They don't work in the sense that they are not good indicators of how whatever is being tested will work in humans.

The scientists are just hoping for the best. They don't know what anything will do until they test it. They test it in animals and hope that the results they get will be the same in humans. Other, equally well-studied, scientists believe that animal testing is not valid.

Martin, I didnt mean animal testing is our only option and thats it. Obviously, there are other methods of testing, but these are not advanced or recognised enough to provide results that could accurately determine what effects new drugs etc have on people and other animals - and before you say it, yes, even animal testing methods are not always accurate, but they're the most accurate method we currently have.

3Rs, animal tests are not good indicators of how the drugs will work in humans. As long as they are used there will be less incentive to develop methods that are accurate. I've used the Russian roulette analogy before somewhere. The present situation is like giving people a pistol loaded with one bullet. Just because not everyone who fires it at themselves is killed does not make it a method that should be used or recommended. People still get killed and maimed by the drugs that are passed as safe after animal testing. Other researchers believe that it would be better to stop all animal experiments now. Use all resources to develop existing alternatives and to find others.

quote:

Originally posted by RobDeManc:

quote:

The problem is, we don't believe that human lives are being saved by animal experiments

My mother must take medication for the rest of her life. If she doesn't she will die. She has taken this medication for the past 20 years at least. So if it wasn't for these pills she takes she would have died when i was a child.

Just cos these pills were tested on animals doesn't mean that the tests were necessary or even helped. Lots of drugs give bad results when tested on animals but are still marketed because the researchers know that the results are invalid.

quote:

Originally posted by RobDeManc:
Well "Might have" is not good enough in this case. My mothers treatment consisted of an operation, which would have required aneasthetic, costand medication for life, and a change in diet.

I am happy my mother is still here. And I accept it if a few animals died to allow her to still be here.

Anaesthetics were first developed by testing on human beings. One of the pionerrs being an American dentist called William Morton. Obviously her change in diet could only have come about by human observations and tests ...

Claire G - The animal testing would have helped because they would have been used in the development of the drug. Not just to test it for toxicity after the drug had been produced. And, as the law stands, animal testing was the last hurdle before the drug was marketed.

Animal tests may not always be a good indicator of how they work in humans but they are a very accurate indicator of how they will work in a biological system. Or a particular organ.

This gives the scientist valuable information on how to go about his or her research and development. It can highlight new routes or uncover possible problems to look out for. It can help them right through the process.

I think it is a question of whether we want progress, or if we think the life of a rat is worth more than our scientific knowledge.

To say that animal tests are always 100% reliable is of course wrong.
However, to say that animal tests have done nothing to improve medical progress or human health is also false.

quote:

Just cos these pills were tested on animals doesn't mean that the tests were necessary or even helped

Indeed.... but then neither can you say for certain that such drugs would have been succesfully developed without animals.

quote:

As long as they are used there will be less incentive to develop methods that are accurate

There are already incentives to using non-animal methods. The law states that animals may only be used where no other method is available. A number of researchers - even those working within companies that also do animal tests - are working to develop non-animal tests. Many groups, including pharmaceuticals and groups like frame are working to the 3Rs principle - the first of which is REPLACEMENT. Not to mention that using animals is more expensive than using cell culture or computer modelling etc.

I would say that computer modelling would be extremely unreliable. More unreliable than using an animal.

Biology is still not an exact science and so trying to create a computer program to symulate a biological system would be awkward.

RobertDeManc, how many more of these tests are going to be done? How many more humans have to die when the tests prove false, again, before this madness comes to an end?

Animal tests only show how the test works in that animal or that animal's organ. If it gives the scientist information on how to go about their work, why do they still kill people? They are playing with human lives. They should be developing new methods. Other animals do not react like humans. We want progress. The drug companies want to experiment on animals so that they can protect themselves against compensation claims when their drugs kill people. Many vivisectors want to experiment on animals because the experiments give different results, depending on dosage, the animals used, how the tests are done, and in other ways. They can choose which results to publish. Many of them need to publish if they want to be taken seriously. And animal breeders want the tests to continue. They supply the continually-needed victims of the experiments.

Okay.. If the compensation thing is indeed true then perhaps you should be campaigning for legislation that would require all patients of medicine to sign a disclaimer before taking the medicine. That way even if it kills them their families would not be able to make a claim.

Attack it from a different angle and see if that works.

