Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[Ladeira]

I'm pretty crazy. When I posted I did not realize it was page 18. I thought it was a new thread BTW, medicines being tested in dead people? I did not get the point...

[lucaspa]

I'm pretty crazy. When I posted I did not realize it was page 18. I thought it was a new thread BTW, medicines being tested in dead people? I did not get the point...

 

I don't know where that is done.

 

Drugs that are used to treat fatal diseases (such as cancer drugs) routinely undergo Phase I clinical trials in patients in the terminal phase of the disease. That is, when all other treatments have failed and it is anticipated that the patient will die if not treated.

[nan_44768]

Every animals have feelings and want to live their lives without pain. Have scientist ever thought about its? Most researchers only think about how they can become famous and recognized by discovering new drugs that will help prevent and cure humans from deadly diseases. Should they experiment their new drug on something that will give them the same results as animals? Is this a time for them to stop animal testing? Yes, researcher should stop making animals suffer from drugs testing.

 

Federal agencies have estimated that the number of animals in research is as high as 17 million to 22 million each year. Those animals include 50,000 cats, 61,000 primates, 180,000 dogs, 554,000 rabbits and 1 million mice and rats. Rats, mice and other rodents make up 90 percent of animal testing. Scientists are using them to study diseases such as cancer, diabetes and AIDS. So, they can say that killing is not without purpose; it has immense practical benefits for humans who are waiting for medicine to save their lives.

 

Scientists will expose them to deadly diseases to discover and see whether medicines that they have come up with will be able to a cure disease or not. Therefore, 50 million animals are killed annually in U.S. labs for medical and scientific research. For example, the medical research at California National Primate Research Center used macaque monkeys with hope that the experiment will lead to success by slowing the brain deterioration in Alzheimer’s patients. Scientists also use the monkeys to explore potential treatments for human ailments such as cancer. Those monkeys never have a chance to live freely and survive like the others that live in the forest; however, they give their lives testing different chemicals when they are at young age.

 

People are taking care of dogs like their own son or daughter, so it hard for them to a dog go through a heart transplant experiment. Dogs are essential to study for the cardiovascular system and to discover ways to treat and prevent diseases of the heart and arteries. The first attempt was with laboratory dogs at Stanford in the late 1950’s but bodies rejected the new heart. Since then, researchers around the nation have used dogs and other laboratory animals to come up with the drugs to prevent the body from rejecting the new heart.

 

Currently, Scientists have developed valuable non-animal research, such as tissue and cell cultures and computer models. This makes the number of animals in research decrease each year, according to the survey by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Also, the organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) exposed the photographs of mistreatment of seventeen monkeys that were being studied on spinal-cord injuries. The pictures show that the researcher had severed nerves to the monkeys’ arms and testing their ability to use crippled limbs by shocking the animals when they had failed.

 

It hurts my feelings to know that some of our best friends, pet with unconditional love, have to go through the pain of chemical treatment. It is so unacceptable and makes me feel that the researchers have crossed the line even though they could say that animals are close to humans and the medicine that scientists discover will save many lives in the future. There are millions of animals who have died before an experiment has reached success. I think it is a time for people to consider this topic seriously. People who support and are against animal testing should make an agreement with scientists on the number of animals that go through the tests. If researchers do something that is inappropriate with the animals then supporters and detractors can join together against the experiments and the anti-animal testing supports will not threaten scientist’s life. Their action will show that they are concerned about what those animals have to go though in order to find a cure for diseases. The anti testing and supporter could also ask the government to get researchers to produce new technology that will help them come up with a new treatment for deadly diseases. New technology will helps save animals lives and also provide us with safe drugs. So, it will be like we exchange life to extend another life.

[pioneer]

Part of the problem is most of the life sciences are empirical. You can't fully reason things through in logical steps and then run a test or two to verify. The life sciences are done more in sort of a reverse reason where you try something and see what happens and then try to find a reason. Modify it and try again, etc. until steady state. I takes a lot of animals.

