Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[SH3RL0CK]

My 'agenda' is to educate those who might be reading this thread and who are being fed misinformation. I have quite a few clues about this subject.

 

If you are trying to "educate", then you should provide valid links to backup your statements. These links should be credentialed, respected, peer-reviewed, and relatively recent scientific sources, not a PETA blogger.

 

If you are trying to propagandize without a supported arguement, then carry on as you are, although I don't think many people here will agree with you.

[lucaspa]

I have to say I share your bewilderment over chemotherapy. Considering how advanced much of our medical technology has become, it seems almost a barbaric assault.

 

The problem is that we are trying to kill human cells. It's easy when we make antibiotics for prokaryotes: there are a LOT of differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes and therefore we can make drugs that have no effect on human cells.

 

But what are the differences between cancer cells and normal ones? Not that many and they are all subtle. The most easily seen difference is that cancer cells divide rapidly. Therefore the first attempt was to get drugs that interferred with this division and killed cells that were dividing.

 

Most human cells do not divide very much in the adult. Muscle cells and osteocytes don't divide at all. Other cells, such as adipocytes, endothelial cells, nerve cells, tenocytes, etc. don't divide very much. One of these cells can go years without dividing. Unfortunately, there are a few cells in a few tissues that do divide fairly rapidly: intestinal lining cells, hair follicle cells, hematopoietic cells, etc. So these get affected, too, and we get the side effects.

 

The real problem with cancer is that natural selection is true. All our medical advances can't get around that. We can kill off 99.9% of the tumor cells, but all we've done is ensure that the tumor grows again from cells that were resistant to the treatment.

 

Vivisection ? It is wrong because it is cruel. It is also scientifically flawed. No one can tell in advance if results in non-humans can be extrapolated to humans. No wonder that most clinical trials fail after the drugs seemed to work well in non-humans.

 

You are confusing vivisection with drug testing. Two different things. And animal studies using "vivisection" or surgery have been very good at extrapolation to humans because the anatomy is so close.

 

There has been so much corruption involved in medical research and drug development/marketing , and so much money has been thrown about in bribes and inducements, that the data these people produce cannot be relied upon.

 

There is motivation for drug companies to fudge the data. Not so much for academics in medical research. There we get gigged if we don't call them as we see them. The motivation for drug companies is why there are regulatory agencies like the FDA to monitor things.

 

If there are any areas where these can't accurately simulate a human being it must be remembered that other animals can't simulate humans with any reliability.

 

That's not true. The reliability has not been that bad. As you note, the reliability is so good that drug companies sometimes try to hide their animal data because it is unfavorable! If the animal testing were not reliable, they wouldn't have to do that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

Vivisection could be responsible for the scrapping of drugs that were ineffective in, and harmful to, non-humans but that would have been useful to humans.

 

So, are you volunteering to test one of these rejected drugs?

 

It's interesting that vivisectors use the word 'sacrifice' when they mean 'kill'.

 

No, we don't. We use the word "euthanasia".

 

Placebos have a placebo effect.

 

That's why clinical trials are designed in such a way as to eliminate the placebo effect. Haven't you ever heard about "randomized double blind" studies? Phase II clinical trials are all randomized double blind.

 

PC - As rats aren't humans, you can't be sure that any neurological testing or any drugs would affect humans in the same way.

 

You can't be sure. It's very difficult in science to be sure unless you have falsified a theory. But animals can provide good models that greatly increase our chances that a drug will be both safe adn efficacious when tried in humans.

 

PC - Knowing about other animals won't help to produce a computer programme for humans. You need to know about humans. There is already an insane amount of research and most of it is not applicable to humans.

 

1. Because of evolution, knowing about other animals does help us know about humans. We are related to other mammals by descent with modification.

2. And that part of research "not applicable to humans" is part of the falsification I talked about above. That is the part we are certain about. However, we wouldn't know it was not applicable to humans unless we had done it first.

 

And opposing vivisection is opposing bad science that fails to reliably find cures for humans.

 

And yet we have all these cures because of research on animals! How about that?

 

PC - I'm not sure what the US legislation says but the UK one is so worded that any researcher can claim that the suffering that will be involved in their research is essential to the outcome.

 

You can do that in the USA too. It's a Category C study, in which pain relieving medication can't be used. It's very difficult to get a Category C study approved. The justification must be airtight. I speak as someone who sat on an IACUC for 8 years and have submitted my own proposals -- none of which have been Category C.

