Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Sign up in favour of animal experiments

The petition   123 votes

  1. 1. Will you sign?

    • Yes, animal experiments are necessary for good science
      80
    • Yes, more as a balance to the thuggery of animal rights extremists
      8
    • No, amimal experiments can't be justified
      27
    • No, and I'm on my round to your house with my mates
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

143 posts in this topic

This was on the BBC radio the other day, and here's the BBC Online article about it. The idea is to give the silent majority a voice to counter that of the rather vocal folk at Peta, and some of their rather more violent cousins. If you see it another way it's designed to reassure the scientists (and everyone else) who get harrassed daily by masked thugs that society is behind them and their work.

 

Sadly, I suspect the vast majority of the UK have no idea what this is all about and until it features in a TV soap won't care about the implications. It will be interesting to see what the results are - currently 9585 people have signed. I suspect that the silent majority will remain precisely that.

 

The petition

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sign up and support this!

 

post-5920-1145691476.jpg

 

The outer layer of the eye, the cornea, is one of the most sensitive tissues in the body, so any damage is very painful. In the Draize test irritating products cause severe ulceration and even blindness.

 

Irritating products on the skin can make it red raw. Obviously this kind of injury is extremely painful.

 

In the LD50 test half the animals are made so sick that they die. They may suffer symptoms such as abdominal pains and cramps, convulsions, vomiting (in some species), paralysis, diarrhoea, breathing difficulties, bleeding ulcers and so on.

 

At the end of each test all animals are killed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few experiments on animals that could be considered necessary, but three million animals are killed in scientific experiments each year in the UK alone. No way on earth is this number justifiable. Most of these experiments have already been undertaken, but the commerical-competitive nature of much medical research (as opposed to working together to make progress) ensures numerous duplications.

 

Moreover, as any fule kno, animals are not humans and therefore react differently to specific chemicals. A good example sadly occured just a few weeks ago in the UK, when six healthy volunteers in a drugs trial ended up in intensive care. The drug had apparantly been passed as safe after tests on animals (Story).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So sign up and support this!

and you would rather this was done on humans instead?

 

The reality is there are no cosmetic animal tests in the EU now. Even before the current legislation is was only New Chemical Entities that were required to be tested on animals.

 

Animal testing IS still a requirement in the regulatory process of developing medecines. This stringent and highly regulated process of testing which takes about 15 years consists of ever more sensitive screens to assess safety and effectiveness:

 

When a new therapeutic drug lead is discovered and has been patented it is first screened against biological targets and known targets in in vitro assays. Some of this can be accomplished in silico, or using bioinformatics platforms on computer. But ultimately, absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion can only be assessed using a living animal model. Assays and computers cannot model for example, liver toxicity. And so a very small number of animals are used to assess this toxicity. Many drug entities fail at this stage and are never progressed with.

 

But for those that do and appear to be 'safe' in an approved animal model, the next stage is to prove the concept that this chemical or biological entity actually does what it is intended to. It is necessary to do this as international agreements and ethical laws the world over, drafted after the evils of Mengele in WW2, require that a drug company must have very good evidence that a drug entity will be of tangible benefit before any testing can be done on humans.

 

So, an animal model of the disease is developed and the drug is tested to see if it exhibits the desired therapeutic effect. Depending on the disease, regulatory authorities are stringent in the requirement for appropriate animal models. But this is also balanced, in the UK at least, by powerful ethical comittees from the Home Office that license all animal experimentation. The result is that all animals must be housed comfortably and it must be demonstrated that they will not suffer undue stress. The numbers must also be kept down to a statistical minimum.

 

It is only once this proof of concept has been estabnlished and the drug shown to be safe and efficacious in animal models that it can move into human studies (first Phase I safety studies with healthy volunteers, the Phase II efficacy studies in a patient group and then finally long term Phase III efficacy studies in a large number of patients).

 

For me, it is important that people who oppose animal experimentation understand all of the above. In my experience few do and instead take the fluffy bunny rabbit good, scientist bad attitude to the whole argument.

