Animal Testing

Chiaki

P&G is a company that continues to test on large numbers of animals a year, they own various companies which make a wide variety of products ranging from pringles, duracell batteries, gilette razors to fairy liquid. A full list can be found here

Global boycott P&G day is Saturday 17th May so we have a few months to prepare. The activities include demonstrations, letter writing, stunts and protests. Anyone interested in joining me against this company let me know

Useful links

www.boycottpandg.co.uk
www.uncaged.co.uk

r3nu4l

Do you have a GlaxoSmithKline boycott day too? What about Novartis? Bayer?

I'm sorry to say this but unfortunately some animal experiments are absolutely vital for research to save human lives. Some are not but some are and I happen to know that some of the P&G research is vital.

Also, companies such as P&G actually help fund research into alternative methods of research...not out of the goodness of their hearts but simply for profit and PR reasons.

I did research that examined using an insect (moth caterpillar) as a model for research instead of mice. We found that in the very earliest stages of research these insects are extremely valuable and the results meaningful enough to avoid using mice or rabbits but later down the line the insect results just weren't good enough anymore.

Companies love this type of research because a box of 100 of these little caterpillars costs about €15 and they can be used very cheaply whereas the cost of buying, feeding and bedding 100 mice is far far more, over €1000 when staff time is taken into account. Economics is funding alternatives to animal research and companies don't willingly use as many animals as they can.

Now think about this, without animal experiments at least one-third of us would either have died as children or suffered debilitating side-effects as a result of infection and disease. If you have a brother or sister or a child of your own then maybe the only reason they are alive is because of necessary experiments. Yes some experiments may be unnecessary but others are vital. Educate yourself beyond the one-sided propaganda you get outside the GPO or on Grafton Street and you might think a bit differently.

Chiaki

there probably is a glaxoklinesmith, novartis and bayer boycott days.But thats not the subject. Im boycotting p&g as they test on animals for non pharmaceutical products. P&G have stated they are researching 4 health related products

Gastrointestinal Health
Pain Relief (for which they suggest applying heat, oh yes ground breaking stuff)
Respiratory Science Centre
Safe Drinking Water (which has been done time and time again, we need ways to implement it in the countries)

There are now various synthetic models to conduct these tests on as opposed to animals. Also cell cultures, human body parts, stem cell research etc is now being used.
Also lets not forget that a mouse isnt a human, often an animal test will prove one result but in humans produces another. For example the elephant man trial

Also r3nu4l you failed to realise a moth caterpiller is also an animal. in case you wish to educate yourself on the alternatives, which i suggest you do click here ide be interested to hear in what "vital" groundbreaking advancements p&g have done?

My main aim here is that max factor, cover girl, nice n easy, all unneccessary products can be tested on models and this should be public knowledge. I want people to be aware of the fact that this product killed an animal, why line these peoples pockets when you can buy product b which does the same and wasnt tested on animals.

Overheal

r3nu4l wrote: »

Do you have a GlaxoSmithKline boycott day too? What about Novartis? Bayer?

I'm sorry to say this but unfortunately some animal experiments are absolutely vital for research to save human lives. Some are not but some are and I happen to know that some of the P&G research is vital.

Also, companies such as P&G actually help fund research into alternative methods of research...not out of the goodness of their hearts but simply for profit and PR reasons.

I did research that examined using an insect (moth caterpillar) as a model for research instead of mice. We found that in the very earliest stages of research these insects are extremely valuable and the results meaningful enough to avoid using mice or rabbits but later down the line the insect results just weren't good enough anymore.

Companies love this type of research because a box of 100 of these little caterpillars costs about €15 and they can be used very cheaply whereas the cost of buying, feeding and bedding 100 mice is far far more, over €1000 when staff time is taken into account. Economics is funding alternatives to animal research and companies don't willingly use as many animals as they can.

Now think about this, without animal experiments at least one-third of us would either have died as children or suffered debilitating side-effects as a result of infection and disease. If you have a brother or sister or a child of your own then maybe the only reason they are alive is because of necessary experiments. Yes some experiments may be unnecessary but others are vital. Educate yourself beyond the one-sided propaganda you get outside the GPO or on Grafton Street and you might think a bit differently.

Thats what the point of Boycotting is at the very least. Theres no point to commiting exploratory research on animals when it has no solid benefits, and (depending on whether you have morals) should not bring unnecessary harm to the animal/specimen.

The problem is while this is all already set out on paper, we know through ALF (Animal Liberation Front) infiltration of these labs that the conditions these animals are kept in are far from humane, and are in breach of the standing legislation on animal experimentation.

For instance, Beagles used in non-lethal drugs testing were subjected to violent attacks by their handlers for no reason whatsoever - Beagles are chosen for their timidness and their extreme reluctance to biting. There is no need to hit these animals for their 'cooperation'.

Thats why I'm joining the Boycott. If they need animals for vital research then so be it - but only with the best care and consideration. If these were human Fetus' than the argument would have been moot decades ago. These companies are not honoring their moral responsibilities and its time that they were put to sleep.

