It's the old, old story. In any field, those with the power and money - and those wanting a part of that in seeking kudos and huge financial rewards - smother information, debate and alternatives. No branch of science, commerce or religion wants to change the status quo. Those at the top will not readily relinquish their position - hence the secrecy and propaganda for their side. In this case a lot of top pharmas, shareholders and associated supplier companies risk losing undreamt of wealth and power. They follow the old business maxim: if you say something loudly for long enough people will believe. Usually no debate is allowed, so thanks to More4 for this opportunity. In any case, we are talking about fellow-species. Fellow species who are locked up, tortured, burnt, poisoned and killed in vast numbers, year after year, decade after decade. Methods alternative to animal-testing including the use of human stem cells (what's wrong with that?) will eventually prevail, they being more ethical, reliable and faster. 'Course, it will make redundant a lot of people adhering to "old" science especially those who don't do much except compete for Government (i.e. taxpayer) funding.
And I'll 3rd it! Unfortunately the abolition of abuse can't come fast enough. I worry whether it will come at all. Anyone who thinks about it must agree that all creatures who have the capacity to suffer should have the right to be protected against suffering. Human or animal makes no difference to any compassionate person. But how can this be achieved? There are a lot of selfish people in the world willing to exploit weaker creatures. And when these creatures have no political power, let alone a voice of their own, it will be like moving a mountain. I think the only way is to appeal to their self-interest and prove that vivisection is a major source of danger to their own health, by publicising the awful side effects of drugs that were tested 'safe' on animals.
Originally posted by flaming: They follow the old business maxim: if you say something loudly for long enough people will believe. Usually no debate is allowed, so thanks to More4 for this opportunity. In any case, we are talking about fellow-species. Fellow species who are locked up, tortured, burnt, poisoned and killed in vast numbers, year after year, decade after decade. Methods alternative to animal-testing including the use of human stem cells (what's wrong with that?) will eventually prevail, they being more ethical, reliable and faster. 'Course, it will make redundant a lot of people adhering to "old" science especially those who don't do much except compete for Government (i.e. taxpayer) funding.
What you fail to address is the fact that scientists involved in pharma research do not, and never have, claimed that animal research is a panacea - its one vital piece of data that, when used with other in-vitro and pre-clinical human data, allows us to build up a picture of evidence as to the likley safety of a drug when placed in the large scale human community.
your assertion is that all data produced from animal sources is invalid and irrelevant, and as such should be ignored - effectivley taking away one third of the toxicologists tool kit.
why not come out with relistic arguments like "animal research should be reduced as far as possible through the use of alternative technologies"
oh, hang on, thats exactly what the scientific community, and indeed the law has already done! (1986 aspa imposes the clause that animals can only be used where there is no alternative, did you actually know that???)
So if the scientific community have agreed to reduce as far as possible animal experiments, why then, labrat, is it that that animal experiments continue to increase? Why is there no transparency about what is done in the general publics so-called best interests? If what you are doing (I assume from the way you talk you make your money from this) is so honorable why can't you publicise it in an open way? Show us all exactly what you do! Show us the reasoning behind each application for funding! Publish ALL your results! It can only do you good in the general publics eye can't it? Go on, educate us ignorant folk!
I think you are rather missing the point anyway. There is no doubt at all in many intelligent peoples minds, scientists, ex-vivisectors and medical doctors included, that animal experimentation leads to results that are impossible to extrapolate accurately to humans. It doesn't take a scientist to understand why either. This invariably leads to horrific effects when some of these quasi-tested drugs go on general release. I refer you to Dr Festing, who openly states that it is not up to animal tests to test for safety and efficacy, but the human trails that follow!!
There is also wide spread agreement amongst a majority of people that any creature that is capable of suffering should be protected from suffering. Therefore, if vivisection is unsupportable scientifically, and objectionable morally, why does it have to continue?