 

As I said above, the whole system is shot through with corruption and nothing these people say can be reliably taken as gospel.

 

But of course the AR people are all saints, with no agenda and they would never distort the truth for their cause, would they?

 

Most drugs are just slightly altered variations of existing drugs. Why is cloning done in non-humans instead of humans? One answer is that rats and monkeys never make complaints and are unable to sue.

 

No. The major reason is the legal/ethical status of the clone: is it fully human or a piece of property? There are also technical/practical reasons:

1. Cloning so far is very inefficient, requiring 500 to 1,000 ova for every clone produced. It's difficult to get that many human ova. Are you willing to donate yours?

2. It turns out that some of the enzymes necessary for the initial divisions of the fertilized ova reside in the sperm in humans. Therefore primate and human clones are more difficult to generate than rat or mice clones.

 

For some researchers, the aim is to stay in work and get grants - if they happen to make something useful, it's a serendipitous bonus.

 

WOW! You really like to slander researchers! How many do you personally know?

 

jdurg (post 216):

'If you give a drug to an animal test subject and it dies shortly after ingesting the drug, then you have a pretty good idea that it will be toxic to humans.'

 

PC - But you couldn't be sure until a human is given it. And you can't be sure that a drug that does no harm to a rat or a dog won't harm a human. A drug that kills another animal might be a wonder drug for humans.

 

Again, are you willing to volunteer to take a drug that quickly killed a rat? Or are you going to think "rats and humans are both mammals and any drug that kills a rat is likely to kill me."?

 

Dr. Dalek (post 253):

Often rare side effects aren’t detected until the drug reaches the market.

 

Notice that word "rare". And sometimes that happens. Often the drugs do not have an unpredicted rare side effect.

 

PC - They take it from the still beating heart of a foetus in a slaughtered cow in a slaughterhouse. It is thought that foetuses feel pain and might feel it more intently than adults. This foetus might be close to birth time. Serum-free culture should be used. Bovine culture can contain diseases and cells that could affect the outcome of experiments.

 

Don't you think we would use serum-free media if we could? The reason people started using fetal bovine serum was because the cells died in serum-free media.

 

PC - You can test a drug in a rat's stomach and a dog's stomach without any side-effects. But it might kill humans. You do not know until you try it in humans if the rat and dog gave the correct answers. ... Their data would be believed but the data from in silico and other non-vivisection methods wouldn't be - because for years vested interests have been spewing out propaganda.

 

Because up until recently none of the in silico systems were accurate compared to the known data we already had from animals. If your in silico program predicts drug A will be harmless but you know from previous testing that drug A caused liver toxicity, then you don't trust the program. Duh! Remember GIGO. A computer program is only as good as the input. If that is flawed, then the output is flawed. And up until the last 5 years or so, we didn't have enough data to model complex whole animal interactions. We still don't for most things. That's why you have to use the whole animal.

 

PC - There are humans in Africa who have been given untested drugs. After their governments were given large cash payments.

 

So why should you object? After all, since you think animal testing can't predict what happens in humans, why not use humans? According to you, using humans as the first line of testing is the only way to go.

 

However, you have cited a lot of "programs" but not documented any of them. Please do so.

 

PC - GammaMambo was expressing an opinion. He or she believes it is all right to experiment on certain humans. You are of the opinion that it is all right to experiment on non-humans. That is just an opinion, too.

 

"opinions" or positions get discussed to determine their validity. Saying something is an "opinion" doesn't exempt it from critical evaluation.

 

lucaspa (post 296):

'As I noted, male rats are quite capable of looking at newborn rat pups as a tasty snack.

 

PC - Is it normal for rats to behave this way? Would a rat in the wild do this?

 

Yes to both. In the wild the dam finds a secluded spot away from the male: a defendable spot. However, in a cage there is no way to do this. Nests are usually in corners, but the male is right there.

 

PC - Several sites about rats say that rats make good fathers. Of course, they are talking about rats that are not tortured and that haven't been driven insane in rat Belsens.

 

Once the pups grow fur, I've never seen a male rat eat them. But newborn rats are vulnerable.

 

PC - Some animals have an instinctive behaviour that makes them go still when a predator catches them - they might struggle at first but soon stop.

 

This wasn't that. Rats fight off predators. Basically, once a rat gets used to a procedure, you can do anything you want with no risk. Even for the first couple of times (and I witnessed that), when the rats were carefully immobilized so that they would not bit the researcher, then don't flinch or show any outward signs of pain to the injection. Their entire objection is to being held.

