Animal Testing

[Doc Holliday]

Watching TV last night I saw an advert which I thought was quite remarkable. A lady standing outside a fish tank talking about a Zebra fish. Nothing remarkable about that, you think. Well, no. But when you think that little fish can do something we can't. It has the ability to heal its heart. We do not have that ability. When our heart gets damaged it stays damaged. The advert goes on to say that the little fish isn't just a little fish, he's hope. A few adverts later we saw it from the fish's side, which I thought was a tad corny.

 

Anyway, it got me to thinking about animals used for testing/experimenting and that I can't really recall a decent discussion on here regarding it. So, not in order to set the cat among the pigeons but I have no doubt that it will be a tad controversial, I thought I'd start the ball rolling.

 

Personally, I don't agree with vivisection or the likes. Don't see what benefit is to be gained from making beagles smoke or putting detergent in to rabbits eyes or electrodes into a cat's brain. However, I do believe that there is a place for testing but only as a last resort and only if there is a real benefit that it will further our understanding of ourselves and other creatures we share the planet with so they can also benefit from our scientific knowledge. I don't belive that we would be where we are now if it were not for the gains made in the past when animal testing was pretty barbaric (not saying that it is much better now) but I think those methods are best left in the past as they have no place in todays scientific world.

 

Mods, please feel free to remove any moronic posts as I would like to see how this pans out as an intelligent discussion/debate.

[apache]

Does anyone remember the people seriously affected in a clinical trial a few years ago? Think they has severe allergic type reactions?

 

Very simply if a few animals need to 'suffer' a small amount for a huge gain to millions of people then on balance it wins. They have almost made it too hard and expensive to use animals for experimentation that it hampers the research and testing of new drugs.

 

There is nothing like testing it on an animal, because they behave similar to humans and I would rather harm them than people.

 

I have been in a number of animal testing labs and they are nothing like you imagine. The pictures you see on the internet are 30/40 years old. We now have mice in clean cages with toys to play with etc. They are [on the whole] better cared for than most pets!

 

Unless we used rapists, paedophiles and murderers instead! That would be the perfect animal model.

[Lord Geordie]

 

Unless we used rapists, paedophiles and murderers instead! That would be the perfect animal model.

 

I would go for that strategy :good: :good:

 

They are SUB Human

[kyska]

I've voted yes, it is needed and does still play a massively important role in the advancement of medicine and biological sciences.

 

The problem is, like Apache almost highlighted, is the ignornace of some people who don't understand the legislation, of which the UK's is the strictest in the world, along with other ethical approval systems which deal with the issues other than an a experiment 'just being legal'.

 

The strange thing is the animal rights movement managed to force some companies, carrying out legal and ethically approved animal work to other countries, where the animals don't have the protection they get in this country, how ironic.

 

I think there could well be some moronic statements posted on here (IE the 'a mouse ain't a human is it?' argument), we should, as a start remember that its the law to use animals in many early phase drug discovery programmes, there are no projects using cosmetics active in this country (we could argue with the safety testing of botox though) and that primates, horses, dogs and cats are very rarely used.

Edited February 2, 2011 by kyska

[officerdibble777]

for medical research,yes ,Iv'e no problem with that,It's for the greater good.But for cosmetics,no way should an animal suffer just to make sure lippy or mascara is safe to use.

john

[al4x]

one big issue is if we refuse to do it here it will just be done abroad with none of the controls. There is a place for it but it should definitely be well regulated

[Doc Holliday]

Interesting points Kyska. I think what some folk mean, when they argue the point that "a mouse ain't a human", is that they don't understand how testing on a species that is different to humans can tell them anything of any accuracy. Maybe it does. But to the minds of those whom don't know it would be like comparing it to something like "Humans can eat chocolate but dogs can't. I'd have to confess that I would be in that camp, but purely out of ignorance. How does testing on a mouse or rat benefit the human species? I'd genuinely like to know so that I am in leiu of the facts.

[apache]

But to the minds of those whom don't know it would be like comparing it to something like "Humans can eat chocolate but dogs can't. I'd have to confess that I would be in that camp, but purely out of ignorance. How does testing on a mouse or rat benefit the human species? I'd genuinely like to know so that I am in leiu of the facts.