EDIT: given my choice, I'd suspend all animal testing and begin using Human Clones.

r3nu4l

Chiaki wrote: »

there probably is a glaxoklinesmith, novartis and bayer boycott days. i dont even try and build support for them as people will say that argument that you just did.

That argument is true. Believe me, for years I was totally against animal experiments of ANY sort. Then I did a science degree and was still against them. Only when I reached my final year in Science and throughout my PhD did I realise that unfortunately for now, certain animal experiments are necessary

Its necessary for health and pharmaceutical products, im boycotting p&g as they test on animals for non pharmaceutical products. P&G have stated they are researching 4 health related products

Gastrointestinal Health
Pain Relief (for which they suggest applying heat, oh yes ground breaking stuff)
Respiratory Science Centre
Safe Drinking Water (which has been done time and time again, we need ways to implement it in the countries)

I'm glad you agree that it's necessary for some stuff. That's good and is progress. Now let me make this clear. In my opinion ANY animal experiments carried out so that a woman can slap on make up is a disgrace and wrong!

Now gastrointestinal health is very important...ever heard of Gastro-intestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? It's a very nasty cancer! Bowel cancer? Also Nasty! Chron's Disease? Not very nice. Same type of thing goes for respiratory science and safe drinking water...youmay not want people in the 3rd world to have safe drinking water...I do!

Your argument is with P&G Beauty, not P&G pharma So tell people not to buy their beauty and baby products, not the pharma products. You will probably say there is no difference, yet if you talk to a person from each division of P&G they will tell you that they are wolds apart and it's true!

There are now various synthetic models to conduct these tests on as opposed to animals. Also cell cultures, human body parts, stem cell research etc is now being used.
Also lets not forget that a mouse isnt a human, often an animal test will prove one result but in humans produces another. For example the elephant man trial

Firstly, I worked with human cell culture lines for years. They have been around for decades and are not knew, the first human cell line I worked with came from a cancer patient in 1954! The problem with cell culture lines is that they are usually monolayers of a single cell type and there are no other cell types interacting with them as there would be in a human body. That is a serious, serious problem. Also, cell culture lines are "immortalised" through lab-induced mutations that mean they continue to grow and divide far longer than any natural cell line. Believe me they can provide some very very useful answers in experiments but as with mouse model experiments they can also provide answers and results that are far far different to those in humans. The Tegenero antibody that killed two men and severely injured four others in 2006 was tested in both cell lines and animals without problems...only when it got to humans did it cause problems.

Also in case you failed to realise a moth caterpiller is also an animal.

Nope I understand that, believe it or not they thought us that during my Biology degree!!! Again I come back to economics, pharma companies understand this more than anything else. Start them on the insects then wean them onto something else if it provides results that are just as good or better.

Also r3nu4l, in case you wish to educate yourself on the alternatives, which i suggest you do click here

Hee hee, I kow all about Hardwen and am on personal terms with many of their committee, they gave me money for two projects and yes, they knew about some of my previous work and in fact funded one project on the basis that I wanted to compare it to results from previous animal experiments! They were happy with my results as was I I think you should educate yourself on their policies a bit more You do realise that they don't campaign for complete abolition of animal experiments...they campaign for a reduction in the number of animals used and better conducted experiments (more refined, less animals used). When I spoke to Gill (Dr Gill Langley) last (she worked for them for years and years) she told me that they still have problems with cranks advocating them as some sort of radical movement rather than a scientific team devoted to finding ways to reduce animal research. If that eventually means No animal research they are happy and this brings me back to the whole economics issue. If pharma companies could find an absolutely brilliant way to eliminate animal research completelu and get just as accurate results they would use it straight away. Animals cost money, lots of money, transgenic mice can cost thousands per mouse! They would much rather have a bunch of cells in an incubator than pay specialised animal technicians to look after an entire bio-resource unit (animal house).

Also r3nu4l ide be interested to hear in what "vital" groundbreaking advancments p&g have done?

I'd love to tell you my dear but unfortunately confidentiality agreements prohibit me but I can say that P&G honestly are looking seriously at non-animal alternatives. About time too!

My main aim here is that max factor, cover girl, nice n easy, all unneccessary products can be tested on models and this should be public knowledge. I want people to be aware of the fact that this product killed an animal, why line these peoples pockets when you can buy product b which does the same and wasnt tested on animals.

So instead of a boycott on P&G why not tell people what products these are exactly? Educate them as to how they are just as good as the P&G product and aren't tested on animals. That way you are hurting P&G's pockets far more than by some "radical boycott"! Not only will people not be buying P&G, they will be buying competitor products...believe me nothing puts the sh!ts up them more than thinking that the competitor is selling more! Forget your boycotts

Honestly, I really empathise with not wanting animal experiments but a P&G boycott is ridiculous. Educate people to the alternatives as a positive action rather than look like just another crank complaining and offering no handy solutions

a5y

r3nu4l wrote: »

Do you have a GlaxoSmithKline boycott day too? What about Novartis? Bayer?