 

Garribaldi, if you really do oppose animal experimentation then to avoid the charge of rampant hypocrisy you should refuse ALL medication and surgical procedures as a matter of integrity. Not one licensed medication, medical device, diagnostic test or surgical procedure is permitted in humans in Europe without having been tested on animals first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are a few experiments on animals that could be considered necessary, but three million animals are killed in scientific experiments each year in the UK alone. No way on earth is this number justifiable.

How the fuck would you know? Do you sit on ethical committees that approve all the experiments? Thought not. Then don't make suchb absolute stat5ements from the point of view of manifest ignorance.

 

 

Most of these experiments have already been undertaken, but the commerical-competitive nature of much medical research (as opposed to working together to make progress) ensures numerous duplications.

Actually the opposite is true as anyone whho has worked in vivisection (myself included) could tell you if you cared to listen. Animal experimentation is more regulated and scrutinised than any other form of research and you canmnot obtain a license for experimentation without a long period of ethical consideration that cansiders whether the research is actually necessary.

 

 

Moreover, as any fule kno, animals are not humans and therefore react differently to specific chemicals.

I was waiting for this particular canard - redolent as it is of frank scientific ignorance. Actually most approved animal models react in the SAME way as humans do to chemical entities. The exceptions are a tiny proportion of the overall number of chemical entities and are now so well characterised that in the unlikely event that a related chemical is in trials, such considerations will be factored in.

 

 

A good example sadly occured just a few weeks ago in the UK, when six healthy volunteers in a drugs trial ended up in intensive care. The drug had apparantly been passed as safe after tests on animals (Story).

Tegenero is actually a German company though the research was being carried out in the UK. The research was into immunological applications of antibodies - a highly risky venture as anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge could tell you. Therapeutic antibies provoke immune responses which can be used to treat diease but the risk is always that if the dose was too high the immune response would be so strong as to elicit anaphylactic shock as it did in the whole cohort of healthy volunteers in the trials. The same thing would have been seen in animals with high doses but it is actually extremely hard to estimate that dose when moving from an animal to a human. The result is that it is unlikely that immunological superantibodies will ever reach the clinic again in Europe for that reason. Some in the know have questioned why human trials were ever approved in such an area with inherent risks.

 

THE SAME IS NOT TRUE of the thousands, yes thousands, of other chemiocal and biological products that successfully move from the animal to the human that do not have such obvious inherent risks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HellesAngel Today, 7:34 am Post #49

 

5) In fact, dogs in general. Stupid fucking creatures.

6) German kids running riot, parents just smiling at the little shit ignoring everything it's doing

 

Just a few things HellesAngel, doesn't like! :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

small sample but note that a small majority in the above poll support animal experimentation no matter how shrill and loud the oponents can be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog owners beware! Poison found in English Garden

HellesAngel Posted on: Nov 9 2005, 11:25 pm

Go on Cookie, how do you get from poisoned dogs to keying BMWs? Not that i'm either a dog friend, nor a BMW fan. Shoot the dog that did the shit you trod in, key the BMW of the fucker who forced you off your bike, fair enough, but I'm struggling with your logic.

:ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quit baiting HerllesAngel and address the points I have raised garibaldi. Fromn this perspective you just look like a hypocrite.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the silent majority grows and grows, seems even TT overwhelmingly supports animal experimentation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ bell the cat

 

The reality is there are no cosmetic animal tests in the EU now. Even before the current legislation is was only New Chemical Entities that were required to be tested on animals.

 

________________________________________________________________________________

______

 

post-5920-1145699151.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must not take bait... Must not take bait...

 

No, I don't like dogs. And I don't like people who aren't considerate of others, but random poisoning seems like a bad idea, and not likely to achieve the goal of making people clear up after their dog.

 

But what's the link to animal experiments?

 

Damn, took the bait.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and the silent majority grows and grows, seems even TT overwhelmingly supports animal experimentation.

17 votes!!!

Is this the kind of statistic result that keeps you happy with your experiments?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reality is there are no cosmetic animal tests in the EU now. Even before the current legislation is was only New Chemical Entities that were required to be tested on animals.

are you deliberately being stupid or did you not read what I wrote?