Dogs can eat chocolate, people can be poisoned by chocolate! Usually a person would need to consume such a huge volume it would make them sick, but it's common for elderly [=light] people to suffer toxicity with large quantities of dark chocolate!

 

What we need is a way of modelling a human system that we are trying to cure or treat. Most mammals work in a similar way. As an example if we took a mouse, altered it's DNA to give it a genetic disease we can then test a new therapy on the mouse.

 

The advantage of mice is that they are small so easy to keep, cheap to feed, get a lot in a lab and they have quite large litters. They only live a short time and reach adult size quickly. If we used monkeys that were close to people they'd need much more space and take many more years top mature.

 

A mouse will never be a perfect model, but similar things behave in a similar fashion. Each species has it's own toxicity/dose issues, but the work being described is years away from the fine points like that. Imagine if the 'new wonder drug' killed all the mice - not good if we are trying it in people!

 

As an aside, I'd still rather a new cosmetic was tested on animals before people became affected by it! It's only new products that would require testing.

[Piebob]

we should, as a start remember that its the law to use animals in many early phase drug discovery programmes

This is the bit that many people don't appreciate.

[kyska]

for medical research,yes ,Iv'e no problem with that,It's for the greater good.But for cosmetics,no way should an animal suffer just to make sure lippy or mascara is safe to use.

john

 

Oh god, did you not read my post about moronic statements? There are no active cosmetic testing projects in this country, and hasn't been for at least 10 years.

Edited February 2, 2011 by kyska

[kyska]

Interesting points Kyska. I think what some folk mean, when they argue the point that "a mouse ain't a human", is that they don't understand how testing on a species that is different to humans can tell them anything of any accuracy. Maybe it does. But to the minds of those whom don't know it would be like comparing it to something like "Humans can eat chocolate but dogs can't. I'd have to confess that I would be in that camp, but purely out of ignorance. How does testing on a mouse or rat benefit the human species? I'd genuinely like to know so that I am in leiu of the facts.

 

Doc,

 

Its such a complicated business, frought with ethical constraints and anthropomorphism.

 

What should be remembered is that animals are used very early on in the early phase development of say drug development, scientists and doctors know how, for example pancreatic cells react to certain medications in the human, likewise in say the mouse...now, if any data were to be used from the mouse, the reaction would have to be constant and proven, then that data can be used to extrapolate a possible reaction in the human, its not certain obviously, but does have a high probalility of being correct.

 

 

As Apache has said, gene expression is also pretty much a constant, and with mouse models being used with gene inserts or knockouts (IE Transgenic mice) scientists have a very accurate model, in fact often the 'whole' animal isn't used, most of the experimental work is carried out in vitro once the animals are humanely killed.

 

Apache, there is a complete ban on cosmetic testing in the UK, even new products are not tested using animals in this country.

Edited February 2, 2011 by kyska

[Doc Holliday]

Dogs can eat chocolate, people can be poisoned by chocolate! Usually a person would need to consume such a huge volume it would make them sick, but it's common for elderly [=light] people to suffer toxicity with large quantities of dark chocolate!

 

What we need is a way of modelling a human system that we are trying to cure or treat. Most mammals work in a similar way. As an example if we took a mouse, altered it's DNA to give it a genetic disease we can then test a new therapy on the mouse.

 

The advantage of mice is that they are small so easy to keep, cheap to feed, get a lot in a lab and they have quite large litters. They only live a short time and reach adult size quickly. If we used monkeys that were close to people they'd need much more space and take many more years top mature.

 

A mouse will never be a perfect model, but similar things behave in a similar fashion. Each species has it's own toxicity/dose issues, but the work being described is years away from the fine points like that. Imagine if the 'new wonder drug' killed all the mice - not good if we are trying it in people!

 

As an aside, I'd still rather a new cosmetic was tested on animals before people became affected by it! It's only new products that would require testing.