That's rather disingenuous. If she does she immediately overextends the demands so far she'll not get widespread support for a boycott; and if she doesn't she looks like a latte liberal for not going all the way.

I'm sorry to say this but unfortunately some animal experiments are absolutely vital for research to save human lives. Some are not but some are and I happen to know that some of the P&G research is vital.

(emphasis mine)

At this point it would be a good time for full disclosure, if you are an employee of P&G or an organisation that conducts tests on animals. And if not, it would be helpful to point to documented research that is absolutely vital.

Also, companies such as P&G actually help fund research into alternative methods of research...not out of the goodness of their hearts but simply for profit and PR reasons.

I did research that examined using an insect (moth caterpillar) as a model for research instead of mice. We found that in the very earliest stages of research these insects are extremely valuable and the results meaningful enough to avoid using mice or rabbits but later down the line the insect results just weren't good enough anymore.

Companies love this type of research because a box of 100 of these little caterpillars costs about €15 and they can be used very cheaply whereas the cost of buying, feeding and bedding 100 mice is far far more, over €1000 when staff time is taken into account. Economics is funding alternatives to animal research and companies don't willingly use as many animals as they can.

Whilst the affordability of caterpillars over mice as guinea pigs is fascinating for the number crunchers of multinationals, its a bit irrelevant as far a thread on animal rights goes, it would be like someone thinking they are "more vegetarian" because they are no longer eating beef and are eating more chicken instead.

Now think about this, without animal experiments at least one-third of us would either have died as children or suffered debilitating side-effects as a result of infection and disease.

Whilst I think you are right, this is the sort of thing I hear from the same people who continually tell me we only use 10% of our brains. Source the facts please.

If you have a brother or sister or a child of your own then maybe the only reason they are alive is because of necessary experiments.

Maybe. Although the reverse argument is maybe if testing without the use of animals had been giving the funding and research animal testing has we would be achieving identical results with such an approach.

Both arguments are equally speculative.

Yes some experiments may be unnecessary but others are vital. Educate yourself beyond the one-sided propaganda you get outside the GPO or on Grafton Street and you might think a bit differently.

Advice that could well be applied to the same pro-lifers I see outside the GPO, but the telling people what to do is far less useful than bringing specifics and sourced facts with you and letting people make an informed choice.

r3nu4l

Overheal wrote: »

Thats what the point of Boycotting is at the very least.

Again, I say to you instead of boycotting, hit them where it really hurts, recommend and promote competitor products and put all your energy into that! Firstly they can't stand to be ignored and secondly they HATE competitors getting their business

Theres no point to commiting exploratory research on animals when it has no solid benefits, and (depending on whether you have morals) should not bring unnecessary harm to the animal/specimen.

Agreed, you'll find that many ethics committees make it very difficult for this type of experimentation to occur these days.

The problem is while this is all already set out on paper, we know through ALF (Animal Liberation Front) infiltration of these labs that the conditions these animals are kept in are far from humane, and are in breach of the standing legislation on animal experimentation.

Oh FFS! Be very careful of anything put forward by the ALF! Put your trust in other organisations than the ALF, please! :rolleyes:

For instance, Beagles used in non-lethal drugs testing were subjected to violent attacks by their handlers for no reason whatsoever - Beagles are chosen for their timidness and their extreme reluctance to biting. There is no need to hit these animals for their 'cooperation'.

I'll not argue that there are abuses out there and they should not happen. Some "institutes" are lacking in their processes but again, never trust the ALF on this! Look at any number of instances of child caring institutions in the past and you'll see abuse. This is down to individuals, not policy!! In any institute I've worked in in the past (I don't work in labs anymore) I've never witnessed abuse, I have seen colleagues cry when it came to putting down an animal (rat or mouse) they had cared for, reared, fed and nurtured since birth...it's not easy at all

Thats why I'm joining the Boycott. If they need animals for vital research then so be it - but only with the best care and consideration.

Agreed

If these were human Fetus' than the argument would have been moot decades ago.

Not int he eyes of scientists!

These companies are not honoring their moral responsibilities and its time that they were put to sleep.

I've offered an alternative, promotion of ethical competitors, trust me, that's the way to go.

EDIT: given my choice, I'd suspend all animal testing and begin using Human Clones.

Good choice!

Finally, I'm glad that you guys recognise that some experiments are necessary, that really is good but don't think for a minute you can tell which ones are ethical and which ones aren't. I have a PhD in medical Biology and I have to really study research proposals with a very critical eye and discuss with colleagues before making my own decision. It can be very difficult, moreso with human volunteers...of which I have been one on more than one occassion!

Overheal

im sorry r3 you lost my respect at "Im sucking their cocks and they paid me for it"

Happens in the USA all the time - we call them Lobbyists; they use money to bribe our politicians, Congressman and Senators into passing legislation which is suitable for them.