Yes, labrat99, I did know about the 1986 Act and I was one of many who found it wanting. It gave vivisectors even more leeway to say "there is no alternative, we've got to do it", and who at the Home Office has there been to disagree? Come to that, who at the Home Office would be in the appropriate animal licensing section long enough to be able to disagree, or want to blot their copy book by so doing? If you would stop being so defensive for a while you would surely agree that in all cases,not just this one, nothing changes unless there are dissenters. As for evidence, I again would to CatrinaC's post showing the scientific facts put forward by the anti-vivisectionist side. I have to sign off unfortunately, but not before asking any posters still awake to refer to the More4 notes re Dr.Festig. I think his CV demonstrates what has been said about vested interests. If you got a fantastic salary from an anti-vivisectionist organisation,you would hold forth differently than you do.
So if the scientific community have agreed to reduce as far as possible animal experiments, why then, labrat, is it that that animal experiments continue to increase?
Hmm, that's just one of the many misconceptions spread by the antivivisectionists. Actually, the annual figures are easily accessible, and yes they have gone up slightly over the last couple of years, but they are still half what they were 30 years ago. That's because of the efforts by the research community (and particularly the pharmaceutical industry), to reduce animal use wherever possible. Animal research and testing is, after all, rather expensive, and no-one wants to do it if it isn't necessary.
The increase is in GM mice, which are used increasingly to find out the function of genes discovered by the Human Genome Project. This is the only way to do it and has major implications for the treatment of genetic diseases.
Life is Life human or animal it’s a life and we have a duty to treat another being with respect compassion and love, what they do is completely wrong. This is the bottom line, if you want to make a new drug test it on humans and not animals it’s going to give far better results and its going to be a lot more accurate to animal testing, and what are a few thousand humans to the millions it could save? i here you say no one will volunteer so then i ask you why you have child killers sitting in prison when the tax payer are paying for them? And instead you could be using them. why should a monkey that has no relevance to us and has done no crime have to pay for new drugs to be made and suffer in the process? i could understand if you were making new drugs for another monkey but come on get real what works on a rat/dog/monkey is not really going to work on us, Everything else has moved on but yet you are still stuck in the passed using animals. Just for 24 hours let me sit you in a chair, take out parts of your brain, burn out your eyes, beat you, kick you around, then if you lived through that then tell me how it felt and if you would like to go through that again? Have you ever really thought about this? i see what's coming if you keep making new drugs and cures for every single living disease out there do you have any idea the kind of impact this could have on the world? I here they are already starting to make new drugs that can put 25 extra years on your life span. Let me just add i think this program was a bit miss leading it seems to label all animal protesters bad this is Not the case most of the animal activists go out there and work hard to get the message out there without carrying out any illegal activities.
Reading these posts, it seems clear that most of the people here are against animal testing (just a quick estimate). I'd like to put in my 2 pence if I may. This is a topic which reasonable people can be on either side - although their arguments are not always reasonable.
Myself, I am against all forms of animal cruelty, except that of scientific experimentation (for the purpose of medicinal advancement) and for concumption (farming, etc.). I am against fox-hunting, bear-baiting, tiger-hunting, gorilla-eating, etc. I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetic purposes. But for medical research, to improve the quality of human life, to save lives that might not otherwise be saved, I think that it is necessary (at least at the moment).
I have two points to make:
1>
I would like to respond to one of the anti-vivi points that seem to have been made often throughout these posts. That is, that testing on animals is useless because they are so different to humans. I could give a scientific viewpoint as to why this is not true, but let me try and paint a more simplified picture. Let's pretend that you have a new drug, which you think may cure malaria (for example). You're just about to give it to someone, but then you think "hang on, this may not be safe...". So, you give an equivalant dose to a small mouse. In 20 minutes, the mouse is dead. Well, this gives you a clue that the drug may not be safe, doesn't it? Or would you take it anyway, thinking that you're not the same as a mouse?
