I started reading about the Ebola outbreak toward the end of third year. I waited for the panic to start up, the news articles to pick up a head of steam. It never really happened until two Americans who had contracted the disease were sent home to be treated at Emory. Now, articles about Ebola abound. My news feed, that wonderful social barometer, shows that now people care.

One thing having to do with the Ebola outbreak that hasn't been discussed in the capacity that it deserves? Animal research.

I know, I know, won't I ever get off this soapbox? But the drug being used to treat these two Americans was developed using animal models. First monoclonal antibodies collected from mice, then preliminary research on non-human primates. Two people are given the chance to survive a highly fatal disease and all anyone can blather about is whether or not Ebola can be transmitted through the air. (Okay, that's important to know. But you can bet the farm that the biosecurity measures in place at Emory are far past letting that little chance take root.)

Let's say those people recover. Let's say the drug that helped them, ZMapp, gets sent to people over in Africa. Let's say that drug quiets the storm, relieves the suffering, stops the outbreak. Will there be articles plastered over the front pages of prominent news sources? Will anyone say, "Gee, I'm really glad animal testing continues, so that we can develop cures for these awful diseases?" I doubt it. And that underlines the sad fact: people take research for granted. People want to protest "animal cruelty" and "animal testing". They want to free these animals from their research cages and give themselves a pat on the back for being so morally pristine. I don't argue that animal use in research can be improved. But look at the good it does! Those two Americans' families will have a chance to see their loved one again because of a drug tested on animals. Why can't people recognize that and embrace the good we can do with laboratory animals?