Animal Testing

GuanYin

Ok, contentious issue this.
UCD had a pretty badly written article in their student newspaper on animal testing.

Its not online yet but if/when it does update I'll post a link.

Anyway, there are some very very strong feelings on this issue (although if this thread gets no traffic I may be proved wrong) and some anti-testing lobbyers in the UK have been known to take thier lobbying to violent measures.

That said, its undeniable, that cosmetic industry aside, the human race would not be fairing nearly as well were it not for the medical and pharmaceutical advancements made with the aide of animal testing.

So do people think that it is justifiable provided the animals are treated humanely or is there a very strong anti-animal testing sentimentout there.

Personally, I see the need for it in some cases, but never have or would work in the area. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

dudara

It's absolutely neccessary, there's no doubt about that in my head. But it is an unpleasant business. But people should'nt try any drug that already hasn't had some biological trials.

It's absolutely fine for pharmaceutical applications, but for cosmetics, it's disgraceful.
But like everything, there must be some applications that fall somewhere between the two, and how do you judge?

Sarky

Use criminals.

More accurate results from testing on humans, and nobody really cares about convicted murderers and suchlike. They might as well serve some purpose instead of taking up space and tax money.

dudara

Unfortunately they're people too. Just because we incarcerate them, doesn't mean we deprive them of all their rights.

Though in fairness, if I ran the world...

Capt'n Midnight

For cosmetics GRAS ingreidents or human testing (note: this would have to be done on persons of a similar ethnic background to the customers - no third world testing..)

Animal testing of medicines is necessary.

I am sick of hearing the guff about "Guinea pigs are allergic to penecillin and it the tested it on them then it would not be allowed" argument against animal testing. Every time I been in hospital one of the questions is "are you alergic to penecillin" - pfff..

While you can replicate many tests in tissue cultures,
the procuct thalidimide was copied from failed animal tests but the industrial spies did not get that info...
many drugs are toxic in large doses (think about it - they are supposed to affect you - other wise no point in using them) and would fail tissue tests. However, many of the toxic by products can be processed by a health liver so the danger is lowered.
(Some drugs come in racemic mixed and chirality is imposed by the liver - this reduces the costs of production by quite a bit)
Tetrogenicity especially and Mutagens are virtually impossible to test other than in animals unfortunately.. Carcinogens can be tested in tissue to a certain extent.

LD50 tests and such like should be banned (unless applied to lawyers or politicians) - instead the figure sought should be maximum dose at which no effects appear.

The rules should of course be bent in the case of drugs used to treat conditions where there is a high probility of death or permenant disablility or intense pain. You don't want to be deined a medicine because it is 10% as likely to kill you as the disease. However, these mediations/doses should not be used on persons who are not in danger.

Testing on humans - simple change the law so there is no waiver - all the good places will still be able to get insurance. Despite myths about winos/junkies going in to get easy cash , a lot of testing involves medical students etc. - the purpose is to determine any side effects of what are considered to be safe doses. The drawback is tha volunteers have to be healthy so the effects on sick people can't always be predicted.

RE: using criminals - at some stage in the future in the US they might decide to use the guys on death row on the basis that they don't have rights anymore. Unfortunately this would not be good , as the stress levels (adrenelin etc.) and the ethnic backgrounds , average IQ etc. would not be representitive of the general population. (The US employed certain Japanese who did research on Antrax during WWII even though they had tested explosive devices filled with spores on US servicemen - some of whom were "sacrificed" after a few days to determine the spread of infection internally...) In contrast much of the Nazi "research" on humand not scientific but that is a different topic...

So animal tests are necessary
BUT must be used in conjunction with tissue tests and any/all contraindications should be noted and published.

PS. Why do scientists use lawyers instead of rats ?
Well there is no chance of the researchers getting emotionally attached to them, and besides there are some things rats just won't do.

Syth

Let's look at the practicalities of banning animal testing for scientific/medical purposes. How are you supposed to know what the drug does to a living thing? There are many diseases that we need to find cures for, so there are many drugs we need to develop. Can we develop drugs without using any animals? If we can't then we must allow animal testing, we must develop new drugs, humanity should not be forced to stand still. Also some diseases are becomming resistant to some drugs, so we must develop new ones. Humanity would move backwards with no animal testing.

Moriarty

Its unfortunate, but animal testing for important medical reasons should be continued. It should be regulated very heavily though, with big fines/possible imprisonment if animals are badly mistreated. I dont think i could bring myself to test things with animals though.

There should be no animal testing for crap like the cosmetic industry. The more research that is put into animals the more we are realising that theyre not just dumb automatons - they deserve to be treated humanely and with respect.

Sarky

Also some diseases are becomming resistant to some drugs, so we must develop new ones.

Slightly aside, that's not entirely true. One big reason why some diseases are becoming immune to drugs is that they reduce competition between microorganisms. There's probably always been a strain of most diease causing bacteria that has immunity to certain antibiotics. Thing is though, they had to live with plenty of other strains that WERE sensitive, and so they had very little room to live in. Use antibiotics to kill off the sensitive ones, and that leaves plenty of room for the resistant ones to multiply. And no amount of antibiotics will slow them down. This is what happened with TB, I believe. And yes, the bacteria that AREN'T resistant to antibiotics do, in time, develop resistance. Apart from that, I'd say the pharmaceutical industry will soon run out of ideas. There's only so many ways you can change an antibiotic chemical to bypass a bacterium's resistance while keeping it lethal to the bacteria, and chances are they've tried most of them already, so testing should soon become fairly obsolete there.