 

Ok. Point taken on the chocolate issue. I was just trying to draw a parellel to something, suffice to say that what affects one animal may not necessarily affect another. Given that rats and mice are phyiscally different from humans I wasn't aware of how it would have been of benefit to us. You say that it is a good indicator that if all the mice die whilst testing a the new wonder drug then there is a good chance it won't be safe for humans. Yet what of those guys who had a severe reaction to what ever drug they had taken affecting them the way that it did? How did that drug affect the lab rats? Assuming it was tested on rodents first.

 

It was my understanding that most of the major medical breakthroughs tend to come as an aside whilst testing or researching something else, so it's not like I'm totally against animal testing. I think it has a place and, as you say, a lot of the images that we are fed are outdated. I think the problems come because of the secrecy that surrounds the research centres and that fires up the anti's into some kind of frenzy. Saying that, what comes to mind is when those plonkers released all those mink in to the british countryside. Outstanding bit of Animal liberation that was. I think that personifies the level of ignorance a percentage of those in the Anti camp have.

[artschool]

would it not be easier to accept that medical science will not cure everything and that the more we meddle around with our own biology the worse off our species will be?

 

so i vote no for animal testing, but then i also dont think that people should keep certain types of pet.

[Doc Holliday]

Doc,

 

Its such a complicated business, frought with ethical constraints and anthropomorphism.

 

What should be remembered is that animals are used very early on in the early phase development of say drug development, scientists and doctors know how, for example pancreatic cells react to certain medications in the human, likewise in say the mouse...now, if any data were to be used from the mouse, the reaction would have to be constant and proven, then that data can be used to extrapolate a possible reaction in the human, its not certain obviously, but does have a high probalility of being correct.

 

 

As Apache has said, gene expression is also pretty much a constant, and with mouse models being used with gene inserts or knockouts (IE Transgenic mice) scientists have a very accurate model, in fact often the 'whole' animal isn't used, most of the experimental work is carried out in vitro once the animals are humanely killed.

 

Apache, there is a complete ban on cosmetic testing in the UK, even new products are not tested using animals in this country.

 

 

Thanks for the insight Kyska. It truely is quite a fascinating subject, well for me anyway. And I think it would do wonders for those whom don't agree with it to familiarise themselves with the truth behind what goes on in the research labs. After all, how many would refuse a medication if their life depended on it. Interesting to see that some have voted that the y don't agre with it and yet have not come forward to argue their point.

 

I just like a good debate. Especially when the subject is potentially controversial and even if I don't know all the facts.

[Doc Holliday]

would it not be easier to accept that medical science will not cure everything and that the more we meddle around with our own biology the worse off our species will be?

 

so i vote no for animal testing, but then i also dont think that people should keep certain types of pet.

 

How do you know that medical science won't cure everything? We stand to learn more about the world we live in if we can research things and how they affect the things around us, animals, humans, plants, fish, etc. As for meddling with our biology being to our detrement, the unravelling of the human genome has provided a real insight in to our genetic makeup and the potential for curing certain diseases/conditions that otherwise may have thwarted scientists for generations.

 

I don't quite follow you logic on voting no for animal testing and what people should/shouldn't keep as pets. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me on that one.

[artschool]

How do you know that medical science won't cure everything? We stand to learn more about the world we live in if we can research things and how they affect the things around us, animals, humans, plants, fish, etc. As for meddling with our biology being to our detrement, the unravelling of the human genome has provided a real insight in to our genetic makeup and the potential for curing certain diseases/conditions that otherwise may have thwarted scientists for generations.

 

I don't quite follow you logic on voting no for animal testing and what people should/shouldn't keep as pets. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me on that one.

 

i just think that our poor lifestyle choices account for alot of the illnesses and disease we suffer and we would do well as a society to look hard at that instead of working out how to grow new livers, hearts and other organs etc.

 

if you think that we are anywhere near being able to mess around with our genetic makeup without awful unforseen side affects just remember wonder drugs like thalidomide.

 

as for the pets, well i just think that keeping social types of animals isolated isnt very nice.

[Fisherman Mike]

Medical research into cures for ailments and disease is one thing but as ArtSchool mentions we are now pushing the boundaries of Human evolution and its getting scary..We should leave well alone before we start mutating into some inhuman race.

