Animal testing

[TheEarl]

I don't know whether this is a problem in other countries aside from England, but I'm here today to bitch to you about animal testing. sorry, but it's really bugging me and you lot can't run away when I vent. Mwahaha.

Who here is for animal testing? Anyone? I certainly am.

Whenever you say animal testing, people always get the vision of the cute little bunny or jack russell locked in a cage and having lipsticks tested on them by evil scientists. The counterpart to this is of course, the heroic animal rights activists, who campaign for the poor defenseless little bunnies, who are being unnecessarily tortured.

In 90% of cases, these people are severely misinformed and misguided and have no idea what they are bleating about. Animal testing is not about putting lipstick onto monkeys - it is about the vital testing of drugs that will cure diseases. Have you taken paracetamol? That was tested on animals. Used a flu remedy? You personally took advantage of animal testing. Had cancer? You were saved by animal testing.

Before people start forswearing aspirin, I'd like to also point out that these drugs are tested in almost every other way possible before they even go near an animal - they are analysed, examined, tested on cell cultures, ratified. It can take 10 years of development before a drug even gets near a living being. There is no torturing, there is no cruelty and there are no evil scientists poking syringes into bunnies. Everything is regulated, double-checked and tested to ensure that every animal test is vital.

Animals are used for irreplaceable tests. Do you think we test things on animals for shits and giggles? No! It's necessary. Would you like to try a drug that has only been tested on cell cultures? We know that it won't kill you immediately, but what happens after it passes through your liver and the metabolytes produced? What happens when it reaches your brain? Or your unborn child?

In England, there is a major testing centre called Huntingdon Life Sciences which has been beseiged by 'protestors.' These protestors' idea of protest is to throw acid in the faces of employees, demonstrate outside their family's homes, discover who the investors are and hate mail them. They've put up posters accusing investors of paedophilia and committed god knows how many millions of pounds of damage. What have the government done? Nothing.

Animal testing is the world's largest aunt sally. Punch at it all you like and you know for a fact that it can't punch back. If HLS dares to complain about what is happening to them, they get castrated in the court of public opinion, which focuses on the poor defenseless little bunny rabbits and the heroic protestors. "Sure, there are some extremeists who go over the top," you say. "But I agree with the protest in general. Think of the poor little bunnies."

What seems to escape most peoples notice is that a lot of these protestors are criminals. I can number assault, slander, ABH, threatening behaviour, trespassing, B&E, stalking among the offences committed in the name of animal rights. All of this against a research centre which has saved countless lives and will save countless more in the future. These people are protesting against a cure for Alzheimers or Aids. Are you sure you agree with them?

Now the limp-wristed Labour government is umming and aahing over new legislation to protect a new research lab in Cambridge. This lab will be working on neurological drugs and every pound which is spent on repairing damage and keeping out terrorists could be put towards curing dementia and Alzheimers.

I chose my word carefully there: terrorists. It's a word that has a huge media presence nowadays and I can't think of a more apposite use. These people cause damage, both physical and mental, to innocent scientists and workers. They are prepared to give up their freedom to wreck an institution by illegal means and in doing so have probably killed thousands of people by diverting funds from research and causing centres to close.

Think about that when you hear that your mother has Alzheimers and in a few years won't be able to remember her own name. Do you really agree with the protestors? Or are you like me and for animal testing?

The Earl

 

[snooper]

... In England, there is a major testing centre called Huntingdon Life Sciences which has been beseiged by 'protestors.' These protestors' idea of protest is to throw acid in the faces of employees, demonstrate outside their family's homes, discover who the investors are and hate mail them. They've put up posters accusing investors of paedophilia and committed god knows how many millions of pounds of damage. ...

More than that - when interviewed about his activities one of the leading terrorists said, "We don't care about people. It's the animals that matter."

 

[boxofrocks]

I'm not 'against' animal testing, but hate to think of the suffering those animals endure.

On the other hand though, they have developed a drug that restores damaged brain cells caused by stroke. There's always a down side to every good one.

So far, it's only being tested on rats. But if it helps humans in the future, who's to argue?

It's the images or monkeys strapped with their eyes forced opened that gives the practice the bad name. Everyone knows medicine wouldn't be what it is today without animal testing, but still it's inhumane in my eyes.

There ya go, I contradicted myself successfully LOL

 

[Svenskaflicka]

If you have the stomach for it, I recommend reading "Playing for ashes" by Elizabeth George.

 

[minsue]

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

 

[oggbashan]

Animal testing in the UK is the most closely regulated in the world. It is only done when no other method is possible.