 

The analogy is firing a cannon. If you have the rational equations you know where the cannon ball will land, by the math. You do your calculations and then shoot the cannon once or twice just to confirm. But if it not fully rational with equations, like what we currently have, you have keep firing the cannon and adjusting until you hit the target. It uses a lot cannon balls. Each cannon ball is an animal.

 

To reduce the animal casualties, the science has to look more like the first version. Maybe with computer models they can get close and then fire the cannon for verification. You will still need animals but the pile will be smaller. The obvious question is, "why don't they upgrade and save animals?" The answer it is too complicated currently to do that. What would be needed is a simplification that can reduce the complexity.

 

The next question are they working on that? Some are, but you know how tradition is. We have been doing it this way for over a hundred years and if the machine is not broken don't try to fix it. The analogy is, we have the cannon crews adjusting and firing, adjusting and firing, etc. The animals are flying left and right. Poindexter walks in with his equation and calculator and tweaks the cannon, bulls eye. He is assumed wrong because it didn't use the normal amount of animal cannon balls. I looks like magic. In other areas of science this it is not as far from the comfort zone.

[iNow]

Nope. No scientist has EVER thought that animals want to live their lives without pain. None. Never.

 

 

Maybe we should fire bomb the scientists, terrorize their families, and destroy their labs to show how much we don't want people to suffer.

 

http://chronicle.com/news/article/4929/scientist-whose-house-was-firebombed-suffered-bruises-in-escape

 

 

There's a huge difference between trying to protect animals as best we can and being complete nutjobs engaging in some animal rights terrorism. It's like the dumbasses who kill abortion doctors because "life is so precious."

[iNow]

Nan - Have you ever read an actual scientific protocol for experiments using animals? The steps used to maximize their protection is extensive, and while I appreciate your desire to minimize the discomfort caused to animals, I think you are very misinformed about how the process actually works.

 

This is not a black and white issue as you seem to suggest, but is instead a complex issue with many important caveats. It would help you to learn more about how it works before condemning the process outright.

[SH3RL0CK]

Nan,

 

The other consideration that you are overlooking is the incredible medical benefits that can come from these experiments. I don't like the saying that the ends justify the means, but I think it can be true regarding animal experiments.

[windap]

I disagree, experimenting on animals is not the only way to find cures, test drugs or chemicals. The caregiver is the one that tends to the animals, he is the one that sees the pain and suffering. But he/she is only a caregiver and is either too emotional or too stupid. The researcher can not say how the animal feels, they can't talk, often animals suffer in silence, or some of them whimper.

The next decade will be exciting, several countries are not going to use chimpanzees any more. It will be interesting what happens from here.

There were quite a few GREAT scientists that did not approve of vivisection...., their career never suffered, nor their new discoveries.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Every research institution that does animal testing has an ethics committee that checks experiments beforehand to minimize needless suffering.

 

The truth is that there are many experiments that cannot be performed in any other way. You can test a drug on a tissue culture, but that gives you no information about the drug's side effects or how it will interact in a more complex environment (like in an animal).

[cellbioS]

The animals that are used for scientific testing are treated better than some house pets and people, as far as diet and room conditions are concerned. There are many different steps even before animal testing gets approved for a facility to ensure that the best measures are taken. Many protocols have included information about limiting pain and discomfort so that the animals do not feel these. Some protocols have to be stopped do to these issues.

 

Testing is not done haphazardly in animals. Cell and some tissue sudies are conducted prior to animal studies. The funny thing is that some drugs, etc may be very effective when studied in vitro but are toxic once in vivo. That's why animals are used as the alternative would be to put the drug directly into people.

 

The legal animals (cats, dogs, pigs, etc) that are used for testing are not people's pets or even strays. They are bred for the purpose of testing. And, honestly, if it comes down to me or a dog to test a new drug with no in vivo testing, I'm not putting my life on the line. I am an animal owner and am compassionate towards animals but I also realize the other side of it.