Say what you want but your loyalty has been bought. And these people are good - they have many ways to make you feel like what youre doing is right and just: I'm not targetting you as a bad person, and you sound like you still hold a good set of morals on your shoulders, but youre just a victim. You sir, have been bought. :rolleyes:

EDIT:

hit them where it really hurts, recommend and promote competitor products and put all your energy into that! Firstly they can't stand to be ignored and secondly they HATE competitors getting their business

Thats good advice and it will be considered.

Oh FFS! Be very careful of anything put forward by the ALF! Put your trust in other organisations than the ALF, please!

You're talking to a disillusioned american: I dont trust corporate anything.

All right then i'm saying that much more careful consideration needs to be given to whom is taking part in the experimentation. serious background checks and psychological profiling appears to be getting ignored in exchange for the persons (admittably valuable) skills in his/her field. Hiring of a violent-prone beagle-beater is one example. Such people should never be allowed near these labs. In fact, why not start hiring Animal Lovers?

r3nu4l

Ooooohhhh! It looks like I'm the big bad meanie against everyone else

a5y wrote: »

That's rather disingenuous. If she does she immediately overextends the demands so far she'll not get widespread support for a boycott; and if she doesn't she looks like a latte liberal for not going all the way.

Not really, instea of focussing on one company...and thereby giving the others an advantage why not just advocate and have a day of support for "ethical" products? By telling people not to buy P&G, they'll simply buy the product next to a P&G one in Boots...when that may have been developed through experiments conducted on kittens by a man with a meat cleaver and lipstick! Think bigger people!!!

(emphasis mine)

Er...huh?

At this point it would be a good time for full disclosure, if you are an employee of P&G or an organisation that conducts tests on animals. And if not, it would be helpful to point to documented research that is absolutely vital.

I used to work in a lab, haven't done for a few years now but do work for a company that has medical charities and pharama companies as clients, hence I can't exactly point to what I know...although since I left my last company a certain drug produced by a pharma company has now received several FDA warnings and is under scrutiny thanks to me whistleblowing hidden data to the FDA and EAMA

Whilst the affordability of caterpillars over mice as guinea pigs is fascinating for the number crunchers of multinationals, its a bit irrelevant as far a thread on animal rights goes, it would be like someone thinking they are "more vegetarian" because they are no longer eating beef and are eating more chicken instead.

Agreed but it does get these folk thining and believing that some alternatives may be viable and also gets them pumping more money into cheaper alternative. Rome wasn't built in a day lads and lassies!

Whilst I think you are right, this is the sort of thing I hear from the same people who continually tell me we only use 10% of our brains. Source the facts please.

Look at the WHO website for information on current vaccine, anti-viral and anti-bacterial programs. Know anyone who survived chronic myeloid leukaemia or gastro-intestinal stromal cancer and is still alive after a course of Glivec or Tasigna? I do. Case closed.

Maybe. Although the reverse argument is maybe if testing without the use of animals had been giving the funding and research animal testing has we would be achieving identical results with such an approach.

No. Sorry. Honestly folks the reasons are far too complicated to go into on a thread and I'm not trying to avoid the issue, I'm really not but it would take me hours to explain to people (even those with degrees in medicine and biology who haven't worked in research) why that's not the case. I'm not going down that long and frustrating road...even if it means you don't believe me...so be it!

Both arguments are equally speculative.

See above.

Advice that could well be applied to the same pro-lifers I see outside the GPO, but the telling people what to do is far less useful than bringing specifics and sourced facts with you and letting people make an informed choice.

Agreed but I find that when people have already closed their minds, presenting them with scientific evidence usually results in this:
"Yeah well they would say that, their part of the conspiracy man. Down with the system!"

Trawl the WHO site and maybe the UNICEF site. Look up some bioethics sites and read outside of sites such as the ALF or similar. I'm too tired of having this arguement. It reminds me of the GM food argument.

r3nu4l

Overheal wrote: »

im sorry r3 you lost my respect at "Im sucking their cocks and they paid me for it"

Happens in the USA all the time - we call them Lobbyists; they use money to bribe our politicians, Congressman and Senators into passing legislation which is suitable for them.

Say what you want but your loyalty has been bought. And these people are good - they have many ways to make you feel like what youre doing is right and just: I'm not targetting you as a bad person, just a victim. You sir, have been bought.

I'm sorry you feel that way Overheal, I really am. I've lost total respect for you and don't appreciate your language or attitude. I engage openly in debate and you insult me :mad: Nice, shows your class!

Overheal

my class is not for sale, its that good but like i said in my edit i strongly doubt youre at fault. Like I said, lobbyists are very good at what they do.

