health. Dr. Akhtar explores the lives of animals in violent homes, factory farms, experimental laboratories, the entertainment industry and the wildlife trade. She reveals how their poor treatment is both directly and indirectly related to some of the most significant and urgent health issues we face today. This ground-breaking and timely book draws from examples as diverse as domestic violence, Michael Vick's dog-fighting ring, the world's most ominous infectious diseases, animal attacks, high-profile drug failures and global warming. The result is a powerful and compelling argument on the critical need to improve our treatment of animals not only to alleviate their suffering but also to alleviate our own.

Editorial Reviews

Review

'This is an excellent book. The message is one we all need to appreciate and the book is well written.' William Clifford Roberts, MD, Executive Director, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute
Editor in Chief, The American Journal of Cardiology, USA

'[Aysha Akhtar's] emphasis on the connection between animal welfare and public health is innovative ... The book will be a leading work in this area of animal ethics.' -Tom Beauchamp, Professor of Philosophy and Senior Research Scholar, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, USA

"In this book Aysha Akhtar accomplishes what no other recent author has managed to do in a book on human health: provide a cogent and balanced argument for the importance of accepting the intimate relationship between humans and other animals for our own health, that of other animals, and of the planet. Most books on public health consider human health in an evolutionary and biological vacuum. Animals and Public Health takes the opposite approach. It defines public health in its natural biological context, providing insight into why we will never be free of human public health issues without considering the inextricable connection with the welfare of other animals. The wonder of this book is that Akhtar is able to effectively combine a wealth of scientific information with arguments for compassion for other animals. In doing so, she elegantly shows that concerns for the welfare of humans and other animals are not at odds, but, rather, one in the same issue. We are all in this together." -Lori Marino,Emory University, USA

About the Author

AYSHA AKHTAR, M.D., M.P.H. is a double-Board certified neurologist and public health specialist, a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, and works with the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

Product Details

• Hardcover: 264 pages
• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (March 13, 2012)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0230249736
• ISBN-13: 978-0230249738
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 0.6 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #717,364 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Aysha Akhtar is a double-Board certified neurologist and public health specialist. She is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and works in the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats of the Food and Drug Administration. She specializes in the connection between animals and human health and on vaccine and drug safety/efficacy and biosurveillance. You can visit her website at: www.ayshaakhtar.com

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A critical public health perspective April 24, 2012

By Allison G.

Format:Hardcover

As a public health professional working in disaster preparedness, I find Dr. Akhtar's text thought-provoking and germane to so many health issues facing our nation. Katrina highlighted the importance of considering pet rescue as an effective part of public health preparedness planning. It is now a widely accepted necessity in disaster preparedness. Foodborne outbreaks kill people every year. But, we can prevent a large number of them through correcting common industry practices. We, as a nation, are not prepared to give up our myriad relationships with animals. But, as Dr. Akhtar points out again and again, we can have a profound impact on public health if we reform and improve upon them.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars This should be required reading! April 4, 2012

By Erin

Format:Hardcover

I really enjoyed reading this book. As a nurse of 15+ years and currently a student studying public health, I was intrigued when one of my professors recommended this book. The title threw me off balance--what does how we treat animals have to do with public health? I admit my focus (up to this point) was rather narrow and I was just concerned with how I can better care for my patients. This book broadened my horizons as to all the areas of public health I was unaware of (there are so many!). Of course I read the news and am aware of most of the animal issues that the author discussions, but I NEVER made a connection between those animal issues and public health. I'll be using this book in my studies and writings and I recommend it to other public health students. This should be required reading!

P. Erin Slabbstofu

5.0 out of 5 stars A game-changer April 28, 2012

By Stacy

Format:Hardcover

This book is a game-changer. It will make people re-evaluate how they relate and treat animals. As the book shows, it's not us or the animals -- we need to see that treating animals with respect and kindness will benefit us. Although I have no background in medicine or health, I found the book fascinating and easy to read. It was written for a wide audience and I highly recommend it!

4.0 out of 5 stars new way to think about animals April 28, 2012

By Trent40

Format:Hardcover

i agree with the last reviewer that this book isn't preachy, and isn't an "animal rights" book. In fact, it seemed pretty novel..The connection between humans and animals was made in a systematic way--not just with a bunch of examples--and it really makes you think. I liked that it wasn't just about the animals' perspective, but actually more about humans. I wish it covered the animal trade issue more- the topic was really interesting and I get the feeling that there's a lot more that can be said on this topic. But I guess it's a pretty good sign when a book leaves you wanting more.

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Book April 27, 2012

By K Man

Format:Hardcover

I got this book as a gift from a "friend" who thought it might give me pause for thought - she is forever hopeful that I might become the fine human she thought she was setting her life up with but that's another story.

Anyway, I am a very open minded person but must admit have been pretty resolutely in the camp of "humans are at the top for a reason". As I said, I am open minded but the normal arguments in favor of better treatment for animals really flies in the face of the fact that to harvest animals for food, clothing, medical testing etc is really a horribly brutal Business (note the big B because it is not a matter of organic family farms but I accepted that) and if you are for it, you need to accommodate your feelings to accept this.

That being said however, I have come to a very different if very complicated understanding and conclusion after reading Dr. Akhter's book. Its actually almost painful because I now have to re-assess many things that I thought I had moved past in terms of animals. In some ways, I wish I hadnt read the book but the book is a pretty compelling page turner and in truth it elevated some of my own concerns that I thought i had put to rest. I think the book accomplishes this because it is not preaching and Dr. Akhtar shows her obvious understanding of the linkages between our treatment of animals and our own well being as individual humans and as a society....

