Are you for or against animal testing?
kidkewlsgirl8888
2012/08/22 23:27:22
|
|
|||||
|
149 votes
|
|
70% | |||
|
64 votes
|
|
30% | |||
The kinds of people who do it as a job .. i dont want to know, fu##ers.
I've seen and heard more horror stories of animals being mistreated outside of the research world. Animal researchers are held to much higher standards than someone who buys a pet or picks a stray up off the street. Who is there to stop animal abuse? Police perhaps? We hope. A concerted neighbor - rarely. In the lab, our animal facilities are scrutinized by local and federal agencies regularly. Some even volunteer to be inspected more frequently to earn accreditation from AALAC, which holds high standards in laboratory animal care. Everything we do relies on the animals being healthy and happy. And since we have the same compassion for animals that you do, we don't like to see animals suffer. The idea of the mad scientist is a fa...
I've seen and heard more horror stories of animals being mistreated outside of the research world. Animal researchers are held to much higher standards than someone who buys a pet or picks a stray up off the street. Who is there to stop animal abuse? Police perhaps? We hope. A concerted neighbor - rarely. In the lab, our animal facilities are scrutinized by local and federal agencies regularly. Some even volunteer to be inspected more frequently to earn accreditation from AALAC, which holds high standards in laboratory animal care. Everything we do relies on the animals being healthy and happy. And since we have the same compassion for animals that you do, we don't like to see animals suffer. The idea of the mad scientist is a fantasy, made for movies.
Because researchers have held their tongues for so long, only one side of the story has been presented to the public. Well it's time for the truth. A scientist doesn't just wake up one day and say, "I wonder what this drug will do if I inject 50 rats with it?" We go through rigorous questioning by the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) and have to explain exactly what the experiments will entail, why we're doing them, verify it hasn't already been done, and justify the research being done. They have the power to say "no, you can't do that." And the IACUC must have a person outside of the institution representing the views of the "lay person." If you want the power of being able to say, "I think that research is unnecessary or cruel to animals," be that representative on the committee or at least let your opinions be known to them.
That's the only effective way to make change. Violence and "liberations" only negatively impact the animals.
You cannot be an animal lover if you are interested in torture sentient beings like the cats experimented in UW-Madison: they were tormented to death in pointless experiments just to get NIH grants.
There is also a good refutation in the comments of your article
http://aac.asm.org/content/55...
Quoting from conclusions:
--
it is important to note that our animal models of chronic TB infection differ significantly from humans with pulmonary TB
--
Have a look at the following article: another example of a effective drug that might be excluded from clinical trials because uneffective in "animal model" of TB:
"RESEARCHERS FIND LOW COST DRUG WIPES OUT DRUG RESISTANT TB,
BUT WORRY IT MAY NOT REACH PATIENTS IN NEED"
From Weill Cornell Medical College:
http://weill.cornell.edu/news...
Animal research harms both animals AND humans.
Your second comment is about a different drug but either way you say that the drug was significantly hindered by bad animal data. Here is the problem with the assertion, the researchers knew right after they collected data was that the animal- through a mutation of a known liver emzyne- metabolizes the drug faster than humans. They likely learned this by testing the blood concentration of the animals for the drug and said "oh wait the half life of the drug in this species is too short to do anything." So they were not in the dark or anythiing and they did not believe that because of the failed test that the drug itself didnt work. The simple solution and the one they likely moved on to is to test the drug in some other species. you need to test in two nonhuman species to go ahead with a cli...
Your second comment is about a different drug but either way you say that the drug was significantly hindered by bad animal data. Here is the problem with the assertion, the researchers knew right after they collected data was that the animal- through a mutation of a known liver emzyne- metabolizes the drug faster than humans. They likely learned this by testing the blood concentration of the animals for the drug and said "oh wait the half life of the drug in this species is too short to do anything." So they were not in the dark or anythiing and they did not believe that because of the failed test that the drug itself didnt work. The simple solution and the one they likely moved on to is to test the drug in some other species. you need to test in two nonhuman species to go ahead with a clinical trial. That could be rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkies, etc. There is no derth of animal models, it is just some are easier to get ahold of than others. So in reality it probably did not slow down research too much, especially since the problem was known.
Of course you will never tell me about the hundreds of drugs that look great in vitro and in silico but upon testing on animals prove to be nephrotoxic. Which then saves the human volunteers from having to get a kidney transplant (also developed with animal studies)
Also pharmacokinetics only tells you you about metabolism, it does not prove anything about the drug actualy working
"In one particularly horrible experiment, described in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan’s book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, macaques were fed only if they pulled a chain that electrically shocked another monkey, whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. The majority of the monkeys preferred to go hungry rather than pulling the chain. One refused to eat for 14 days."
http://www.winnipegfreepress....
Experiments on animals is just a cruel, indecent, practice; people who do it have no ethics, nor compassion, they are just interested in publishing for career advancement. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps...