[ajb]

Just a silly small pet hate of mine. I wish people would be a little more specific that say "scientists". Lost scientist have nothing to do with animal or medical research.

 

I regard myself as a scientist and I have nothing to do with animal testing.

 

I would rather people said "medical scientist" or "experimental biologists" etc (again not all of them will do animal testing) rather than lump us all together.

 

Sorry for my little rant.

[lucaspa]

Yes, researcher should stop making animals suffer from drugs testing.

 

Nan, are you aware that any animal testing must be done under appropriate pain medication? Euthanasia must be done in a painless fashion. It's part of the requirements every scientist must go thru to get permission to do animal testing.

 

they could say that animals are close to humans and the medicine that scientists discover will save many lives in the future.

 

We do say this. Because it is true. All the wonderful medical treatments you see today, all the "miracles" of modern medicine, are due to animal research. Do you want us to stop those? Do you want us to stop looking for cures for Alzheimer's because you don't want animals to "suffer"? In particular, think of whether you want us to stop working on a cure for a disease that your parents or your children have.

 

There are millions of animals who have died before an experiment has reached success.

 

And there are millions of people who die from the disease before we have success. Do you want people to keep dying?

 

People who support and are against animal testing should make an agreement with scientists on the number of animals that go through the tests.

 

There already is such an agreement. Every time I put in for an animal study, I must justify the number of animals I am going to use. I must justify that there is no other way to get the results.

 

It appears that you are unaware of the existing rules and restrictions scientists operate under. Perhaps I should append a copy of the IACUC forms I, and every other researcher who uses animals, must fill out and adhere to.

 

If researchers do something that is inappropriate with the animals then supporters and detractors can join together against the experiments and the anti-animal testing supports will not threaten scientist’s life.

 

This already happens. When I as a member of an IACUC committee, we shut down the research of the Chairman of Pharmacology because he was 1) not adhering to the rules for care of the animals and 2) was using far more animals than he had requested and said that he needed.

 

The anti testing and supporter could also ask the government to get researchers to produce new technology that will help them come up with a new treatment for deadly diseases. New technology will helps save animals lives and also provide us with safe drugs. So, it will be like we exchange life to extend another life.

 

Again, already being done! NIH comes out with Requests for Applications for NIH grants on new cell culture and computer modeling techniques to cut down the number of animals used. Go to the NIH website and look at the grants requested and awarded.

 

I disagree, experimenting on animals is not the only way to find cures, test drugs or chemicals.

 

Most testing of new chemicals is now done on human fibroblasts in cell culture. It is less expensive than animals and you can screen a lot more chemicals that way.

 

The caregiver is the one that tends to the animals, he is the one that sees the pain and suffering. But he/she is only a caregiver and is either too emotional or too stupid. The researcher can not say how the animal feels, they can't talk, often animals suffer in silence, or some of them whimper.

 

ALL lab facilities must be accredited. One of the requirements for accreditation is policies in place that have the animal care attendants report any suffering of the animals.

 

However, you are assuming that animals feel pain and suffer like we do. As you note, "often animals suffer in silence". How do you know they are suffering? If there is no outward sign of suffering, consider that they are, in fact, NOT suffering. I submit that you are projecting your own emotional state onto animals. How do you know that is valid?

 

The next decade will be exciting, several countries are not going to use chimpanzees any more.

 

I don't know of any medical studies that use chimps. They are simply too expensive to use and there are other, just as good but cheaper, animal models.

 

There were quite a few GREAT scientists that did not approve of vivisection...., their career never suffered, nor their new discoveries.

 

Vivisection is different from animal research. Name a few in the biomedical field, please.

[jdurg]

I work in the pharmaceutical industry and animal testing is simply a necessary evil to ensure that newly found drugs won't kill those they intend to treat. Still, before a chemical even gets remotely close to an animal, it goes through extensive (and I mean EXTENSIVE) modeling in a computer system more powerful than any of us here could even imagine. This testing will see any compound that is potentially harmful and/or deadly and stop the progress right there. Only after the computers state that the compound is "safe" does it go on to the animals.