Chiaki

It is a global boycott ie stop buying their products. My idea is to take that 1 step further and show people animal friendly alternatives so they will continue the practise as it doesnt affect them as much as they thought it would. eg instead of buying herbal essences buy wella instead.
Obviously im not going to point people in the direction of another animal testing company but im not going to hand people a list of companies and say "here, these kill kittens, go find a companies products that dont" These people probably have 3 kids and million things to do!?
Rome wasnt built in a day, as you put it. This isnt a perfect world, animals dont need to be tested on household, cosmetic and food goods and then vivisected afterwards. I want to p&g take notice and use the alternatives on the market for these types of tests.

A one day global boycott wont change anything, animal friendly alternatives to the product must be readily available. Also i want to pressure politicians to change animal testing laws, the conditions they are kept in and to ensure that this is kept up.

According to iams/eukanuba their testing was on dog/cat food. A large number were tested at home with their owners. i have no problems with this. Unfortunately a small number were kept in labs with vocal chords removed and were vivisected after suffering deplorable treatment. This is what needs to be eradicated, even if humane testing was introduced it would be alot better than some of the lab testing done today.

My ideal is no animal testing, where this cant be done, humanely treated.

Overheal

Well i agree with r3: best way to make p&g take notice is to promote their competitors. This is what happened with Tuna: one company went big with Dolphin Friendly, and now they all are. Nobody wanted to hear that tuna companies were Dolphin Killers but when they picked up a can that said Dolphin Friendly? It made them feel good.

Chiaki wrote:

My idea is to take that 1 step further and show people animal friendly alternatives so they will continue the practise as it doesnt affect them as much as they thought it would. eg instead of buying herbal essences buy wella instead.

Yep: this is what I'm for.

Chiaki

r3nu4l wrote: »

That argument is true. Believe me, for years I was totally against animal experiments of ANY sort.

what changed your mind?

Overheal

Necessity?

Like chicken farms - cramped, almost evil conditions - but thats our fault for being so populous and being huge consumers. Free Range is obviously far more ethical but not at all feasible: its free range cattle farming that is tearing down the Amazonian Rainforest.

For example.

r3nu4l

Overheal wrote: »

my class is not for sale, its that good but like i said in my edit i strongly doubt youre at fault. Like I said, lobbyists are very good at what they do.

I'm more concerned that you think I've been bought when you don't even know me or my position. Silly assumption! I really take exception to that!

Chiaki wrote: »

Obviously im not going to point people in the direction of another animal testing company but im not going to hand people a list of companies and say "here, these kill kittens, go find a companies products that dont" These people probably have 3 kids and million things to do!?

I'm not saying you should...i'm saying instead of saying "company A and B test on animals", simply say "Company X and company Y DON'T test on animals and are just as good!". Most people are far more likely to support this approach than the usual "Oh, here's another ranting looney" approach. There is more than one way to skin a cat...if you'll pardon the poor taste pun

Overheal wrote: »

Well i agree with r3: best way to make p&g take notice is to promote their competitors. This is what happened with Tuna: one company went big with Dolphin Friendly, and now they all are.

Exactly Sometimes the most obvious approach is not the best approach. Circumvent, outflank, divide and destroy!

Overheal

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm more concerned that you think I've been bought when you don't even know me or my position. Silly assumption! I really take exception to that!

You shouldn't: its become my default position when donations/sponsorships are involved. I've seen and heard of too much wrongdoing in Washington by Lobbyists and the like.

Now: skinning cats: are they given anesthetic or not...

a5y

r3nu4l wrote: »

Ooooohhhh! It looks like I'm the big bad meanie against everyone else

I'll try and be civil. Do you need a safety word in case you feel uncomfortable and want me to stop?

Not really, instea of focussing on one company...and thereby giving the others an advantage why not just advocate and have a day of support for "ethical" products? By telling people not to buy P&G, they'll simply buy the product next to a P&G one in Boots...when that may have been developed through experiments conducted on kittens by a man with a meat cleaver and lipstick! Think bigger people!!!

Perhaps bigger thinking is necessary. I don't think P&G on its own is going to halt animal testing, and I question the effectiveness of awareness raising on its own, but ultimately if people don't know objectionable stuff is happening they can't do anything about it

I used to work in a lab, haven't done for a few years now but do work for a company that has medical charities and pharama companies as clients, hence I can't exactly point to what I know...although since I left my last company a certain drug produced by a pharma company has now received several FDA warnings and is under scrutiny thanks to me whistleblowing hidden data to the FDA and EAMA

Nice to know.

Agreed but it does get these folk thining and believing that some alternatives may be viable and also gets them pumping more money into cheaper alternative. Rome wasn't built in a day lads and lassies!

Please source exactly how long it took to build Rome, as again you are speculating*.

*Joke.

Look at the WHO website for information on current vaccine, anti-viral and anti-bacterial programs. Know anyone who survived chronic myeloid leukaemia or gastro-intestinal stromal cancer and is still alive after a course of Glivec or Tasigna? I do. Case closed.

I'd much rather you look up the facts to support your views than have you ask me do it, thanks all the same. Like you said, you've got the biology degree, not me.

