# Aanimal testing on the rise



## Allegra (Jul 23, 2007)

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Court review for animal testing

*"The UK government is being taken to court over its duty to cut suffering to lab animals, as figures show another rise in animal tests.* 

News of the judicial review coincided with the release of official Home Office figures showing a moderate rise in animal experiments last year. A total of three million procedures were carried out on animals in 2006, a rise of 4% on the previous year."


----------



## faerietalegoddess (Jul 23, 2007)

I read the article and found it interesting that some of the tests that these animals are being used for aren't even mentioned.  When it comes to human diseases (especially diabetes), some are continually on the rise, meaning that more animals will have to be used in those studies.  Sometimes it just isn't possible to use the "Replacement" method, because a plant or a model just isn't going to be as worthwhile as an animal subject.

However, "Reduction" and "Refinement" are definitely important.  But as someone who went into the animal field with the purpose of working in the field of Animal Research, I would hope that people would recognize that a rise in diseases and a demand for cures will mean that more animals are used.  And sometimes, it just isn't possible to use anything other than animals.   And mice are always going to be used in high numbers, just because they're cheap and have so many similarities to humans. 

I have no idea if the article is true or not, but I know that here, PETA continually comes down on laboratories for using animals for anything.  Pain and suffering is never a good thing and should definitely be avoided, but I think that with diseases on the rise in humans, it's invariably going to show a rise in animal testing as well.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 23, 2007)

faerietalegoddess said:


> I have no idea if the article is true or not, but I know that here, PETA continually comes down on laboratories for using animals for anything.  Pain and suffering is never a good thing and should definitely be avoided, but I think that with diseases on the rise in humans, it's invariably going to show a rise in animal testing as well.



Yeah, but I bet PETA doesn't make sure thier medication from pharmacueticals is animal safe before they use it to save thier own butts.


----------



## Allegra (Jul 28, 2007)

More on the issure: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Review ordered on lab test labels

"*The licences given to scientists that allow them to carry out experiments on animals are being mislabelled, according to a High Court ruling.* 
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) claimed that the licences underplayed the severity of suffering that the animals experienced."


----------



## kythe (Jul 28, 2007)

Animal testing for medicinal use isn't always cut and dried.  Money, not the development of life-saving treatments, is often what drives pharmaceutical companies.  There are many drugs on the market which are safe and effective for various conditions.  

Companies only make real profit off of their drugs for 7 years, then generics can be made of the drug.  Once generics start appearing, sales for the original drug drop drastically.  Thus, the company is motivated to continue researching new drugs so they can continue to have something on the market which is bringing them profit.

I am not against animal testing, and the reasons for it are fairly obvious.  I'm just saying that much of animal research isn't motivated by altruistic people who are developing new, life-saving treatments.  It is often financially motivated by companies who are trying to keep up with the market of current drugs.  In this way, some animal testing could be reduced without any harm to human health.


----------



## Diddeyboy (Jul 31, 2007)

I am against animal testing i mean dont get me wrong we do need cures for things but when an animal is put into sevear pain and suffering because of the drug that is developed and then they will try and work out the kinks and   put more animals in pain i dont think that is  right because they ahev the same rights as us and we dont want to be tested on (unless desperate for cash lol)


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 31, 2007)

Actually... they don't. That's the thing. (Whether they should or not is something one can debate, yes. But the question is: Would you be willing to be put through the testing to develop such things, or see your loved ones put through it? We're always going to be at least somewhat species-centric... as will any viable species; it's part of survival.)

I'm against unnecessary testing (cosmetics, etc., which we can largely do without); but when it comes to those things which help save human lives -- especially large numbers -- or greatly increase the quality of life for those suffering from such diseases as motor neuron disease, Proteus syndrome, cerebral palsy, etc... then I consider it a necessary evil... to be replaced by other procedures where reasonable and the benefits will not be greatly affected, but nonetheless the only viable option in many cases (so far).

However, unnecessary cruelty (such as we sometimes see with various types of animals bred for food and put through quite nasty living conditions, involving muscle atrophy, constant or persistent diarrhea, various types of open sores, etc.) is quite another thing and, in my mind, should be rigorously prosecuted. Humane treatment where possible; but weigh carefully whether a certain type of testing is actually necessary for great benefits to humanity or not....


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 1, 2007)

I am completely against animal testing because it is a cruel thing to subject these poor innocent creatures for our benefit. And while mice may share some genetic similarities to us, that does not give us the right to experiment on them. In that aspect, we're no different than the Nazis who conducted medical experiments on the Jews during W.W.II. What pisses me off is that just because animals have a lower intelligence factor than us doesn't mean we have the right to experiment on them and treat them as inanimate objects. They are not toys, they are living, breathing creatures who feel love, joy, and pain just as we do. 

Plus, I don't particularly find animal testing all that useful because despite the fact that mice and humans may share some similarities at the genetic level, it is not one hundred percent. If a new drug or medicine proves effective for a mouse, there is no guarantee that it will have the same EXACT reaction to a human. Even between us humans, these drugs affect people in different ways. What's good for you may kill the other person next to you. 