 

No thoughtful person would think they weren't feeling pain or alarm.

 

You need to be careful about projecting your human perceptions on other animals. You make a big deal about rats and humans not being predictors about human reactions. Consistency demands that you do the reverse: what happens with humans cannot be used to say other species are the same as humans.

 

PC - Do you, lucapsa, know how to recognise pain in rats?

 

Yes. I have seen rats in pain from infection, inadequate anesthesia, or failed bone fixation.

 

As your job depends on causing pain or terror to animals, anything you say about vivisection should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

 

PC, my job in no way "depends" on causing pain or terror to animals. Most of my research is cell culture. Nor do any of my animal experiments require the animal to have any more pain and/or discomfort than a human undergoing the same procedure. Therefore all my protocols include the same analgesic treatment a human patient would get.

 

But it appears that you have no first-hand experience of animal behavior. Your positiion depends on animals feeling pain and you don't want to hear any contrary evidence. Therefore, by your own logic, anything you say about how much pain animals feel should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

 

PC - We really need to be careful when considering anything a vivisector says. They make their living causing pain and fear. They will say anything to try to justify what they do.

 

That's a convenient way to get rid of evidence against your position, isn't it? Since that same argument applies to yourself just as well, why should we pay any attention to you?

 

PC - Why do vivisectors have to use euphemisms? When they talk about euthanising, they mean killing. It is killing, not sacrificing.

 

I didn't say "sacrifice", did I? I said "euthanasia". And the reason is twofold:

1. We don't like killing animals. We really don't like seeing them in pain. My first experience with animal research occurred as a junior in college. I was at Kansas U Medical Center working with a guy studying whether the drug antabuse was an effective means of preventing alcoholics from drinking again. For the experiment he needed to know precisely how much water the rats had. The way to do this is to put measured water in a syringe and the "needle" has a ball on the end. Hold the rat, put the ball at the back of the throat, tilt the syringe and needle up, and have the needle slide down to the stomach and then inject the water. The guy showed me this very quickly (he had done this thousands of times). The second rat I did I missed the esophagus, got the trachea and injected 15 ml of water into the rat's lungs. He thrashed for several seconds as he drowned. I threw up. It obviously haunts me today.

2. Euthansia is different from "killing" (so is "sacrifice"). Killing does imply pain and fear on the part of the victim. Euthanasia implies the lack of both. I like carbon dioxide inhalation. But the rat into a box and run carbon dioxide thru it. The rat quietly goes to sleep. A colleague prefers cervical dislocation in the mice he works with. Why? Because, according to him, he can dislocate the cervical vertebrae in a hundredth of a second, sparing the mouse any pain.

 

Another euphemism, 'Final Solution', sounds nicer than the reality of what it meant.

 

PC - Has your research found a cure? I would have you stop what you are doing. I would have you do human-based research, which would use every non-vivisection method that was needed.

 

The articular cartilage defects were completely regenerated to the point that you can't tell where they were. Now, how can I do "human-based research" without vivisection on humans? Is it OK to do vivisection on humans? If so, why isn't it OK to do so on rabbits?

 

PC - Sciecewiz originally said that over a million animals a month are killed in vivisection. In the UK alone, more than 3 million animals were used last year. I'm sure that at least 2 million of these will have been killed.

 

Who is Sciecewiz and what is your source? Please give a citation.

 

It is estimated (estimated because not all animals are recorded) that well over 100 million animals are used each year in labs. How many are killed? Probably most of them. This estimate comes from anti-vivisection advocates the BUAV and also the Hadwen Trust.

 

And why should we trust these people? Oh yes, you depend on them and they agree with you. So of course they are trustworthy.

 

lucapsa (post 307):

'Do you know what an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is'

 

PC - Do you know how much corruption there is in medical research and drug making? Can any committee be fully trusted when the drug companies want profits and have millions to use in bribes?

 

You didn't answer the question. Do you know what an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is? Do you know the mandatory composition of these committees? Have you ever sat in on any meeting of one? If not, how can you say how much of their deliberations are due to "corruption" or whether the committee people can be trusted? BTW, one of the requirements is that committee members can receive no compensation whatsoever. The IACUC I served on for 8 held our meetings at the local Olive Garden so that we got free lunches. Most committees don't get that.