Banning animal testing in the UK will only move the testing to other countries who do not have the same standards of ethics and regulation.

I am FOR animal testing in the UK because it is so carefully done.

I am wholly against the terrorists who target those who are in any way associated with the research laboratories.

The regulations were introduced because of legitimate campaigning. The terrorists undermine the work of many well-meaning people. I regard those who threaten, harass and attack people in the cause of 'protecting animals' as sick criminals.

Og

 

[OldnotDead]

I would like to echo and say "hear, hear!" to everyone of Oggs comments. Both the UK and the US have greatly benefitted from the banning of animal testing in other countries. We now have facilities here owned by foreign companies that probably would have been located elsewhere if they had a choice.

The Earl makes a very important point about life-cycle analysis of drug interactions and reactions. Contradicting the quotes from Minsue, there is very significant data developed from small mammals that keep potentially harmful drugs out of clinical testing. Finding out that there are residual effects in future generations is a very important step before we do any clinical testing.

The terrorist activity of the opponents is the direct result of their total inability to achieve anything through normal legislative channels. Why? Because the rationale behind pre-clinical testing is very strong. Personally, I wish they would put more of their effort into the very underfunded area of domestic animal rescue and help out where there is a real need.

 

[snooper]

... Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986 ...
... Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, ...
... Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987 ...

Things have moved on since the 1980's. DNA analysis of cells to name but one aspect.

 

[Guest]

Things have moved on since the 1980's. DNA analysis of cells to name but one aspect.

Very relevant point, Snooper. I have known and been around scientists, even read science (for non-scientists), and I believe animal testing is a requirement of good science. (After that we head into really controversial territory.)

Of course there are errors in judgment and even conscious transgressions, but I do believe animal testing in the U.S. is regulated as well as possible and with all due regard to the animals.

I wish a good number of the more radical activists would get involved with saving human lives first (death penalty issues, women's shelters, child abuse matters, etc.)

Perdita

 

[TheEarl]

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

"I'd say the world-wide market for computers is 3, maybe 4."

Head of IBM (forget his name) 1977

People in positions of authority can be revealed as talking out of their arse, as it the case with the three quotes you've printed.

Animal research has been the impetus behind every major drug produced nowadays and more importantly has been insturmental in banning some drugs that pass a cell-culture test, but cause poisonous metabolites after passing through the liver. So Dr Mendelsohn doesn't know what he's talking about. He may not have known it, but I'll guarantee he's used drugs that required animal testing.

1 in 3 men can survive testicular cancer if it is caught at an early stage. In 1984 it was 1 in 18. Lab animals aren't just given cancer willy-nilly. They are used to test the side-effects of cancer drugs and will only be infected should the project absolutely need it.

Mr Neil Barnard is quite possibly the stupidest comment I've ever heard. Effectively he's recommending withdrawing money from R&D and ploughing it into patient care. So that no new drugs would be produced. Interesting view, wonder how many terminally ill patients share it.

Sorry minsue, but those quotes demonstrate nothing more than the ignorance of their owners.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

I'd like to apologise for the confrontational rant this morning. I'm just pissed off. The government is currently thinking about maybe making it illegal for the animal-terrorists to assault and victimise scientists and investors, but they're not quite sure. The thing that bit me really hard was that they're excusing the proposed legislation by talking about how much investment into Britain is being lost.

Who gives a rat's arse about the investment? Okay, so it's a shame, but the focus should be on saving lives, not counting the profit.

The (very worked up) Earl

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I have to find the website that gives reasons for animal testing, in fact I saw it on a billboard and I kept meaning to look at it.

I agree with Perdita that we need to focus on some of the more human issues at hand.

If it weren't for some of the tests on monkeys we wouldn't have advances in finding some help for those with Aids.

My idea is to let prisoners who are already facing life in prison or the death penalty volunteer for some testing. It would give them a chance to redeem themselves for lives they have ruined.
Cruel, but makes sense.

 

[Teenage Venus]

Well, I for one am against using animals for experiments.
I'm also a 'Green', and against use of fossil fuels and think it may be a good thing to ban cars as we know them.
I'm also a realist.

Being against cruelty to animals does NOT mean I go wrecking people's houses, property, lives, and indulging in GBH. Nor do I go round releasing caged animals, or destroying crops. I happen to be a realist.

In an ideal world everything would be ideal. It's not. I have benefited from animal experiments. I defy any protester to show me proof they have not. (Or would not if their life depended on it.)

It is abhorrent that lesser species have to be used. Until we come up with a legitimate better solution, it will continue. The idiots that seek to drive it from Countries with strict laws on 'experimentation' to others less concerned, will probably increase animal suffering a thousand fold. (As did releasing mink and such.)