The point is that scientists are (for the most part) fairly intelligent people. They do know that mice aren't the same as people. They're not saying that you work in the exact same way as your neighbour's dog. But, like it not, we are very, very similar to dogs, mice, chimps and most other life on earth. We share half of our genetic material with the banana! It is a fact: testing on animals can give insights into how the drug might perform in humans.
2>
There is a distinction between the arguments here (as in the show last night). As I mentioned earlier, reasonable people can be on both sides. However, there are some who have resorted to violence in order to achieve. Such people detract and harm the people who are protesting and arguing reasonably and legally. In my opinion, they should be locked up for a very long time. Rob321 delivers the argument for testing on humans, child-killers. But Rob321, why stop there, let's use all the criminals - and what about the homeless? They're a pain, aren't they? Gypsies, too! I'm afriad you're about 55 years too late to be making those kinds of statements.
I don't think there is any legitimate argument for attacking or terrorising people who are behaving in a legitimate way. Someone in a post somewhere likened the anti-vivi movmement to those of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mandella. Funny - I don't remember Gandhi chucking a brick at anyone. If Mandella did dig up anyone's remains, then it was strictly off the record.
If you are so compassionate about making new drugs for your fellow humans then why not offer yourself so these new drugs can be tested on? But no you wouldn’t do that would you? So if you wouldn’t do it to yourself then why make animals do your dirty work?
I would (and have) taken part in clinical trials. But, I need to know it won't kill me outright. Are you seriously suggesting we conduct all the required experiments on people? I think you will find that we will quickly run out of child-killers - and all other people as well.
If you disagree with animal testing, why don't you simply boycott all animal testing-related products! There you go, simple!
Hang on a sec here you are not willing to lose your life over it and let them test the new drugs on you but you’re quick enough to let them try it on an innocent monkey and kill it? I am not seeing the link here you want all these new drugs made and are so compassionate about making new drugs to save human life’s but yet your not willing to be the first to try the drugs but you don’t mind forcing it down an animals mouth and killing it.
You’re the one who wants to make all these new drugs right? Then why is it a monkey is paying for something you want with its life and not you?????
I'll tell you what's a joke. That you think you actually boycott animal testing-related stuff. So, you don't drive. In fact, you don't take any form of motorised transport, I'm assuming. If you get knocked down in the road, I'm assuming you'll refuse a blood transfusion.
The sad fact is that whether you do avoid the things above is neither here nor there. Whether you've managed to avoid buying paracetemol, wear velcro slippers, eat nothing but fruit that has fallen of its own accord, actually holds no importance. If animal tested products were banned, millions of people would surely die - maybe not in your neighbourhood but in the third world definitely. Do you disagree with that? Or do you believe it to be a just consequence?
Houmous is making the common mistake of mixing up medical research and health. Of course, we're all in favour of medical research but we need to look at what actually makes people healthy. People in the developing world don't sufer diseases and die prematurely because they lack cures: they die because they're poor. Malnutrition is a factor in the majority of deaths of children; bad health infrastructure and poor hygiene contribute to almost all the rest; diseases like TB, pneumonia, diarrhoea and even HIV infection which are uncommonly or almost never fatal in the developed world kill millions where they are poor. How many people will die of cold in Pakistan after the earthquake this winter? How many kids will go hungry in Darfur? These people don't need medicines, they need justice.
If we want people to survive and be healthy, there is so much that we could do as a society and don't. We could stop buying one another portable DVDs for Christmas and give the money to UNICEF or Oxfam. We could ensure we only buy Fair Trade products, go on strike until the aid budget is trebled or give up our jobs and go to Africa. But we don't. We continue with our comfortable lives while people die.
When we are not willing to make small or large sacrifices to help other people survive and be healthy, what earthly right have we to expect animals to "give up" their lives in the name of health or medicine? ONLY when we have done all we can to make people healthy and ease their suffering could we even start to consider inflicting suffering on other animals to help ourselves.
It is total hypocrisy to claim that animals must be "sacrificed" when we are unwilling to make any sacrifices ourselves.