[foodchain]

I work in the pharmaceutical industry and animal testing is simply a necessary evil to ensure that newly found drugs won't kill those they intend to treat. Still, before a chemical even gets remotely close to an animal, it goes through extensive (and I mean EXTENSIVE) modeling in a computer system more powerful than any of us here could even imagine. This testing will see any compound that is potentially harmful and/or deadly and stop the progress right there. Only after the computers state that the compound is "safe" does it go on to the animals.

 

I would question how much such a safeguard exists really because one it only makes sense to use such and another avenue is it probably works better with economics overall. I would think with more advances in molecular and cellular biology that more accurate drugs could come about, I wonder do you think that models of such systems outside of a whole organism could work? Such as if you could just have certain tissues or organs cloned to work with, do you think such could come to replace live organisms such as a lab rat? I would thinks economics sort of bars such really though.

[iNow]

I would question how much such a safeguard exists really because one it only makes sense to use such and another avenue is it probably works better with economics overall. I would think with more advances in molecular and cellular biology that more accurate drugs could come about, I wonder do you think that models of such systems outside of a whole organism could work? Such as if you could just have certain tissues or organs cloned to work with, do you think such could come to replace live organisms such as a lab rat? I would thinks economics sort of bars such really though.

 

New technology allows us to see tissue and cell level interactions. We can also analyze the chemical compounds and compare those against our existing knowledge of those compounds and how they interact with live cells. At some point, though, once all steps have been taken to understand it at the microscopic level, you must study it macroscopically.

 

I'd argue that most people don't want to harm animals. That makes good sense. Where I struggle is when people are blinded to the reality around them in their attempts to force such testing to stop. The world is complex, and not everything is so black and white. Sometimes we have to do cost-benefit analyses and make tough choices.

 

Again... nobody wants to harm animals (at least, very very very very few), especially the scientists striving to make lives better and improve the world around them. Saying that all animal testing should all stop outright means you're signing the death sentence of many of your friends and family. Not ideal, just necessary.

[lucaspa]

I would question how much such a safeguard exists really because one it only makes sense to use such and another avenue is it probably works better with economics overall. I would think with more advances in molecular and cellular biology that more accurate drugs could come about, I wonder do you think that models of such systems outside of a whole organism could work? Such as if you could just have certain tissues or organs cloned to work with, do you think such could come to replace live organisms such as a lab rat? I would thinks economics sort of bars such really though.

 

Foodchain, what you missed was that obviously harmful drugs were eliminated. That doesn't tell you that the drugs that pass the screening will actually benefit the patient. So, the intent is to eliminate as soon as possible -- via computer modeling -- the drugs that will not work. This is good economics.

 

The next step for testing if the drug is harmful drugs is human fibroblasts in culture. Advanced Tissue Sciences used to sell them. ATS is no longer in business, but other companies have picked up the market. This is often used as the main screening in the cosmetics and chemical industry instead of using rabbits.

 

In the pharmaceutical industry, once the obviously harmful drugs have been eliminated, now comes animal testing for efficacy -- will the drug actually do what the scientists hope it will? A secondary purpose is toxicity -- harmful effects. It's possible that the drug will metabolize to a compound that is harmful that the computer models missed.

 

You talk about organ systems. First, forget clones. Those are too genetically restricted; you want a wide range of genetic variability. You don't want to take a drug to extensive animal testing and then find out that it only works on that one genetic variation in the clone. That mistake has happened too many times as a drug has worked on inbred mice or rats (close genetic similarity) but not on the wider genetic variability of humans.

 

However, animals are expensive. Very, very expensive, both to purchase and to house. Right now rats cost about $30 per rat and it costs up to $3 a day to house them. That adds up real fast. Organ culture is much, much cheaper.