In my view, these protesters consist of a very caring few, and a huge majority of violent thrill-seekers that follow, and dodge from one protest to another, purely to get kicks from intimidating others, and having an excuse to use bully violence.

To me, they equate with 'football hooligans', that don't give a shit about football. All they are interested in as being part of of a crowd of mindless thugs bent on violence because they have no life.

I'm against animal experiments, and think this is true of 99.9% of us. We accept it - as we accept many things - because there is NOT a viable alternative at present, and all want to benefit from the results.

To suggest these criminals put their energies into doing something useful is extremely optimistic. If it isn't 'Animal Rights' or 'GM Crops', or a new 'By-Pass' or 'Football Thuggery', they will find some other 'cause' to give them excuse for mob violence.

 

[Teenage Venus]

My idea is to let prisoners who are already facing life in prison or the death penalty volunteer for some testing. It would give them a chance to redeem themselves for lives they have ruined.

This sounds reasonable. However, the USA or UK governments - to name two - would never sanction this - they would have the 'church' against them.

Of course both have done it sureptitiously in the past, and probably still do: USA on ethnic minorities, 'coloreds', religious sects, etc. In the case of the UK - Porton Down experiments on military personnel. And, of course in radiation effects during atom bomb tests.

 

[OldnotDead]

My idea is to let prisoners who are already facing life in prison or the death penalty volunteer for some testing. It would give them a chance to redeem themselves for lives they have ruined.
Cruel, but makes sense.

While this seems like one solution, it does not really address some of the many reasons that pre-clinical (animal) testing is necessary.

Life-cycle: small mammals have much more rapid life cycles so genetic affects of some drugs can be tested and some conclusions reached as to the effects on subsequent generations and/or reproductive issues.

Volume: the sheer quantity of the sample populations, both treated and untreated can be sufficiently large to produce meaningful data. It is one of the real problems in all clinical testing that a large enough sample is not easily obtained.

Genetic similarily: Those familiar with preclinical testing are aware that small mammals are bred specifically for their similar make up so that the variation in results that is often seen in clinical testing is less of a problem and allows more meaningful results.

And there is also a newer reason that is certainly not something that endears the pre-clinical community to its antagonists: genetically engineered mammals. This aspect is still in development, but there are now species of rats and mice that have one or two components of their genetic makeup that is 'more human' than your average small mammal. The purpose, of course, is that more accurate testing can be done prior to clinical work.

One company with which I am familiar sought to develop an 'alzheimers rat' with the idea that drugs could be tested for effectiveness more rapidly.

The more you learn about it, the less pleasant the discussion. But I, for one, feel that it is a necessary part of our attempts to improve chemical treatment of disease.

 

[OldnotDead]

I'd like to apologise for the confrontational rant this morning. I'm just pissed off. The government is currently thinking about maybe making it illegal for the animal-terrorists to assault and victimise scientists and investors, but they're not quite sure. The thing that bit me really hard was that they're excusing the proposed legislation by talking about how much investment into Britain is being lost.

Who gives a rat's arse about the investment? Okay, so it's a shame, but the focus should be on saving lives, not counting the profit.

The (very worked up) Earl

I understand your being worked up. What I'm confused about is why is it necessary to pass additional legislation? In the US, I know, there has been Federal Legislation passed to allow for Federal Prosecution for certain crimes that would normally be covered under the State's Criminal Code. Historically violent criminals are primarily prosecuted under State Law and over the years certain things have been singled out for Federal Protections, the most famous, of course, being Civil Rights violations.

Our Federal Government has identified at least two of the animal activist groups as 'terrorist organizations' which opens the door to Federal Prosecution, if necessary. But as far as I know, the one case we had locally remained in state court.

Is this a movement to escalate the possible penalty for such behaviour from that which it is currently subject?

 

[oggbashan]

My idea is to let prisoners who are already facing life in prison or the death penalty volunteer for some testing. It would give them a chance to redeem themselves for lives they have ruined.
Cruel, but makes sense.

That has been done in UK prisons in the past.

Pfizers recruit people locally for drug testing. They pay well and some people do it year after year. It is popular with students - a month's free board and lodging. The usual gripe is that their diet is strictly regulated. Some leave the project fitter than when they arrived.

Og

 

[snooper]

"I'd say the world-wide market for computers is 3, maybe 4."

Head of IBM (forget his name) 1977

That's odd. In August 1952 there were more than that in London alone. On the 6th of that month, J.Lyons started the first regular commercial computer processing when Bakery Vans Sales went live on Leo 1.