 

Generally I am against using live animals for testing purposes....Lazy unemployed benefit cheats...thats another matter..

[Imperfection]

one big issue is if we refuse to do it here it will just be done abroad with none of the controls. There is a place for it but it should definitely be well regulated

 

Thats excally the point i was going to make.Here its strictly monitored while in other countries it might not be so.I know someone will probably bring up the Channel 4 secret filming at nearby Huntingdon life sciences,but that was a long time ago and things have changed since then.

 

Vivisecion is fine in my opinion because in a selfish way i would like to continue living without fear of being poisoned by a new drug or burnt from a bathroom cleaner (everything is tested-even down to toothpaste) and should i get another life threatening illness i'd like it tested on an animal first to see if it works.Might sound terrible,but humans will always come before animals.

[apache]

Yet what of those guys who had a severe reaction to what ever drug they had taken affecting them the way that it did? How did that drug affect the lab rats? Assuming it was tested on rodents first.

 

I don't know the answer. One thing that was suggested at the time was how more extensive animal testing may have picked this up before it got to people?!

 

It was my understanding that most of the major medical breakthroughs tend to come as an aside whilst testing or researching something else, so it's not like I'm totally against animal testing.

 

Like everything in life it all comes down to funding and money. Drug companies don't send their scientists off to 'find me the next wonder drug'. They usually have areas of expertise and their 'antibiotic division' may be looking for a new agent that kills multiple resistant bacteria for example. From similar experiments before and knowing what exists many thousands of molecules will be tried, and some will be found to have some promise. It is then that small test tube [often using cells in culture] experiments are carried out and if they are favourable they are moved into animal testing, initially with small numbers.

 

During the screening phase sometimes properties are noted that although they don't fit the brief may do other things. Sometimes these are taken further, sometimes they are shelved, sometimes they may be sold. Depends how you mean 'found by accident'. The computers they use to screen things now can do it so much faster than a man with a pipette could even 10 years ago.

[apache]

i just think that our poor lifestyle choices account for alot of the illnesses and disease we suffer and we would do well as a society to look hard at that instead of working out how to grow new livers, hearts and other organs etc.

 

Diet and lifestyle is important. Not so when it comes down to genetic diseases, you are born with them [or the predisposition for developing them]. Imagine how different someone's life might be if we could 'cure' diabetics and they could use their pancreas to control their blood sugar? Or stop people dying from cystic fibrosis in their twenties and thirties by gene therapy?

 

if you think that we are anywhere near being able to mess around with our genetic makeup without awful unforseen side affects just remember wonder drugs like thalidomide.

 

Thalidomide was an anti-sickness dug. On balance think of the billions of people who have been helped by medicines versus the tiny number harmed. Can you honestly say you've never taken an antibiotic/painkiller etc?

 

as for the pets, well i just think that keeping social types of animals isolated isnt very nice.

 

You have never been in an animal testing lab, I can tell from that comment. Clean cages, kept in groups [if a sociable animal], bedding to hide and sleep in, toys and other environmental enrichment. Constant access to food and water. Any painful procedure is done under anaesthetic. The rats/mice/hamsters/guinea pigs are better kept than most pets. I can categorically assure you of that!

[DSPUK]

I have to say a big NO - I think it's inhumane - I have always wondered how we would feel is some giant aliens came here and just picked a few of us up to experiment on. -- remember Hitler (not he himself) used humans for experiments and we all abhored it so why are animals any different. No matter the tiny number of animals harmed who on here would like to be one?

 

Dave

[artschool]

Diet and lifestyle is important. Not so when it comes down to genetic diseases, you are born with them [or the predisposition for developing them]. Imagine how different someone's life might be if we could 'cure' diabetics and they could use their pancreas to control their blood sugar? Or stop people dying from cystic fibrosis in their twenties and thirties by gene therapy?

 

this is tampering with something we dont understand, what happens when these people then have children with the artificial genes??

 

Thalidomide was an anti-sickness dug. On balance think of the billions of people who have been helped by medicines versus the tiny number harmed. Can you honestly say you've never taken an antibiotic/painkiller etc?

 

the development of antibiotics has now given us super resistant bacteria, so they will be irrelevant soon.we will then repeat the process with phages. alternatively we could allow natural resistance to build up?