Does a PETA employee really sound like a reliable source? Calorie reduction of 20-30 percent is fairly routine and is a safe diet in humans. The animals metabolism will adjust to cope. Calorie restriction is also found to increase life in many organisms, perhaps not some primates using this protocol, and is very well documented, google it
"macaques were fed only if they pulled a chain that electrically shocked another monkey, whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. The majority of the monkeys preferred to go hungry rather than pulling the chain. One refused to eat for 14 days".
This is a just a torture, monkeys are sentient beings, they feel pain and fear, they suffer for torture inflicted to conspecifics. So you cannot torment them just for speculative experiments.
The problem is that experimenters don't have any ethic, they are just interested in career advancement, this is the only reason behind AE nowadays.
I am skeptical if this person is accurately portraying what really happened. ALF harrassed a girl for preforming "cruel" experiments on fruitflies. I am gonna need more verification to believe anything that comes out of this guys mouth as the absolute truth
“ALTRUISTIC” BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS MONKEYS
Jules H. Masserman, M.D.; Stanley Wechkin, PH.D.,
AND William Terris, M.S.
Originally published in: The American Journal of Psychiatry Vol 121. Dec. 1964. 584-585
--
CONCLUSIONS
1. A majority of rhesus monkeys will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expense of
electroshock to a conspecific.
--
Just pure sick cruelty, not science. The animal research harms both animals AND humans.
Research does save, and it is a lot easier to argue that at least some research does a measurable amount of good than to say all of it does nothing as you imply. I can say there are abuses but I can also bring up vaccines and all other advances that are dependent on animal research. But then you would have to refute every example of a benefit produced by animal research, which is pretty impossible
So, how can we prevent abuses? By setting more restrictive laws and closer controls.
But... bad news: animal researchers will fierce oppose any proposal of serious restriction, because they want to be free to torture to death as many animals as they can.
We, as citizens, have the right take our stance to stop horrible and useless experiments.
The thing is nobody is going to work with ARA groups if they are abolisionists
Read "Spinal Cord Injury Research Hampered by Animal Models?", Stem Cell Research News, that explains why you cannot extrapolate data from animal to humans:
http://www.stemcellresearchne...
(refer to P. M. Rothwell, The Lancet, 13/07/2006 "Funding for practice-oriented clinical research")
The animal model is an outdated, unreliable and misleading practice.
At the same time a single protein interaction can disrupt any claimed "gene similarity".
You can easily understand that any test made on animals is far to be predictive for human beings, because of the huge amount of differences in gene expressions and protein networks.
The reason why we should completely abolish the animal model as predictive tool is well explained in the following article by R. Greek, MD.:
"Animal models in an age of personalized medicine" - Personalized Medicine (2012) 9(1), 47–64:
http://www.futuremedicine.com...
This is the future and we should invest on this approach instead of give resources to the archaic animal model: it doesn't make any sense to invest in valve devices when you have discovered the transistor.
Whole mouse is more predictive than mouse liver cells or perhaps even human liver cells
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that animal tests do work, not always, but well enough to warrent the huge costs of maintaining colonies. If they did not work it is unlikely researches would want to foot that bill
I give you a bad news: we are in 2012, nowadays the medical research is more hampered than helped by animal research.
Maybe in the past AR had some justification, nowadays the over-reliance of the medical research on the animal model is a serious threat.
Look at this scientific, peer-reviewed article:
"Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research", PLOSOne, Hope R. Ferdowsian, Nancy Beck, Sept. 2007
http://bit.ly/pIZWC4
--
It is clear that there have been many scientific and ethical advances since the first publication of Russell and Burch's book. However, some in the scientific community are beginning to question how well data from animals translates into germane knowledge and treatment of human conditions.
Efforts to objectively evaluate the value of animal research for understanding and treating human disease are particularly relevant in the modern era, considering the availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies to address research questions.
--
The over-reliance is a major concern. The number of animals is increasing: this is not a good news, both from ethical and scientific reasons.
The animal model is slowing down medical progress tremendously.
Now, given all that here is me agreeing with you on some of this. Animals are overused at times, and pressure from pharma companies generates bad protocols, Google the forced swim test for an example of a useless test. The paper is right, we should be vigilant of making too many generalizations from animal data, I accept that totally. However this does not mean that the animal model is slowing down medical progress more than it advances it or that animal models are useless nowadays. Things need to be improved and streamlined though
No medication (inc hayfever tablets, inhalers, painkillers),
No hairdye,
No super glue,
No animal food for pets (animal food is tested on animals. And not just a "taste test"),
No medication for pets,
No medical injections,
AND please ask your family to do the same. If they suffer from diabetes, cancer, etc, TOUGH, because that is the choice you have made. Please stick to your beliefs.
http://youtu.be/hTaS7Z3z4e0
http://youtu.be/hTaS7Z3z4e0