In 1958 when I was at Bristol University we had quite a few computers there.

IBM even started to think about selling computers about then.

In 1962 the IBM7040 in Newman Street was upgraded to a 7042.

Sorry - off topic.

 

[snooper]

... Our Federal Government has identified at least two of the animal activist groups as 'terrorist organizations' which opens the door to Federal Prosecution, if necessary. ...

Pity they don't also list either the IRA or the 32 Counties Committee as terrorists, despite the bombings and shootings in Northern Ireland.

Maybe there are more votes in being pro-Irish-terrorist than in being pro-animal-rights-terrorist?

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

It might also benefit long-lived aliens to experiment on humans for the same reasons. They could even introduce genetic components into our gene pool to make us more similar to them. So then they could keep us in labs and cages, do these terrible things to us and say it's all to benefit medical science for their species.

And of course, if they're psychologically different from us and smarter, we're the animals.

I don't normally get into these kinds of threads, but just imagine the scenario above. If it's a good thing for us to do that to animals, then it is an equally good thing for another species to do the same to us. And even barring aliens, we may not be the only sentient species on this planet forever; evolution is always marching forward.

[edit: Don't bother flaming me. I'm not coming back to this thread. It's just too disgusting for me.]

 

[Teenage Venus]

Don't bother flaming me. I'm not coming back to this thread. It's just too disgusting for me

Rather a pity that, as I thought you made some good points. For instance:

"It might also benefit long-lived aliens to experiment on humans for the same reasons. They could even introduce genetic components into our gene pool to make us more similar to them." I find it easier to believe they have already done this, than to accept the 'Adam and Eve' stuff.

Your: "If it's a good thing for us to do that to animals, then it is an equally good thing for another species to do the same to us." My own feelinbgs are that most people do not think it 'good'. They accept it in the absence of a currently genuinely viable alternative. In the fullness of time, we will no doubt be considered by other superior beings as an inferior species, and may well suffer the fate of laboratory monkeys.

 

[Guest]

Some of my make up stuff says no animal testing and stuff but I don't care cause its not like its going to make the mice pretty or anything. I mean they don't like put it on their faces even they just smear some on their back or somthing. Im like whats that gonna do? But I think if they test it on models they get better results their pretty anyway and the stuff will look good on them.

Debbie

 

[SnoopDog]

Animal testing.....hmmmm.... someone wanna test me ???



Snoopy, fooling around on the boards again

 

[TheEarl]

That's odd. In August 1952 there were more than that in London alone. On the 6th of that month, J.Lyons started the first regular commercial computer processing when Bakery Vans Sales went live on Leo 1.

In 1958 when I was at Bristol University we had quite a few computers there.

IBM even started to think about selling computers about then.

In 1962 the IBM7040 in Newman Street was upgraded to a 7042.

Sorry - off topic.

Sorry, I've got the date entirely wrong. Don't know where my head was at the time (1977?). I think it was 1949, but not sure.

Sorry all.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

It might also benefit long-lived aliens to experiment on humans for the same reasons. They could even introduce genetic components into our gene pool to make us more similar to them. So then they could keep us in labs and cages, do these terrible things to us and say it's all to benefit medical science for their species.

And of course, if they're psychologically different from us and smarter, we're the animals.

I don't normally get into these kinds of threads, but just imagine the scenario above. If it's a good thing for us to do that to animals, then it is an equally good thing for another species to do the same to us. And even barring aliens, we may not be the only sentient species on this planet forever; evolution is always marching forward.

[edit: Don't bother flaming me. I'm not coming back to this thread. It's just too disgusting for me.]

Rather a pity that, as I thought you made some good points. For instance:

"It might also benefit long-lived aliens to experiment on humans for the same reasons. They could even introduce genetic components into our gene pool to make us more similar to them." I find it easier to believe they have already done this, than to accept the 'Adam and Eve' stuff.

Your: "If it's a good thing for us to do that to animals, then it is an equally good thing for another species to do the same to us." My own feelinbgs are that most people do not think it 'good'. They accept it in the absence of a currently genuinely viable alternative. In the fullness of time, we will no doubt be considered by other superior beings as an inferior species, and may well suffer the fate of laboratory monkeys.

Well put, both pagan and Venus. I do agree that animal testing isn't a good thing for shits and giggles. It is only a good thing when it is being used for its current purpose - saving lives. I'd rather see a lab mouse die than my mother if she was given an insufficiently tested drug.

Raised an interesting point with the aliens though and it's one I'm not sure I know how to answer. Will think about it and may come back if I have a riposte.

The Earl