Originally posted by humous: I would like to respond to one of the anti-vivi points that seem to have been made often throughout these posts. That is, that testing on animals is useless because they are so different to humans. I could give a scientific viewpoint as to why this is not true
I would be interested to hear a scientific viewpioint as to why that is not true if you have the time.
quote:
but let me try and paint a more simplified picture. Let's pretend that you have a new drug, which you think may cure malaria (for example). You're just about to give it to someone, but then you think "hang on, this may not be safe...". So, you give an equivalant dose to a small mouse. In 20 minutes, the mouse is dead. Well, this gives you a clue that the drug may not be safe, doesn't it? Or would you take it anyway, thinking that you're not the same as a mouse?
It gives you a clue the drug might not be safe for mice.
quote:
like it not, we are very, very similar to dogs, mice, chimps and most other life on earth. We share half of our genetic material with the banana!
That clearly demonstrates that while all plant and animal species share the same genetic material, it is the composition, or arrangement, of this genetic material that makes all the difference.
quote:
It is a fact: testing on animals can give insights into how the drug might perform in humans.
The word 'might' makes that a meaningless fact though and does not support that vivisection should continue.
quote:
I don't think there is any legitimate argument for attacking or terrorising people who are behaving in a legitimate way.
Originally posted by humous: I'll tell you what's a joke. That you think you actually boycott animal testing-related stuff. So, you don't drive. In fact, you don't take any form of motorised transport, I'm assuming. If you get knocked down in the road, I'm assuming you'll refuse a blood transfusion.
Dr Simon Festing, Executive Director of the RDS, has said that "It is the purpose of the human clinical trials to work out if the medicines are safe and effective.", ie that it is on humans that drugs are actually tested for safety and efficacy, so of course no-one need refuse licensed drugs or treatments.
As regards blood transfusions, the first transfusions resulted in the deaths of the human patients because of misleading results from animals.
Just wanted to comment on something you said in an earler post... about why does the industry not go public about what they do and educate people. The answer is simple, they put themselves, their colleagues, friends, families and even neighbours at risk if they do so. The animal rights extremists have reached the stage of targeting people with even the most tenuous connections to animal research. Believe me, I would love to stand up and show people the truth, to invite people into an animal laboratory to give them an accurate idea of what goes on in such places. Unfortunately, for doing so I would likely receive a brick through my window or a bomb under my car. That is the reason the industry is not more open about what happens.
CatrinaC, this is mainly in response to your post on the other thread but is applicable here also. You are obviously not a practicing scientist and have a strange idea of the nature of science if you seriously think that those of us who are experimenting on animals are wasting our time? Why would we do this if we did not know that accurate information is gained from examining the physiology of different species.
I am going to respond to your so-called scientific case against animal experimentation:
First a basic intro to physiology- we are collections of cells. Proteins make cells - proteins have specific functions and roles within the cell. The roles are conferred by shapes and the organisation of amino acids in the proteins macro structure, specifically by important sub sections that need a certain shape to confer a functional role.
Although there are overall genetic differences between species the homology (that is the similarity) between the active sites of proteins that interact is extremely high. It is the active zones that most drugs interfere with. We know the genomes of the animals we deal with so we know the protein sequences - once a drug target is identified we can look at its effect in an animal that has a similar sequence for the site of interest to a human - if that is the goal of the experiment.
So my point is the 'immeasurably complex differences' can in fact be measured and quantified and that is what the majority of biomedical scientists are trying to do. By using animals of different species to do this we build the complete picture of life from the molecular level. This is where animal use is essential - to elucidate the physiology of life and it is a moral responsibility that we have as humans to try to understand our existence. Why? Because we are the only things on the planet that can even consider our own existence and that is the difference between lower animals and us.
Should we do this by causing unnecessary suffering – no of course not! And all scientists I work with do their utmost to cause the least amount of distress possible. And we do feel sad when we kill these animals but we know that we are doing it for the purest of reasons – to advance knowledge.