The problem is, these so-called "health experts" are trying to come up with the general rules of health but it's impossible to do because each and every one of us has a health that is totally different from everybody elses, completely. I recalled reading in the newspapers about the oldest guy living in Bronx, New York who was 115 years old. He was living himself with no health problems, getting around without any difficulty whatsoever and could deal with anything that came his way. And the reporter asked him what his diet was and he said from the ages 90 to 115 he narrowed his diet down, which consisted mostly of bread fried n' fatback and three gallons of Thunderbird wine a week. The point is, food like drugs is akin to medicine for our bodies, hence, animal testing is not all that completely reliable for the aforementioned reasons.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Aug 1, 2007)

I am not against animal testing. Without it, more people would have died. Many people already die from clinical trials. Animal testing saves lives.

HOWEVER, it should be watched and monitored very very closely, as much as we do with stem cell scientist at the very least. 

The animals that are tested should have the best lives of animals possible, without disgusting cages, abuse, or other forms of neglect. 

If we did not test on animals, we would not know the potential dangers of many medications. Not to mention that animals have been very helpful in cancer research, and cancer basically acts the same in every living animal. 

Yes, it is sad that animal testing is medically necessary. But without it, how many people would have died? Animal life does not trump human life and human life should not trump animal life, but we must find a way to test medicine before people test it. 

So, until we can use perfect brain dead clones for such a thing, then we are going to have to use animals. 

Again, that does NOT mean that animals should be treated badly, in fact they should be treated very well. 

According to wiki: The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American interest group supporting animal research, writes, "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century." [9] Many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). 

How many kid would die without penicillin?

Or better yet, we could have just developed penicillin and polio vaccines and tested it on kids and parents and such and seen what the reactions were on humans rather than mice, right?


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 1, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> I am not against animal testing. Without it, more people would have died. Many people already die from clinical trials. Animal testing saves lives.



True, but there has been some setbacks as well. Not every experiment done on animals were proven effective for humans, there's a big difference there. 



dustinzgirl said:


> HOWEVER, it should be watched and monitored very very closely, as much as we do with stem cell scientist at the very least.
> 
> The animals that are tested should have the best lives of animals possible, without disgusting cages, abuse, or other forms of neglect.
> 
> If we did not test on animals, we would not know the potential dangers of many medications. Not to mention that animals have been very helpful in cancer research, and cancer basically acts the same in every living animal.



As I said, not every drug or experiment that has been successful on animals will yield the same results for humans. Even between humans, the results will vary considerably.  



dustinzgirl said:


> Yes, it is sad that animal testing is medically necessary. But without it, how many people would have died? Animal life does not trump human life and human life should not trump animal life, but we must find a way to test medicine before people test it.



But it doesn't have to be that way. There are indeed alternatives to animal testing, the problem is that it's big business, nonetheless, people are advocating alternatives. See the following link:

Vivisection



dustinzgirl said:


> How many kid would die without penicillin? Or better yet, we could have just developed penicillin and polio vaccines and tested it on kids and parents and such and seen what the reactions were on humans rather than mice, right?



That still doesn't justify us experimenting on animals, it's obscene.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 1, 2007)

What would you do if the only drug that cold save your child's life had been tested on animals, then, Whitestar?

I'm not getting at your views at all, by the way - I'd just like to know how someone with such strong opinions on the subject would decide.....


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 1, 2007)

pyan said:


> What would you do if the only drug that cold save your child's life had been tested on animals, then, Whitestar?
> 
> I'm not getting at your views at all, by the way - I'd just like to know how someone with such strong opinions on the subject would decide.....



If the drug were already tested on animals and have proven effective, then that's a different story. What's done is done, but that doesn't mean we should continue in this manner. Besides, if I were in a scenerio where scientists were about to experiment a new drug on an animal that could save my child's life, then I would be willing to undergo the experiment myself, thus, saving the animal from possible pain and torture. The problem is, not everyone has the balls to do it.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 1, 2007)

Whitestar said:


> If the drug were already tested on animals and have proven effective, then that's a different story. What's done is done, but that doesn't mean we should continue in this manner.



So if it happened in the past, that's OK, as long as it isn't done again on a drug that could save another childs life?




Whitestar said:


> Besides, if I were in a scenerio where scientists were about to experiment a new drug on an animal that could save my child's life, then I would be willing to undergo the experiment myself, thus, saving the animal from possible pain and torture. The problem is, not everyone has the balls to do it.



And if it has extremely dangerous and possibly fatal side effects, it's better that it happens to you, leaving your child without one parent, than to a laboratory mouse?


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 2, 2007)

pyan said:


> So if it happened in the past, that's OK, as long as it isn't done again on a drug that could save another childs life?



As I stated above, there is no guarantee that these experiments will be effective for humans as they have been for animals. Even among humans, people will react differently to these medications because we are all like snowflakes! 



pyan said:


> And if it has extremely dangerous and possibly fatal side effects, it's better that it happens to you, leaving your child without one parent, than to a laboratory mouse?