 

However, there are severe limitations with organ culture, particularly with a drug. A lot of the effectiveness of a drug depends on pharmacokinetics: amount of drug absorbed, distribution to the various organs of the body, and metabolism. All those determine the actual concentration of the drug at the particular site you want it. That can't be mimicked in organ culture. However, for toxicity testing, that would be the way to go -- the fibroblasts in culture are basically an "organ culture" system.

 

But eventually you must go into a live animal so that you can see the integration of all the systems. Even if the drug passes toxicity testing in a particular organ culture, it may be toxic to some other organ. And then, of course, there is efficacy testing. As jdurg pointed out, computer modeling is focused on toxicity testing. Yes, before the drug is run thru those particular computer models, it is thought the drug may be effective (otherwise, why bother?), but you need the animal to tell you that it actually will be effective.

 

And, of course, even if it is effective and safe in animals, you still go thru Phase I and II human clinical trials. Phase I to test for unforeseen toxicity, Phase II to test to see if the drug really works in humans, not just rats. Lots of "cures" out there that worked in mice, rats, or rabbits that never worked in people. But before you get to humans you do everything to ensure that the drug is both safe (the #1 priority) and effective in people.

 

People who want to stop all animal testing must face this reality: to give up animal testing means giving up new drugs/treatments for human health and new cleaning solutions and other chemicals that make our lives easier. If you give up animal testing, you freeze our medical technology and chemical technology where it is today. Is that what they really want?

[TheAM]

Foodchain, what you missed was that obviously harmful drugs were eliminated. That doesn't tell you that the drugs that pass the screening will actually benefit the patient. So, the intent is to eliminate as soon as possible -- via computer modeling -- the drugs that will not work. This is good economics.

 

So computer modelling is used to test for efficacy? Later you claim the opposite.

 

 

In the pharmaceutical industry, once the obviously harmful drugs have been eliminated, now comes animal testing for efficacy -- will the drug actually do what the scientists hope it will? A secondary purpose is toxicity -- harmful effects. It's possible that the drug will metabolize to a compound that is harmful that the computer models missed.

 

Given the undeniable differences in metabolism inter-speciem 'it's possible that a drug will metabolize to a compound that is harmful' in humans, that the animal 'models' missed, too. If there is conflict in animal data, which there often is, how does one settle this dispute before proceeding to human testing? That is to say, which is the 'authentic' predictor?

 

 

However, there are severe limitations with organ culture, particularly with a drug. A lot of the effectiveness of a drug depends on pharmacokinetics: amount of drug absorbed, distribution to the various organs of the body, and metabolism. All those determine the actual concentration of the drug at the particular site you want it.

 

Yes, and all of the above factors vary significantly and unpredictably between species, making it impossible to reliably extrapolate between them.

 

 

That can't be mimicked in organ culture.

 

Nor can they be accurately 'mimicked' in animal 'models'.

 

 

But eventually you must go into a live animal so that you can see the integration of all the systems.

 

No two biological systems are identical, the differences between mouse and man are much greater than the differences between two members of the same species, yet it is considered dangerous and unscientific to attempt extrapolation from, for example, adult to child, so how can it be done from laboratory animal to human patient? The 'live animal' experiment only tells you about it's system, not systems in general, hence it is both uninformative and misleading.

 

 

Even if the drug passes toxicity testing in a particular organ culture, it may be toxic to some other organ.

 

Then the sensible suggestion would be to test it for toxicity in that organ too.

 

 

And then, of course, there is efficacy testing. As jdurg pointed out, computer modeling is focused on toxicity testing.

 

You appear to have contradicted, jdurg, when you earlier state that computer models are used to remove the drugs that 'will not work', i.e. efficacy testing, not toxicity.

 

 

Yes, before the drug is run thru those particular computer models, it is thought the drug may be effective (otherwise, why bother?), but you need the animal to tell you that it actually will be effective.