 

I'll make it clear for you then:

 

in 2003 the EU banned ALL testing of cosmetics on animals in member states. Further, a phased ban on all cosmetic products tested on animals is being implemented stage by stage up to 2009.

 

Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, academic and medical use of animals in experimentation is very heavily regulated. All animal experimentation in EU states is bound by EU Directive 86/609/EEC. Such animal experimentation is ESSENTIAL in the development of new medicines, diagnostics, medical devices, biologicals and surgical procedures.

 

If you really are opposed to it then show some integrity and refuse all medical treatment from now on.

 

Alternatively, come to your senses and recognise that animals in experimentation have the potential to relieve tragedy, pain and death for millions of human beings. I call that a price worth paying.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 votes!!!

Is this the kind of statistic result that keeps you happy with your experiments?

don't be specious. On its own a sample of 17 doesn't tell you anything. Most pollsters rely on samples of 2000 as a minimum. And time and time again such polls have indicated a majority in favour of animal experimentation. Which seems to be backed up by the poll above.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta vote for it, its needed to progress medicine, in a perfect fluffy world there would be no need to do this, and no violence and disease either to neccesitate doing this but that isnt the world we live in

it aint great but it is needed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garibaldi, you do seem to have a knack of missing the finer points...

 

I don't think anyone is happy with animals being used for experiments. I don't think anyone derives any pleasure from using animals this way. The point is to see how many believe that it is morally defensible to use animals for human purposes - after all the whole of nature uses other animals for their own purposes, usually for food. Half an hour watching the Discovery or Nat Geo channels will show you this in its brutal reality.

 

You can then make the point about we should be more morally developed than the rest of the animal world, but we are. Humans cure many diseases that are inevitably fatal without medical intervention, both in humans and animals. You must agree that the advancement of medical science benefits all species. Is there any proof that animals are being tortured for the sadistic pleasure of those doing it? What would be the motivation to deliberately inflict suffering for the sake of it? Doesn't this clearly indicate that in the opinions of those involved in animal research it is a necessary step, with no alternative?

 

So, then we come to the difference of opinion. Some say it is necessary to experiment on animals, some say it is not. If there were clearly an alternative wouldn't it be done by now, considering the expense of animal testing? As a parallel example Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that blood transfusions are banned by the bible's teachings and medically unnecessary. The rest of the world views that opinion as stupid science, and JW's rightly as fruitcakes. Yet, ask a JW and they'll show you lots of research that backs their claim up so we and the JW's agree to differ in opinion, it's their lives after all. The point is you don't get masked JW thugs beating up transfusion doctors and burning clinics to force their views onto everyone else so why do animal rights supporters do this? I can understand the passion, the pictures above are emotive, but when does it become OK to intimidate anyone who is associated indirectly with a lab in defence of animal rights? Just imagine what society would be like if everyone took this approach to get their views across. Now tell me who's morally superior.

 

What about animal experiments for medicines that benefit animals? Would that be OK? You get my point.

 

To be fair to the animal rights groups they have done a good thing preventing unnecessary cruelty and alerting society to the problem of preventable cruelty but when will they pat themselves on their backs for a job well done and go back to their day jobs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be fair to the animal rights groups they have done a good thing preventing unnecessary cruelty and alerting society to the problem of preventable cruelty but when will they pat themselves on their backs for a job well done and go back to their day jobs?

actually I disagree with this. Animal rights extremism is a recent phenomenon and most legislation around animal testing predates it, having been established by SCIENTIFIC ethical committees.

 

All animal rights extremism actually does is make animal experimentation prohibitively expensive because of security measures that are now necessary and sky-high insurance costs. The net effect of THAT is to mean that the cost of medicinal products has had to go up massively in recent years to recoup these losses - medications for diseases of huge unmet medical need like cancer, AIDS and diseases of the developing world.

 

I don't buy the crap that there is anything laudable at all in animal rights. It is just blinkered, ignorant extremism that adds to the sum of human misery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You took away my olive branch... Still, that animal experimentation is now so expensive seems to indicate that it really is absolutely necessary to test drug efficacy. The arguments against are not compelling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0