No. Sorry. Honestly folks the reasons are far too complicated to go into on a thread and I'm not trying to avoid the issue, I'm really not but it would take me hours to explain to people (even those with degrees in medicine and biology who haven't worked in research) why that's not the case. I'm not going down that long and frustrating road...even if it means you don't believe me...so be it!

See above.

To clarify: your argument is, its too long for me to spend explaining to you, and probably too complicated for you to understand anyways, and if you don't believe me, so be it!

Ever wonder why you feel you are the big bad meanie and against everyone else?

Agreed but I find that when people have already closed their minds, presenting them with scientific evidence usually results in this:
"Yeah well they would say that, their part of the conspiracy man. Down with the system!"

Your faith in humanity is not inspiring me, to be completely honest.

Trawl the WHO site and maybe the UNICEF site. Look up some bioethics sites and read outside of sites such as the ALF or similar. I'm too tired of having this arguement. It reminds me of the GM food argument.

Tell me, what is your stance on genetically modified foods? (Joke)

Actually, here's something that may proof insightful and not too tiresome: without giving away too many details (omit whatever you feel necessary to make you or your former/current employers unidentifiable), could you give us a short account of what animal testing is like in a lab in your experience?

Because as it stands now, the only view of life in a lab is coming from PETA & ALF videos, and I think its fair to say that is not an objective account.

r3nu4l

Chiaki wrote: »

what changed your mind?

A number of things..greater understanding of human biology and similarities and differences to animal biology was one thing. My reluctant involvement in animal experiments and realisation that for what I needed to know I needed those animals and then the fact that the outcome of those experiments has been 30,000 people in the US and Europe surviving every year thanks to me and the people I worked with. That's 30,000 families a year NOT losing a family member because exactly 1200 mice and 176 rabbitts died over the course of 3 years.

I'd love to be have been able to get those same results wthout using animals but for now that's not possible. That's when I moved into looking at non-animal experiments and the caterpillars were the first step. Folks, there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide working on non-animal alternatives. Why? Simply because the tem that perfect the best non-animal alternatives will get fame, glory and above all money for doing so!

Overheal wrote: »

Necessity?

Like chicken farms - cramped, almost evil conditions - but thats our fault for being so populous and being huge consumers. Free Range is obviously far more ethical but not at all feasible: its free range cattle farming that is tearing down the Amazonian Rainforest.

For example.

Now you're talking ...look at all the biofuel nutters, "Ooh biofuels are the way forward"..."Oops, guess they're actually ruining the environment and helping to generate even greater world food shortages. Oh well". Our problem is that as humans, when we recognise a problem, we rush to a solution and more often than not we cock that up! Slow down, take slower steps and w'll actually get there sooner! That's why bioethics committees are struggling to keep up with the pace of development, they are trying to decipher all possible outcomes before giving approval for experiments and new technologies often with religious, environmental, political and anti-establishment lobbyists. Believe me Overheal, the "other side" (I'm not on either one) use lobbyists too and plenty of politicians and people are "bought" by them too!

Overheal

I do question the objectivity of the PETA and ALF source media but we have little else to go on. I second the motion: care to give us a disclosable account r3?

although since I left my last company a certain drug produced by a pharma company has now received several FDA warnings and is under scrutiny thanks to me whistleblowing hidden data to the FDA and EAMA

k i missed that the first read around. respect++.

r3nu4l

Overheal wrote: »

You shouldn't: its become my default position when donations/sponsorships are involved. I've seen and heard of too much wrongdoing in Washington by Lobbyists and the like.

Now: skinning cats: are they given anesthetic or not...

I'm not a lobbyist! I work in medical communications and stay as far away from politicians as I can...I do have standards you know
Poor skinned cats

a5y wrote: »

I'll try and be civil. Do you need a safety word in case you feel uncomfortable and want me to stop?

BDSM?? Ooooh matron!

Perhaps bigger thinking is necessary. I don't think P&G on its own is going to halt animal testing, and I question the effectiveness of awareness raising on its own, but ultimately if people don't know objectionable stuff is happening they can't do anything about it

I agree but once again by saying explicitly "These guys don't experiment on animals but other companies do" then you are not saying anythingis objectionable or not simply letting people's minds work for themselves...

Nice to know.

Thanks

Please source exactly how long it took to build Rome, as again you are speculating*.

*Joke.

Er, I did visit the Colleseum in Rome and the Forum but they didn't say exactly...

I'd much rather you look up the facts to support your views than have you ask me do it, thanks all the same. Like you said, you've got the biology degree, not me.

I know you would and I empathise but I'm sick of this sh!t over the years. I've been trying to educate people for years in as ubnbiased a manner as I can about the real, story of animal research. I'm not involved in animal or even non-animal research any more (thanks to it being a **** career with **** all money) so I'm not as interested.

To clarify: your argument is, its too long for me to spend explaining to you, and probably too complicated for you to understand anyways, and if you don't believe me, so be it!

Yup

Ever wonder why you feel you are the big bad meanie and against everyone else?

