Skip to Main Content

In 1995, when Anthony Bellotti was 17 and slogging through a summer internship in an animal research lab, he was struck not by how the work could help the millions of people suffering from heart disease, but by the plight of the pigs being hoisted by their hind legs onto tables.

“They were always screaming,” he said. “I thought, ‘Something’s wrong with this picture.’”


He still hoped to one day join his father in the medical field, but the experience triggered a more lasting ambition: rolling back animal testing, which helped refine vaccines that saved millions from polio and smallpox, among others, as well as treatments for many other diseases.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!

  • I don’t care what he eats for dinner. All of us have contradictions and complicated relationships in our lives. No one is “pure”. But it is not necessary to ban all animal research simply for demanding that animals be treated humanely. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no substitute for animal testing. I would rather know that a drug or therapy is toxic or deadly because of evidence coming from animals rather than humans. Research like this is critical. But researchers can accomplish this goal without creating an environment where pigs, for example, are “always screaming”, right? I don’t think it’s asking too much to demand that researchers minimize the stress on these animals.

    • Actually, the use of animals is what is unnecessary. Please read the books recommended in these comments and also consult the PCRM and PETA websites to see the alternative models available. Biomed research is big business, a cash cow being force fed by your tax dollars.

  • I have a feeling that as he is not a student of science as becomes clear from these lines stated in this article, so he does not understand the scientific methodology needed by the current scientific body to discover drugs_He followed his stint in the lab with four years studying philosophy and political science at the University of Pennsylvania…..

    • What does “scientific methodology” have to to with the “subject” of the methodology? I am all for experimenting on humans for humans. That is the only way one can be sure of the efficacy of the experiment. Leave the innocent nonhuman animals out of the corrupt scientific process.

      From: The Vegangelist (and a scientist)

  • Great article, but it is not true that no other organization has taken a taxpayer waste approach to animal lab abuse. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has been doing that since its inception in 1985, and PETA since 1980. Their accomplishments have been astounding, and they derive from the same source as Bellotti’s: inside observation. So if “Scientists see Bellotti’s taxpayer advocacy as a smokescreen”, I say bring it on. There always room at this party. As for Buckmaster’s concern? When her taxpayer cash cow gets slaughtered, she could always lend her talents to a more acceptable line of work.

  • It’s noteworthy that Bellotti has devoted his entire professional career to hurting others. In this article he admits that animal studies have saved lives, yet blindly plows forward in trying to stop them. But that’s not all, prior to launching his animal rights organization, he fought to strip health coverage from millions of Americans by attempting to overturn the Affordable Care Act. He also campaigned to take health services away from low income women across the country. While I am sure Bellotti considers himself compassionate, he’s actually cruel and reckless.

  • For those interested in the most recent scientific book on animal experimentation, please read Andrew Knights book, The Costs And Benefits Of Animal Experimentation’. If after reading this and ‘Slaughter Of The Innocent’ you’re still not opposed to animal experimentation, than nothing will convince you.

  • Animal Liberation is a good book, but the greatest book ever written on animal experimentation is, ‘Slaughter Of The Innocent’. For those either for or against the practice, I urge you to read it. I guarantee, it will horrify and amaze you. The attacks on Belloti are nonsense. Read the book and decide for yourself.

  • ‘As of last May, a Gallup poll showed that 44 percent of adults in the U.S. believe medical testing on animals is “morally wrong,” up from 26 percent in 2001.’

    What were their options, exactly? Because if you asked people to choose between “medical testing in animals prior to clinical studies in humans” and “straight to humans without any animal testing first,” I’d hope most people aren’t daft enough to choose the latter.

    Also, the fact that this guy was on Infowars tells us pretty much everything we need to know about him.

  • I would hope that if Anthony Bellotti truly feels so strongly for animal welfare that he is an abject vegan and shuns all possible animal products.

    Lab animals are treated far more humanely than animals in farming. In many cases (particularly for therapies that interact with the immune system) there are no alternatives to animal testing therapies unless you find it acceptable to allow clinical trials to have unexpectedly high adverse reactions and death tolls.

Comments are closed.