Animal testing: vetinary drugs

[Dak]

I'm curious: to those who are opposed/not entirely happy with animal testing, what are your oppinions on animal-trials of drugs that are intended for vetinary use, or have dual human-(insert other speiceis here) use?

 

eg, if you think it's wrong to give a rat a drug, and then kill & dissect it to measure the biodistribution of afformentioned drug, in order to test a potential canser-treatment drug to be used in humans, what are your thoughts on doing the same to develop an anti-cancer drug intended to be given to rats?

 

what about using, say, lab-rats to develop a drug intended to treat horses?

[Dr. Dalek]

I'm curious: to those who are opposed/not entirely happy with animal testing' date=' what are your oppinions on animal-trials of drugs that are intended for vetinary use, or have dual human-(insert other speiceis here) use?

 

eg, if you think it's wrong to give a rat a drug, and then kill & dissect it to measure the biodistribution of afformentioned drug, in order to test a potential canser-treatment drug to be used in humans, what are your thoughts on doing the same to develop an anti-cancer drug intended to be given to rats?

 

what about using, say, lab-rats to develop a drug intended to treat horses?[/quote']

Must admit it seems a bit ironic to kill one animal to save another.

But it is at times necisary to do an evil in order to do a good. (or is that the other way around)

[In My Memory]

Dak,

what about using, say, lab-rats to develop a drug intended to treat horses?

I think we should test drugs on people to treat horses.

[Dak]

volunteers?

 

or criminals

[wiggy]

There should be enough machines to test drugs on in thery but there isnt!!!!

 

We should test drugs on murders, rapist, pedophiles

Or volunteers

 

The only way you know a drug will work 100% is by testing it on someone who has the condition the drug is intended to treat.

 

We have different immune/nervous systems to say a rat so why do we test on them!! And as recent press has said that even when a drug is 'safe' for people sometimes it isnt and we die.

 

Im against animal testing 110% and always will be, I know alot of people are for it for drugs but against for cosmetics which is fair enough but we dont NEED to test on animals but I think we do because people wouldnt trust a drug if it wasnt tested on a beagle!!!!

[aj47]

There should be enough machines to test drugs on in thery but there isnt!!!!

We have different immune/nervous systems to say a rat so why do we test on them!! And as recent press has said that even when a drug is 'safe' for people sometimes it isnt and we die.

 

Im against animal testing 110% and always will be, I know alot of people are for it for drugs but against for cosmetics which is fair enough but we dont NEED to test on animals but I think we do because people wouldnt trust a drug if it wasnt tested on a beagle!!!!

 

Although animals might not have identical immune/nervous systems to humans, enough pharmaceutical research has been carried out to show that they are similar enough for animal testing to be used as a reliable means of testing the safety of a drug. True there have been cases where people have died or been injured through drug trials, but when you take into account the immense number of drugs tested over the years, these cases are extremely rare.

 

I should also point out that drugs do not come straight out of the lab to be immediately tested on animals. On average it takes 12 years from synthesis, for a drug to be put on the market. In that time a variety of methods are used to test the safety of the drug i.e. computer simulations and in vitro cell culture, and animal testing is one of the last stages.

 

The only way you know a drug will work 100% is by testing it on someone who has the condition the drug is intended to treat.

 

Human trials are always used when a pharmaceutical company is researching a drug, but before the trials can be carried out, animal testing is needed to predict whether the drug is safe enough. Do you really suggest researchers should skip animal testing and test potentially unsafe drugs on humans.

 

We should test drugs on murders, rapist, pedophiles

 

I really hope you are joking.

[Drug addict]

There should be enough machines to test drugs on in thery but there isnt!!!!

 

We should test drugs on murders, rapist, pedophiles

Or volunteers

 

The only way you know a drug will work 100% is by testing it on someone who has the condition the drug is intended to treat.

 

We have different immune/nervous systems to say a rat so why do we test on them!! And as recent press has said that even when a drug is 'safe' for people sometimes it isnt and we die.

 

Im against animal testing 110% and always will be, I know alot of people are for it for drugs but against for cosmetics which is fair enough but we dont NEED to test on animals but I think we do because people wouldnt trust a drug if it wasnt tested on a beagle!!!!