Don't really care any more as it doesn't effect my life any more, I know what to buy, I also know what supposedly "ethical" "natural" skin products are full of crap that feels as though it's good for your skin but isn't and in fact, ages skin

Your faith in humanity is not inspiring me, to be completely honest.

That's okay with me, my faith in humanity has been badly let down by people who would rather listen to one side of an arguement and belive it outright without bothering to do their own research and use their own brains to make up their own minds!

Tell me, what is your stance on genetically modified foods? (Joke)

Hee hee, another can of worms for another day

Actually, here's something that may proof insightful and not too tiresome: without giving away too many details (omit whatever you feel necessary to make you or your former/current employers unidentifiable), could you give us a short account of what animal testing is like in a lab in your experience?
Because as it stands now, the only view of life in a lab is coming from PETA & ALF videos, and I think its fair to say that is not an objective account.

True, it may not be objective but who;s to say mine is any more objective? I've no doubt that there are some absolute scumbags working in animal research, either as the head researcher or the lowest technician.

Anyway, my experience: In general, I have found the places I worked to be clean, well kept and the animals well cared for. Many of the scientists I've worked with got into science the same way I did...they loved Nature studies in school and were curious about human and animal life. Most of the people I've known have been pragmatic in their approach insofar as possible. Where I worked, all researchers were forced to feed, clean and nurture the animals they would be experimenting on. That doesn't happen everywhere, in many institutions the researchers never even see the animal, the animal techs do.
In our place we had to feed and nurture animals so that we would develop a bond with the animals. That way, when it comes to the time when you have to experiment on that animal you really recognise and feel something...it's not just another animal. You know the animal and it knows you!

It's not pleasant injecting an animal you know and knowing that a few weeks later you will harvest it's internl organs and examine for biological changes based upon stimulus given.

For the most part experiments involve injecting a mouse, rat or rabbit with a bacterial/viral/potential vaccine component and examining the effects on the blood and organs. It really depends hugely on the type or research, the disease in question etc. Scientists don't like having to repeat experiments unnecessarily, it wastes time and money and also means having to kill more animals. I've been lucky, my research directly saves 30k lives a year and other research will indirectly (I can only claim small credit) save hundreds of thousands of lives (new cervical cancer vaccines) It's that that makes it worth while to me...although I have been involved in experients that yielded nothing...once due to my mistake and I still don't like that thought, those 12 mice died for nothing I don;t like that.

Our man in Havana

Thread re-opened due to several requests.

Now the rules! No personal attacks! No foul language! Lastly whilst this is a very sensitive subject count to 10 before you post! Use your heads I will ban people who abuse the rules!

Play nice now!

Overheal

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm not a lobbyist! I work in medical communications and stay as far away from politicians as I can...I do have standards you know
Poor skinned cats

I know - i might have been more careful with my wording. I was just a little wary of what effect the grants and $$$ had on you - cos it does wonders for politicians and the like :rolleyes: but from your posting it sounds like you havent been tainted

I know you would and I empathise but I'm sick of this sh!t over the years. I've been trying to educate people for years in as ubnbiased a manner as I can about the real, story of animal research. I'm not involved in animal or even non-animal research any more (thanks to it being a **** career with **** all money) so I'm not as interested.

Animal Testing labs not making as much profit as they used to eh? Interesting..

That's okay with me, my faith in humanity has been badly let down by people who would rather listen to one side of an arguement and belive it outright without bothering to do their own research and use their own brains to make up their own minds!

Totally agree. Back in the USA for the holidays - you turn on TV and all the News is these days is bringing on guest speakers that agree with the views of the network, and one guy they bring on to bash the hell out of. I haven't lost faith in humanity: just in the sub-humanity that runs FOX and CNN fortunately the internet is helping bring together the research and the debate into the same package - if theres change to be made its right here the power of influence has been slipping from television for years and they know it.

Anyway, my experience: In general, I have found the places I worked to be clean, well kept and the animals well cared for. Many of the scientists I've worked with got into science the same way I did...they loved Nature studies in school and were curious about human and animal life. Most of the people I've known have been pragmatic in their approach insofar as possible. Where I worked, all researchers were forced to feed, clean and nurture the animals they would be experimenting on. That doesn't happen everywhere, in many institutions the researchers never even see the animal, the animal techs do.
In our place we had to feed and nurture animals so that we would develop a bond with the animals. That way, when it comes to the time when you have to experiment on that animal you really recognise and feel something...it's not just another animal. You know the animal and it knows you!

Let's get that passed into Law, shall we?

It's not pleasant injecting an animal you know and knowing that a few weeks later you will harvest it's internl organs and examine for biological changes based upon stimulus given.