Possibly the only way to make antibiotics really effective again is to cut down on their use. Give the sensitive microbes a chance to regain a foothold and beat back resistant strains into their proper niche. Of course, that probably means infectious disease would become a major problem again (unless everyone managed to become properly hygienic), but what the hell, there's too many of us as it is.

Capt'n Midnight

Antibiotic resistance
One mechanism for transfering resistance are phage - these are viruses that can carry DNA from one bacterial species to another. This means that once resistance develops in one species (not just strain) it can be transferred to others.
It's a bit like having a pigeon develop resistance to dioxin and then having the flu pass this on to pigs and humans within a year..

A better way of dealing with this would be to restrict the possibility of people misusing antibiotics. The main reason why resistance can develop is that many people don't finish the course - this allows the microbes a breather.. So perhaps restricting antibiotics to implants only might help. Eventually we could be looking at a time when new antibiotics can only be used in secure wards - so that if resistance does develop it can be treated/isolated immediatley.

GuanYin

Antibiotics are a funny thing.

Very little research is being done in developing/finding new ones as they just don't make money.

Pharmaceutical companies want drugs that people can take as often as possible. They don't want drugs that people are restricted from taking because doing so may render the drug useless.

Catch 22 really.

christ

from what i've read, you all seem to be regurgitating the 'animal testing is a necessary evil' spiel without actually giving it any thought, or providing pertinent examples of when and how animal testing has evinced major medical breakthroughs. the enslavement and (what amounts to) torture of our animal brethren serves to reflect the limited scope of how far we extend our compassion and morality. our ability to empathise with our fellow man and our fellow animals has continually expanded outwards throughout history, and i am confident that our descendents will look upon animal testing with the same horror with which we view slavery.

GuanYin

Originally posted by christ
from what i've read, you all seem to be regurgitating the 'animal testing is a necessary evil' spiel without actually giving it any thought, or providing pertinent examples of when and how animal testing has evinced major medical breakthroughs. the enslavement and (what amounts to) torture of our animal brethren serves to reflect the limited scope of how far we extend our compassion and morality. our ability to empathise with our fellow man and our fellow animals has continually expanded outwards throughout history, and i am confident that our descendents will look upon animal testing with the same horror with which we view slavery.

Strange, most people here are posting informed points of view. you seem to be posting a regurgitated spiel.

Tell you what, why don't you post some viable alternatives to animal testing that will allow us to continue developing medicines. Bearing in mnd the mortality rate of humans before the discovery of vaccine treatments and antibiotics, I can't believe you think we can cope without them.

Capt'n Midnight

To use an analogy
name any major improvement/breakthough in software that has come about as a direct result of testing.

The results of not testing software properly have been very very visible - if a certain large company had tested their software to stand up to sustained random port flooding billions could have been saved by their customers. The mechanism (input bounds testing) that protects from random junk also largely protects from many exploits, but more importantly the people doing the testing and the fixing get more experiance and can extrapolate further.

PS. Regarding cruelty to animals and testing - There was a sheep dog trial in Monaghan last weekend. - Four of them were hung.

Should rat poison be banned ? Poisoned rats die over a period of days from internal bleeding (and it's not painless - lots of humans have been killed the same way,) the idea is they get so thirsty from fluid loss that they leave the premesis to get water so no stinky rotting body.

Some would argue that rats spread disease. The black death was just the worst of many events that killed off a quater of the european population every two hundred years or so, it is still a problem in the third world and pneumonic plague can kill you within 18 hours of the first symptoms - if you had a hangover - pppfffff...

melancolique

My opnion is that some of this animal testing is necessary, but I to be honest, I really wouldn't like being the one to do the testing.

I could never do that to an animal myself, and as long as I don't see anybody doing it, the products I use that were tested on animals don't make much of a difference to me.

Syth

as long as I don't see anybody doing it

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

tyndallite

Yes i agree with the original post the uni observer article as is almost typical with student papers badly informed and infused with extra cheesy dose of compassion for our furry freinds. As regards to any examples of any medical breakthrough that involved animal testing I should think almost all medicines have a component of pre-clinical animal testing. a specific example would be Morgans seminal research on the drosphilla (which is the bedrock of modern genetic theory) involved a awful lot of forced breeding , staying with the theme of genetics almost all genetics research must include animal testing, i.e turning on/off genes to discover how they work. personally I think lab rats generally do quite well, nice food, warm surroundings , mostly benign tests etc.

I think this new wave of student activism( I am a studenyt) Is getting vaguer and more ill informes by the day, for gods sake grow up a world without pain for gain does not exist, take off your goddam tweed jackets dont join the Socialist workers party and wake up!

returning to the ucd observer lets remember this is the same paper which published articles by a student who ardently belives in creationism.

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone remember the name of that guy (miller?) who back in the 20's was too poor to afford mice so he injected oil in to himself form tumours or somesuch...