 

An animal experiment can only tell you if the drug 'actually is effective' in the animal tested upon. Not whether the drug is effective in general.

 

And, of course, even if it is effective and safe in animals..

 

...there is no guarantee that it wont both be useless and potentially deadly in humans.

 

 

 

you still go thru Phase I and II human clinical trials. Phase I to test for unforeseen toxicity

 

Or to confirm seen toxicity, in the case of conflicting outcomes in different animal species? A predictor is only any use afterall, if it gives one reliable outcome.

 

 

Phase II to test to see if the drug really works in humans, not just rats...

 

...rats with fake conditions that bare little or no resemblance to those natural, spontaneous diseases that occur in humans?

 

 

 

Lots of "cures" out there that worked in mice, rats, or rabbits that never worked in people. But before you get to humans you do everything to ensure that the drug is both safe (the #1 priority) and effective in people.

 

The first line contradicts the second one. The latter one makes absolutely no logical sense, either taken in isolation or when placed back into the context of the paragraph it belongs to.

 

 

People who want to stop all animal testing must face this reality: to give up animal testing means giving up new drugs/treatments for human health and new cleaning solutions and other chemicals that make our lives easier. If you give up animal testing, you freeze our medical technology and chemical technology where it is today. Is that what they really want?

 

Clearly a false dilemma, as animal tests are completely uninformative, hence the requirement for human tests and dangerously misleading in most cases.

Edited August 25, 2008 by TheAM
not telling

[iNow]

Clearly a false dilemma, as animal tests are completely uninformative, hence the requirement for human tests and dangerously misleading in most cases.

 

Your post seems to be one big strawman about what lucaspa was actually saying. And, how can you say that "animal tests are completely uninformative?" You just ruined all credibility with that closing comment.

[Mr Skeptic]

[lots of bullshit]

 

TheAM, if a drug works for an ass, then it will probably work for you. If a drug is safe for an ass, it will probably be safe for you. This is because you and an ass are both mammals, and are very similar at the cellular level. Basically, animal testing can find medicines that work for all or most mammals, rather than only a certain species, since mammals are so similar to each other.

 

If you actually had honest doubts about animal testing, consider that it is only one phase in an imperfect process of elimination. Here is a condensed version:

 

First, a drug to be tested is arrived at. It could be a naturally existing drug, or a random chemical.

If it is a random chemical, use computer and theoretical models to eliminate, as much as possible, chemicals which would be toxic or ineffective. (keep in mind that real world testing is expensive, so they want to minimize it)

Then, the chemical can be tested on live things, working the way up from cell cultures, tissues/organs, animals, and finally people. Each phase costs more than the previous phase, both in money and in ethical concerns.

 

In each step of testing, the objective is to eliminate unsafe and ineffective drugs as early as possible. You are correct in saying that this process can allow unsafe/ineffective drugs to make it to human testing, or eliminate safe/effective drugs before human testing. However, the process works, and works well. If you have a better process for finding new medicines, feel free to share.

[TheAM]

Your post seems to be one big strawman about what lucaspa was actually saying. And, how can you say that "animal tests are completely uninformative?" You just ruined all credibility with that closing comment.

 

If you believe that i have misrepresented any of the statements or inferences of lucaspa then i would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to present a list of such perceived happenings. Otherwise your own response could rightfully be interpreted as evidence of a somewhat smaller strawman on your part and the charge of projection be levelled against you.

 

The vast majority of animal experiments, predominantly for reasons of species-variation, and additionally due to other factors, such as poor experiment design give incorrect 'information', hence are clearly not informative, they are in fact misinformative. The remaining tiny percentage are cast adrift amongst the preponderance of misinformation, hence cannot be informative either. If you do not know whether or not something is 'informative' then clearly it isn't.

[iNow]

So when they tested insulin on dogs last century that didn't inform them of anything? Give me a break.