Nobody said this was an easy issue, of course it's dangerous. The truth is, there is always a price to pay for the advancement of science, medicine and technology. In this case, if I choose to undergo an experiment that will save my child's life, knowing full well that I could die in the process, then that's my choice. Furthermore, the fact that my child and myself are genetically the same in every way, greatly increases my child's chances than with a mouse who's not. On the same token, if I were pregnant and I didn't have the necessary financial means to support my baby, then I would give it up for adoption because I couldn't through an abortion. I wouldn't be able to live with myself, but there are others who do and more power to them. And before you roll your eyes, I'm a liberal who's pro-choice.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 2, 2007)

Whitestar said:


> . And before you roll your eyes, I'm a liberal who's pro-choice.



No intention of that, Whitestar - I was interested, not being a mother, in your views and justifications - not in scoring points....


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 2, 2007)

pyan said:


> No intention of that, Whitestar - I was interested, not being a mother, in your views and justifications - not in scoring points....



No problem, Pyan. You've raised some interesting points yourself. You're okay in my book.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 2, 2007)

Ditto, ditto, Whitestar!
Mind you, anyone using *that *avatar *must* be a person of wit, excellence and extremely good taste!


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 2, 2007)

pyan said:


> Ditto, ditto, Whitestar!
> Mind you, anyone using *that *avatar *must* be a person of wit, excellence and extremely good taste!



Pyan, you give me more credit than I deserve, but thanks.  You're avatar is quite cool too.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 2, 2007)

The problem with your solutions, Whitestar, are (among other things):

With many things there are no other viable alternatives. Computer simulations and such only work to a certain level, and with many diseases, we just don't know enough about them, their causes and effects, the rate of mutation, etc., to create a viable program. Once we get to that point, I'm all for using such instead. In the meantime, we must use something to test out any potential medications.

And on having someone closely related to stand the test... what if that person simply doesn't have the disease, not even in incipient form? What if it is a genetic disorder, and the child inherited it from another relative... not even necessarily a parent or close relative (such as Proteus syndrome, which is quite rare, relatively speaking, but tends to be horrifically devastating). Or if the person who did have that genetic fault is deceased? Should the parent of the child suffering from the disease have the right to ask a perfect stranger to undergo the testing so that animals won't have to be subjected to it?

As far as the viability because of genetic differences... yes, there is a certain leeway there, but not really all that much, statistically speaking. With the vast majority of medications, there are general parameters within which these will work, and those represent the greatest number of people. Those where the medication works differently, or has various side-effects, are usually a very tiny percentage of the population effected by the diseases (or the general population, depending on what we're talking about here).

Again, it comes down to a choice between testing on humans or animals, and I'm afraid that, in that case, I'll have to go for animal testing. As I noted above, no species which puts other species' welfare above its own is likely to survive. While I respect your opinion, and have strong leanings that way myself, I've long since come to the conclusion that this is one of those nasty facts of life: If we're going to stand a chance of finding cures for or alleviating these various illnesses that destroy human lives, there really is no alternative at this point. That we may find such I hope to be the case, and I encourage a search for a viable alternative in all cases. But we're not there... yet, anyway.

However, I agree entirely that -- where viable, such testing should be replaced or seriously reduced; and that whatever the situation, the most humane treatment possible should be given to the animals concerned; there should be rigorous oversight to maintain the best level of treatment commensurate with accomplishing the research necessary.


----------



## Whitestar (Aug 3, 2007)

Yes, you're right that there are no easy solutions and that's what makes this topic a hot one. I respect your opinion as well. By the way, check out the link I provided as well, it appears that there are indeed other alternatives after all.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 3, 2007)

Will do; thanks... and let's both hope they find permanently viable solutions....


----------



## Spartan27 (Aug 3, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Actually... they don't. That's the thing. (Whether they should or not is something one can debate, yes. But the question is: Would you be willing to be put through the testing to develop such things, or see your loved ones put through it? We're always going to be at least somewhat species-centric... as will any viable species; it's part of survival.)
> 
> I'm against unnecessary testing (cosmetics, etc., which we can largely do without); but when it comes to those things which help save human lives -- especially large numbers -- or greatly increase the quality of life for those suffering from such diseases as motor neuron disease, Proteus syndrome, cerebral palsy, etc... then I consider it a necessary evil... to be replaced by other procedures where reasonable and the benefits will not be greatly affected, but nonetheless the only viable option in many cases (so far).
> 
> However, unnecessary cruelty (such as we sometimes see with various types of animals bred for food and put through quite nasty living conditions, involving muscle atrophy, constant or persistent diarrhea, various types of open sores, etc.) is quite another thing and, in my mind, should be rigorously prosecuted. Humane treatment where possible; but weigh carefully whether a certain type of testing is actually necessary for great benefits to humanity or not....


 
JD...very nicely put...I agree with you 100%


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 4, 2007)

Thank you, Spartan...


----------