 

You have never been in an animal testing lab, I can tell from that comment. Clean cages, kept in groups [if a sociable animal], bedding to hide and sleep in, toys and other environmental enrichment. Constant access to food and water. Any painful procedure is done under anaesthetic. The rats/mice/hamsters/guinea pigs are better kept than most pets. I can categorically assure you of that!

 

i used to work for glaxo smith kline so yes i have been in an animal testing lab.

Edited February 2, 2011 by artschool

[Doc Holliday]

this is tampering with something we dont understand, what happens when these people then have children with the artificial genes??

 

 

 

the development of antibiotics has now given us super resistant bacteria, so they will be irrelevant soon.we will then repeat the process with phages. alternatively we could all natural resistance to build up?

 

 

 

i used to work for glaxo smith kline so yes i have been in an animal testing lab.

 

But what if we chose not to pursue the question "What if"? At what stage would we be in our developement as a species? Probably not too far removed from the likes of Native Americans or Aborigines. Perhaps not a bad thing but then dying from toothache or child birth would probably be the biggest killers we'd have to face. It really is a mixed feeling I have when it comes to something like this as I do believe we have lost that connection with the natural world that the ancient peoples of the world have and understood. To the same point we have a greater understanding of the world in which we live and with those we share it with because of our scientific advancement because some people in the past did ask themselves "What if...?" I do think we have a responsibility to ensure the planets survival for ourselves and for other species but we can't make that advancement without the work being done by the scientists as it would just come down to natural selection. I'm not sure about you but that doesn't appeal to me.

[artschool]

But what if we chose not to pursue the question "What if"? At what stage would we be in our developement as a species? Probably not too far removed from the likes of Native Americans or Aborigines. Perhaps not a bad thing but then dying from toothache or child birth would probably be the biggest killers we'd have to face. It really is a mixed feeling I have when it comes to something like this as I do believe we have lost that connection with the natural world that the ancient peoples of the world have and understood. To the same point we have a greater understanding of the world in which we live and with those we share it with because of our scientific advancement because some people in the past did ask themselves "What if...?" I do think we have a responsibility to ensure the planets survival for ourselves and for other species but we can't make that advancement without the work being done by the scientists as it would just come down to natural selection. I'm not sure about you but that doesn't appeal to me.

 

thats a good description. i am the same regarding the mixed feelings, if one of my daughters got ill i would be straight to hospital.

 

maybe we are meant to tamper with nature and become even more artifical? who knows? will humanity lose its soul in the process?

Edited February 2, 2011 by artschool

[apache]

this is tampering with something we dont understand, what happens when these people then have children with the artificial genes??

 

Then they may be carriers for the condition and also require gene therapy? All 'genetic engineering' does is speed up what could have been achieved through many years selective breeding. I really can't see what you are worried about. We all consume genetically modified foods, most of us just don't know it.

 

the development of antibiotics has now given us super resistant bacteria, so they will be irrelevant soon.we will then repeat the process with phages. alternatively we could allow natural resistance to build up?

 

No they won't. The first antibiotics we had were the sulponamindes and then good old penicillin. The VAST majority or bacteria are still susceptible to these drugs. They are used daily by doctors, dentists and vets. They still work bloody well. Of course you will get some resistance, but those genes are in the population anyway. Some bacteria are intrinsically resistant to certain antibiotics as it is.

 

It's not quite as simple letting 'your resistance build up' as you make it sound. Remove them and millions of people and animals would die. They are not given out like sweets, they are given when needed. Many conditions you would recover without treatment, but a simple cut on your finger could have you lose your hand without antibiotics. I see farm animals that have to be put to sleep because a small wound has become so infected. They must be used responsibly, but we are no where near total resistance! Many people think that MRSA is particularly virulent, it isn't. The bacteria [staph aureus] does the same thing to people [ie wound infections] whether it's resistant or not, it's just the resistant kind is harder to kill.

 

i used to work for glaxo smith kline so yes i have been in an animal testing lab.

 

If things were kept on their own it must have been some time ago. Ten years ago they had to legally have company and toys!