 

No drug can ever be 100% 'safe', because drugs interact with systems in the body and so will have untoward effects. When a drug is licensed, it means that it is safe enough to use in the general population. The definition of safe depends on the drug and there can be a wide variation. For example statins are considered fairly safe (rhabdomyolysis occurs in about 1 in 100,000 patients), but clozapine is also licensed, and therefore considered safe enough to use, but causes agranulocytosis in 3% of patients. If you look at medicines.org.uk and look at any drug (uk trade names), you'll see that pretty much any drug can have serious adverse effects.

[Dr. Dalek]

Dak,

 

I think we should test drugs on people to treat horses.

 

You seem to have some kind of malace against your own species.

As one of your species I resent that!

[Dak]

Must admit it seems a bit ironic to kill one animal to save another.

But it is at times necisary to do an evil in order to do a good. (or is that the other way around)

 

but, you'd be killing x animals to save y, where y is more than likely greater than x.

[GutZ]

Dak,

 

I think we should test drugs on people to treat horses.

 

That's a waste, horses are glorified cows, better allow it on some type of cool animal that natural selection didn't feel sorry for.

[Gypsy Cake]

I know a lot of people will get annoyed about the continual arguments against testing on animals. Personally though, I think its and important part; to ensure that the testing is necessary and humane. Of course I don't condone any sort of abuse towards animal-testers.

I am, by the way, pro-testing.

[MarilynM]

Sup Peeps. This is your transexual friend Marilyn Manson! What I say for animal testing is that we go for it. We only use animals that are over populated for testing AND we kill more in hunting or road kill.

 

I WANT YO COOKIES~ kicker

[Dr. Dalek]

Sup Peeps. This is your transexual friend Marilyn Manson! What I say for animal testing is that we go for it. We only use animals that are over populated for testing AND we kill more in hunting or road kill.

 

I WANT YO COOKIES~ kicker

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o_o . . . . . . . . . . Uh, okay . . . .

 

Anyway I recently hear a statistic that suggested that animals have less health problems in an environment they are native to. Since things like hoarses, and cows are not native to north America it is possible we would require less drugs for animals if we selecivly breed native, naturalized animals for the same purposes. So we wouldn't need as many drugs or test subjects if we ate more commercial venison and less beef. As for hoarses, domestic stock heavily mixed with mustangs would benifit from hundreds of years of natural selection against disease.

[lucaspa]

Sup Peeps. This is your transexual friend Marilyn Manson! What I say for animal testing is that we go for it. We only use animals that are over populated for testing AND we kill more in hunting or road kill.

 

I WANT YO COOKIES~ kicker

 

Actually, Marilyn, we mostly use animals that are specifically bred for use in research! All mice, rats, dogs, rabbits, cats, and pigs used in research today come from companies who do nothing but breed these animals so that they can be used in research. It is no longer permissable to use stray dogs and cats that are going to be killed by animal shelters. Those animals instead are killed -- usually by placing them in a hypobaric chamber.

 

Orthopedics is starting to use goats and sheep as an intermediate between rodents and humans and these are basically farm animals that, instead of being killed due to old age or food, are used instead in research.

 

There are very few institutions set up to use large animals such as horses or cows as research animals. I think the number is less than 10 in the entire USA. Therefore the number of such animals used per year is probably less than 100.

[etrader]

It is an unending issue

 

Without such tests, it is not possible to develop medicine, which is needed for civilization, and on the other hand ...

 

I think, it should be against ABUSE

[lucaspa]

Without such tests, it is not possible to develop medicine, which is needed for civilization, and on the other hand ...

 

I think, it should be against ABUSE

 

And that is what started the issue: clear examples of abuse. Which were also bad science. The classic example was the video of a research assistant waving a blowtorch over an anesthetized pig in order, supposedly, to study burns.

 

This was stupid as science because the burn was going to vary widely from animal to animal as the researcher varied the number of passes, the width of the passes, and the distance from the skin. Thus the variations from animal to animal were going to overwhelm any consistencies about what happened with a burn. A much better way would be to heat a metal block to a constant temperature and then place it on the skin for a defined length of time. The area and severity of the burn would have been clearly defined. Anyone could then have understood the science involved. But the video just looked like sadism on the part of the scientists.