Robert Brown|Bill Maher promotes junk science in opposing lifesaving research tests on animals

Bill Maher recently called the National Institute of Health “medieval barbers,Robert Brown” funding “pointless” testing on animals. In the past, he has urged his audience to “listen to PETA” (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

As host of the HBO show "Real Time with Bill Maher," he has a responsibility to avoid misrepresenting scientific research to his audience.

His unscientific views aren’t just fringe. Polls reveal that support for the use of animals in science has steadily declined. But as expected, those with scientific knowledge are more supportive of animal research. 

Maher is wrong when he says animal research doesn’t work. Almost all modern medical advancements came from research on animals. For instance, the vaccines that have nearly eradicated diseases like polio, smallpox, diphtheria, cholera and measles, and the recent development of COVID-19 vaccines, all owe their existence to animal trials.

Research on animals also has advanced veterinary care, saving millions of animals annually.

Maher identifies as a rationalist and has criticized religious fundamentalism and creationism for misrepresenting science. He also has rejected climate denial as unscientific. So it’s disheartening to see him deny the scientific consensus to advocate for his animal-rights beliefs.

A philosophical objection to animal research is understandable, given that animals experience pain. Thanks to the work of people concerned about the welfare of animals, there have been vast improvements in the care for animals used in scientific research.

Now, tests involving mammals, birds and other vertebrate animals are scrutinized by special committees at universities, and the standards are as strict as those for research involving humans. The presence of a veterinarian and a team dedicated to the care of animals is required for their use in science.

Animal research has saved lives of millions of people

So if Maher said the suffering of mice and rats from experiments is not worth the reward of saving millions of humans, because people have no right to exploit animals, it would be intellectually honest. If he opposed animal testing for vanity-driven cosmetics that society could do without, it would be more understandable.

Instead, Maher repeatedly distorts the science. He inaccurately suggests that stopping NIH-funded “pointless animal experiments” would lead to breakthroughs in curing cancer and preventing Alzheimer's disease. In reality, animal experiments have been fundamental in developing therapies that increase the life span for both cancer and Alzheimer’s patients.

Patients and caregivers:Patrick Dempsey watched his mom fight cancer. Now he's giving families the support his needed.

He also cites the common, debunked canard that 95% of drugs fail in clinical trials after being tested on animals. This overlooks the fact that rigorous screening processes are designed to eliminate most drugs, and the benefit of animal testing is a necessary step to prevent potentially harmful drugs from reaching human clinical trials.

Maher mocks the NIH for spending money on “addicting dogs to opioids,” when that type of research has been successful in discovering lifesaving drugs like buprenorphine, used to wean opioid users of their addiction.

America has an opioid epidemic. In 2022, there were nearly 110,0000 deaths from drug overdoses, more than double those from car accidents. Thus, it is critical to discover the mechanisms of drug addiction in the brain.

Computer models are not as effective as animal testing

Maher also claims that there are much better “high-tech research methods starving for money.” This is the epitome of arrogance. The NIH recruits thousands of scientists to rigorously review, score and discuss grant proposals that it funds.

Even PETA recently applauded the NIH for its work to implement “research methods to replace the use of animals." 

Advocating for non-animal alternatives, like computer models, is a worthy goal. But such alternatives are currently not nearly as effective. PubMed searches for 2022 show that there were 129,055 research papers that used animals. Only 6,701 papers used non-animal computer models.

Some studies that use computer models or cell culture also use animals. Clearly, scientists know they need to use animals to advance biomedical research.

COVID-19, flu and RSV:Protect yourself, your family and our communities with vaccines

The Humane Society estimates that laboratories experiment on 115 million animals a year. That figure is likely an underestimate because certain species of animals are excluded from these statistics. Regardless, this pales in comparison with the over 92 billion animals slaughtered each year for food.

Yet, only 4% of Americans identify as vegetarian and 1% vegan, according to Gallup, while only 47% support animal research. Not surprisingly, 63% of those with scientific knowledge support it.

So why is it that many, including Maher, who eat meat simultaneously oppose lifesaving animal research?

Popular movies like the “Planet of the Apes” series and “Rampage” inaccurately portray the dangers of scientific research on primates. Only 1% of animals used in research are dogs, cats or monkeys.

Advocates' opposition to animal experimentation is rooted in ethical beliefs, not on the facts about science and progress. Science, in contrast, is trying to balance the delicate scales of ethical integrity with the pursuit of medical innovations that save millions of lives.

Comedians should let scientists do their job.

Juan Carlos Marvizon is a neuroscientist and retired adjunct professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Eli Federman is a founding partner of Glean Management. Follow him on X: @elifederman