My goal now is to try and get a few friends to read the book because it is a game changer in terms of realigning your thinking in a very concrete way to other goals you may have regarding your health, the environment, and society but which you realize are not going to materialize unless there is some compelling action that is very contrary to what you have become accustomed to.

Great book Dr. Akhtar and will be looking for more from you. Thank you. Read more ›

0 of 4 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Personal bias has no place in science August 28, 2012

By PuniTenshu

Format:Hardcover

I happened to stumble on the review of this book over on HuffPost, and decided to give it a look. As the title of my review suggests, I am utterly unimpressed.

I have a universal gauge for determining if someone is giving a 100% unbiased, up-and-up account of the use of animals in basic biomedical research. It's basically just looking at whether a person uses the old FDA fact about 92% of drugs reaching clinical trials failing to get to market, and then seeing if they present it truthfully (or accurately in the event they aren't capable of understanding it).

In the book Dr. Akhtar resorts to using this information as an argument against animal research when she reports that, "92% of drugs that pass preclinical tests fail to make it to market because they are proved to be ineffective and/or unsafe in people." A few paragraphs later, she insinuates this is due to animal modeling, and shortly thereafter goes into a mini-rant about how a 92% failure rate is totally unacceptable and then flat out states that animal modelling is proven to be unreliable and is likely the main reason for this failure.

Now, tying the 92% failure rate solely to animal research is not something that can be done without twisting the facts a little. Here's why:

1. The FDA reported that drugs can fail due to inefficacy.
2. Many drugs are not tested for efficacy in animal models (rather they're tested using in vitro assays often using human tissues or using other "humane" models).
3. This means that many drugs also fail because of bad NON-ANIMAL models.
4. The actual report states that the endpoint is "making it to market."
5.... Drugs that work, but don't work well enough to earn money (as in the older drugs still work better) are withheld from market despite being safe and somewhat useful.
6. This means that drug companies choose not to market some drugs for financial reasons rather than simply keeping unsafe/ineffective drugs off the market.

So, the entire 92% argument rests on the logical fallacy that all of those drugs failed because of a mismatch between human and animal results...which is not the case.

It's possible that Dr. Akhtar may not have been aware of this. However, at the chapter onset she stated, "The preclinical stage includes the use of in vitro and/or animal experiments to assess whether a drug is viable...", indicating she is wholly aware of the fact that preclinical assessments of efficacy don't require the use of animals. Having this knowledge makes it impossible to reach her conclusion without ignoring that in vitro models are also frequently the source of the mismatch between preclinical and clinical results. For the record, the FDA report whole-heartedly concluded that all model types were to blame, and even went as far as to identify improved animal (and in vitro) tests that had already begun to have a positive impact on certain areas of drug development.

Granted, provided other evidence that animal models were somehow worse than non-animal methods, she could still justifiably make her conclusion. One attempt to do such a thing was in her report of a study examining CNS drug development where she claimed, "The investigators concluded that one of the main reasons for this high failure rate is that animal models are a far from perfect predictor of efficacy in humans."

At one point, the investigators did state that animal models are not a perfect predictor, which is not a ground-breaking or novel statement. Biomedical researchers were aware of this even back in the 20s when Fleming was first attempting to test penicillin, and no decent scientist post-thalidomide would ever think such a thing. Their "conclusion", however, was not as Akhtar stated. As is per the norm when animal rights activists report on scientific literature, she completely ignored all of the animal models they identified as being useful. How could they possibly believe what she implies they do if they openly advocate for specific uses of animals in CNS drug development? How could one believe her line of reasoning when the researchers pointed out that failures in the stroke treatments she referred to often were simply due to poor timing (many therapies required immediate treatment at the time of stroke which is not usually possible in humans). This was definitely an oversight by the researchers, but doesn't implicate a failure in the animals themselves.

So again, the reader is mislead into believing that others are concluding that animal models have no place in biomedical science when the very people who are cited advocate it! This is a tragedy in that it highlights the wrong problem--which is avoiding confusing models with diseases, remembering that models only tell us about disease mechanisms, and doing due diligence to ensure that models are scientifically and pragmatically relevant. Simply dropping animal models won't fix an issue of bad modeling.

In her conclusion Dr. Akhtar declares that we should move away from animal testing because it's both ethical and good science. In a perfect world, I would agree, on the grounds of ethics, but in the world we live in there are still a myriad of things that can only be examined using animal models, and even the studies she refers to recognize this. It doesn't take much more than reading the conclusion of a MEG paper where a researcher outright states that she couldn't possibly figure out exactly what caused her results (or what they even meant) without doing complementary animal research. That alone shows that we aren't nearly technically ready to move beyond animals just yet. We should definitely make an effort to move away from models that aren't useful--but a wholesale shift away from animals isn't warranted based on her report.

So if you read this book, make sure to take everything with a grain of salt. It's possible Dr. Akhtar may be less apt to twist facts to suit her thesis in other areas--but the section on science should be regarded as completely speculative as the problem she identifies, like many problems in biology itself, is the result of a multitude of factors--not just the one she advocates for. Also keep in mind that Dr. Akhtar was (possibly still is?) associated with the PCRM, which is a thinly-veiled animal rights group that masquerades as a health advocacy group that often works with PETA. Read more ›