[Sayonara]

TheAM makes his assertions about the reliability of animal testing despite the vast libraries of evidence, which are added to every single day, demonstrating clearly that it DOES work.

 

I wouldn't bother arguing with that kind of position tbh. You won't get through.

[TheAM]

TheAM, if a drug works for an ass, then it will probably work for you.

 

Well this stands to reason, what with both yourself and I being members of the same species, there is a vastly increased likelihood that it will. But, juvenile pejorative exchange aside, 92% of drugs that pass animal safety/efficacy experiments fail when given to humans on safety/efficacy related grounds. This fact would seem to invalidate your assertion that if a drug works, or is safe, in some other random species that it will 'probably' work, or be safe, in humans.

 

 

This is because you and an ass are both mammals, and are very similar at the cellular level.

 

The word 'similar' really doesn't haven't any scientific meaning.

 

If you actually had honest doubts about animal testing, consider that it is only one phase in an imperfect process of elimination.

 

Given that the predictive value of any given species for another is less than the toss of a coin, it is clearly the most 'imperfect' and unscientific part of an 'imperfect process'. Indeed, it reduces proceedings to that of a sham. How can any serious scientific mind consider something less predictive than sitting down tossing a coin up in the air and calling heads or tails, to be acceptable?

 

 

 

Then, the chemical can be tested on live things, working the way up from cell cultures, tissues/organs, animals, and finally people. Each phase costs more than the previous phase, both in money and in ethical concerns.

 

Presumably the 'cell cultures, tissues/organs' are human in origin. If they're not, they really should be. If they conflict with the animal-data as they invariably will, which do you go with? If for example, tests of a chemical compound on human liver cells show that it is toxic, but when tested in dogs it is seen to be 'safe', or vice-versa, which results overide the other? The whole-intact but ultimately different and misleading system, or the directly applicable human cells? As one is less accurate than tossing a coin while the other is around 80% + accurate it makes sense to ignore the animal-data in favour of the human cells, but would this be the case?

 

 

 

 

In each step of testing, the objective is to eliminate unsafe and ineffective drugs as early as possible. You are correct in saying that this process can allow unsafe/ineffective drugs to make it to human testing, or eliminate safe/effective drugs before human testing. However, the process works, and works well. If you have a better process for finding new medicines, feel free to share.

 

Every drug on the market is 'ineffective' or 'unsafe' in some species or another and very effective and extremely safe in others. It isn't known until after human experiments which species is an accurate 'model' for the human response, hence why they cannot be predictive. I do not consider a 92% failure rate to be evidence of a system 'working well'.

 

So when they tested insulin on dogs last century that didn't inform them of anything? Give me a break.

 

 

As the dogs in question did not have diabetes i would have to say, 'no'.

[iNow]

As the dogs in question did not have diabetes i would have to say, 'no'.

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=304028

 

That one link among the thousands which exist completely destroys your point.

 

 

TheAM - I love animals. I am a HUGE supporter of animal rights, and I don't want them to suffer with nearly every fiber of my being. However, even I cannot sign on to your approach here which is laden with falsehoods and logical fallacies. You will never achieve the goal you seek by lying to people and misrepresenting the truth.

[Mr Skeptic]

Presumably the 'cell cultures, tissues/organs' are human in origin. If they're not, they really should be. If they conflict with the animal-data as they invariably will, which do you go with? If for example, tests of a chemical compound on human liver cells show that it is toxic, but when tested in dogs it is seen to be 'safe', or vice-versa, which results overide the other?

 

That's the part you are not understanding. If any of the tests show a drug is toxic, the drug gets dumped. Why test it on animals if it kills cells?

 

The whole-intact but ultimately different and misleading system, or the directly applicable human cells? As one is less accurate than tossing a coin while the other is around 80% + accurate it makes sense to ignore the animal-data in favour of the human cells, but would this be the case?

 

My advice then is, you'd make a fortune in the pharmaceutical industry with your coin. Maybe you could sell that coin for a few billion dollars.