For the most part experiments involve injecting a mouse, rat or rabbit with a bacterial/viral/potential vaccine component and examining the effects on the blood and organs. It really depends hugely on the type or research, the disease in question etc. Scientists don't like having to repeat experiments unnecessarily, it wastes time and money and also means having to kill more animals. I've been lucky, my research directly saves 30k lives a year and other research will indirectly (I can only claim small credit) save hundreds of thousands of lives (new cervical cancer vaccines) It's that that makes it worth while to me...although I have been involved in experients that yielded nothing...once due to my mistake and I still don't like that thought, those 12 mice died for nothing I don;t like that.

but not every researcher or research department is like that and I think thats what we see from the ALF source media isnt it. They dont bother showing us when it goes right. They never sing praise to a lab for treating its specimens well.

so yea seriously - what odds do we have of starting a move to get that into Law? Or is it in law; where you are bound to care for these animals at the near-personal level?

r3nu4l

Thank you Bond 007. I certainly didn't request it be reopened

Anyway, laws do operate differently across the world. Academic institutes and companies worldwide do have to approach local governmental or internal ethics committees before conducting animal experiments.

These days bioethics is a massively growing field covering not just animal and human experiments but also genetic modifications, ethics of introducing new species into a country, introduction of bio-pest-control and numerous other areas. Most bioethics committees consist of Biologists, legal people, philosophers and where appropriate sociologists or psychologists. In short, these committees do try to get as many viewpoints as possible on research but what they will never take on board are views from "radicals" from any side of a debate.

My point? Well many ethics committees do now insist that the researcher has more than just a passing encounter with the animals they experiment with.

Should that be passed into law? It's certainly a nice idea but economics means it probably won't be. You see, many researchers do get paid more than animal-house technicians and in many places the technicians are basically just animal handlers and not scientists as such. They do need to make sure that animals are well-fed, kept in the right conditions (temperature, humidity, light etc.) because many environmental factors can effect the results of experiments.

Researchers however are highly-skilled people and companies would rather they used their time efficiently; in much the same way as the high-powered solicitor shouldn't be spending their day photocopying files and has a PA or secretarial assistant to do this.

On that basis I doubt such a law will ever be passed but as I say it would be a nice idea. Don't forget that medical doctors, police officers and social workers are all people that often have to detach themselves emotionally from situations that would otherwise eat them up if they thought too much about it, likewise many scientists have to do the same.

Now, for the record, I'm talking from my experience only here. The situation has moved on since I left the lab world. Less than 10% of my work during all my time as a lab scientist involved animal research. More than 90% involved analysing proteins from yeast, bacteria and virii (plural of virus) using proteomics techniques. I'm not sure I have any more to offer on this thread but I'll keep an eye on it and answer where I can.

Demonique

Overheal wrote: »

EDIT: given my choice, I'd suspend all animal testing and begin using Human Clones.

Why bother wasting time and money producing clones when there are plenty of skangers around that no-one will miss

Overheal

so THATS were the homeless go!

but from a real control perspective a fresh clone gives you a Control Specimen to work with - imagine having 10 identical clones being experimented on in different ways - very efficient.

Chiaki

r3nu4l wrote: »

Less than 10% of my work during all my time as a lab scientist involved animal research.

The total number of animals experimented on in the EU. in 2005, according to the various governements was :eek: 12117583. None of which included insects, 9766 of these were new and old world monkeys. These numbers obviously dont include America where animal testing is more widespread. 10% of your work included animal testing but thats just you, different companies have different policies and different levels of animal care. Only one country in the EU reported no animal testing,:rolleyes: Malta. Some tests, by their own admission were carried out with no anaesthesia as it interfered with the results. This is the kind of cruelty im trying to highlight.

kerrysgold

Well, the way I look at it is, I wouldn't like to be kept in a lab, probably in a cage or behind glass, and tortured tested on and eventually killed, so, no, I don't support animal testing and try to only buy things that say they haven't been tested on animals.

tribulus

r3nu4l what's your take on the likes of cell hotel and epigen etc. as methods to reduce animal testing?

Do you think using integrated cell systems or grafts like the above will ever fully replace animal models? Does/will the FDA and other regulatory bodies have faith in these methods when it comes to licensing products?

Sorry for the tangent but I think it's relevant to the discussion

Demonique

Overheal wrote: »

so THATS were the homeless go!

Well it beats Soylent Green

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the homeless, I was talking about those lazy shell-suit wearing twunts you see with a fag hanging out of their lips and a can in their hand, wandering around town because they're too lazy to get a job and prefer to collect the dole instead

heirenach

Boycott and Demonstrations are not going to stop animal testing. Its the most primitive way. The best way is to let the consumer know with facts and to get professionals to lead the campaign otherwise its onesided. It cannot be black or white ,animals were,are,and will be used in pharmaceutical industry. Ours as a consumers rights and privileges are to know what companies use live animals to test their products.We should check labels and if it doesnt say 'not tested on animals' we should not buy. Intelligent boycott should involve media giving as much information and true facts to consumers as possible so people can join internationally in much larger scale. This may
get a response from national and international animal protection institutions and they will be able to regulate unnecessary animal testing. I personally think consumers should be more motivated and educated to stand against powerfull and influent pharmaceutical giants.