However, even if the above was granted I think animals would still be used for research.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by welfarist:

There are already incentives to using non-animal methods. The law states that animals may only be used where no other method is available.QUOTE]


Well there are alternatives to producing cosmetics but a lot of places still test them on animals when the law says they don’t have to, so what you have said proves nothing. we already know that there are alternatives to animal testing it’s just when and if they wish to implement them or not. they use animals because they are cheaper then computer modelling and cell culture based work. computer modelling is now very sophisticated and very advance and has programs that have virtual human organs and virtual metabolism programmes which predict drug effects in humans far more accurately than animals can. when these animals get sick what do they do take them to a veterinaries? look after them, care for them? no they don’t they just put them down and use the next one in line. It’s cheap easy and gives them leeway when they are taken through court for medical negligence.

quick quote for you

The Replacement of Animal Experiments


Non-animal tests are more humane and can offer quicker, cheaper and more relevant results than animal tests.


There is a huge range of non-animal research techniques that, as well as being a more humane approach to science, can also be cheaper, quicker and more effective. These include cell, tissue and organ culture; micro-organisms such as bacteria; molecular research; studies with post-mortem tissues; computer simulations, including QSARs; population studies (epidemiology) and clinical research with human volunteers.

quote:

These include cell, tissue and organ culture; micro-organisms such as bacteria; molecular research; studies with post-mortem tissues; computer simulations, including QSARs; population studies (epidemiology) and clinical research with human volunteers.

But none of those accurately representation of actions of a drug in a living breathing being.

Animals are different to humans, but they are also very similar. Fact is that the vast, vast majority of drugs work identically in animals as they do in humans.

Besides, eliminating animals and working solely on humans won't make any difference to drug failures (eg ADRs etc) because they'd continue to occur.

As welfarist points out, by law, any research institute must use an altnerative method if one is suitable. The Home Office inspectors have free access to EVERY institute in the UK, and can walk in unannounced at any time to review the ongoing animal experiments. If they feel a rule has been broken they can (and have) close an institute indefinitely.

Bottomline is the vast majority of research institutes do follow the law, and only use animals when absolutely necessary. To some this still not enough, and I agree, however there aren't any alternatives.

quote:

computer modelling is now very sophisticated and very advance and has programs that have virtual human organs and virtual metabolism programmes which predict drug effects in humans far more accurately than animals can.

Such as ? what's the software called, and who makes it ?

How does it predict the actions of enzymes that we haven't discovered / isolated yet ? How does it predict the actions of proteins that we haven't discovered / isolated yet ? How does it predict the action of a new drug which there is absolutely no information on ?

Surely it can only rely on it's programmed database of information, which is entirely limited to what was put in it based on previous observations. Hence it's practically useless in the unknown.



Be against animal experiments - it's a nobel cause. However dont use the reasoning that there is a choice, because there simply isn't.

Animal tests rarely result in a drug that gets to market. Why? Because they are not humans and con't be used as models. As for the computer modelling, see the other animal testing thread, my reply on page 30, near the bottom.

quote:

Animal tests rarely result in a drug that gets to market.

Animal tests are involved (at some point) in every drug that's been on the market. Animal experiments are the first line of target validation.

Human experiments / trials are subsequently used for proof of concept.

malkie

until you can admit you are pro then i will not answer or back up anything else i have said simply because i don’t like when people come in here lying where they stand on the issue. i don’t give 2 shits if you’re pro or not but just don’t come in here saying you’re against animal experiments when right from the very start you have been against everything that anti has said to you. so far we have proven you wrong every step of the way, and it seems to me you are not listening to what anyone has said. from now on unless you bring something new to the table or say something that has not already been answered you will be ignored by me. we have posted links from very reliable sources and have backed up everything we have said, yet you continue to ask the same thing over and over. get it in your head that there are alternatives and they have been given to you plenty of times.

Rob321 - your post is nothing but the acceptance of defeat. Rather than actually answer my questions, or counter my arguements you want to ignore me.

I'm disappointed that you can only see things as black and white.

Why is it hard to accept that there might be someone who is against animal experiments, but accepts there is no alternative? It's extremely disappointing that you are so intolerant of opinions which differ from your own.

Perhaps if you took a more rationale approach to things people might take you more seriously.

I haven't been proven wrong at any point - that's your opinion, but it's no where near the truth.

All I've asked for are alternatives to biological processes such as heart function, respiration and multi-organ interactions. There's been nothing posted which answers this point.

quote:

I haven't been proven wrong at any point - that's your opinion, but it's no where near the truth.

All I've asked for are alternatives to biological processes such as heart function, respiration and multi-organ interactions. There's been nothing posted which answers this point.

only about 10 times or so ?

It’s far from defeat but it can get very boring when you have asked the same thing over and over and have been answered many times before.