 

Mr Skeptic (post 310):

'Animal testing speeds up research and in doing so saves human lives and increases human comfort.'

 

PC - How do you know it speeds up research? How do you know it is not holding up research? Don't ask the vivisectors, they are biased.

 

Look at the results in advances in medicine over the past 50 years.

 

lucapsa (post 315):

'In the United States ALL clinical research MUST go through an IRB -- Institutional Review Board. The purpose of the IRB is to safeguard the interests of the test subjects.'

 

PC - Did you know that many, or sometimes most, members of IRBs have financial connections of some sort with drug companies?

 

No, they don't. They can't. Anyone having connections to drug companies can't serve on an IRB. In fact, we had an example in ethics this year of a physician working for a pharmaceutical company that wanted to teach residents in clinic. This was allowed only under the condition that her prescription use was monitored to ensure that she was not overly prescribing the drugs her employer made. After a year -- during which she was clean -- she asked if she could join the IRB. She was told "absolutely not" because of the potential conflict of interest.

 

I'm afraid the people you trust have given you some really bad information.

 

PC - lucapsa then said that he or she doesn't know of payments for phase 1 clinical trials. The recent phase 1 trial for TGN1412 involved payments to volunteers.

 

Please cite a source! In the USA the rules expressly forbid payment for participation in Phase I trials.

 

Unless they are in Africa or India where they are duped into thinking they are getting some revolutionary, already tested and safe, drug.

 

That is an ethical problem, not a scientific one. And I agree with you; this is wrong. Patients must be counseled as to the risks of the participation.

 

PC - A certain communist country in the far east has a very high execution rate. One theory about why they sentence so many people to death is that they want to harvest their organs for transplants. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

Which one? As you should have noted, I was arguing against using unwilling human participants in human trials. However, it is unclear why you think this is so. After all, you say the only way to test new drugs is on people. So why not use people? My position is that the ethical thing to do is test animals first.

 

lucaspa (post 333):

'Well, you have just admitted that you are not holding a rational discussion because you won't accept any data contrary to your view.'

 

PC - I took lovejunkie02's meaning to be that he or she wouldn't believe any vivisector who claimed that the lab animals are treated humanely.

 

Same thing. You won't accept any data contrary to your view. All you've given is an invalid reason why you won't accept any such data.

 

People who experiment on anyone who can feel pain and terror would not convince me that they are humane or that they treat their victims humanely.

 

So what about physicians? They "experiment" on you every time they treat you. By your logic, you shouldn't go to a physician. But I bet you do.

 

Just as I wouldn't believe the rapist who says that his victims were asking for it.

 

Apples and oranges. After all, we can consult the victim. And you can inspect the animal protocols and visit animal research facilities to check for yourself to see that the animals are treated humanely. PC, what you are forgetting is that science is public. Everyone must be able to get the same results in approximately the same circumstances.

 

I've offered to post the IACUC forms I have to fill out. The requirements for IACUC and IRB committees are publicly available, as are the inspection criteria for animal facilities to meet AALAC approval. Look for yourself.

 

lucaspa (post 333):

'The reason I ask is because the animals I work on -- and yes, I do animal research -- are treated just like human patients. Right now we are doing an bone gap model in rats. The rats are anesthetized with ketamine and acepromazine....'

 

PC - I'm not sure that I would believe anything you say.

 

See? Not a rational discussion. If you are close to New York, you can come watch one of the operations. Or I can give you the name of some undergrad students who have participated.

 

How do you know those animals feel no pain? Human patients have reported feeling pain whilst under anaesthetic.

 

Same way human patients are tested: to a mild pain stimulus. In this case a toe pinch. If the animal draws the foot away, anesthesia is not complete. Now, just what percentage of human patients have reported pain while under general anesthesia? This is not local; but general. Complete unconsciousness.

 

Animals that feel no pain can still feel fear whilst conscious.

 

So do humans! Don't you feel fear/anxiety before an operation? I know I have. So why do you want a condition to apply to animals that we can't satisfy for humans?

 

lucaspa (post 333):

'After all, we do have to exploit other species as animals. Isn't a farmer's field another type of cage? Would you have use give up farming?'

 

PC - If you are talking about sheep and cows, yes, I would have us give up farming. Animal farming.

 

How about plants? The plants are in a cage, aren't they? They are grown and then savagely killed -- oftentimes torn out by the roots.

 

How about a lion hunting? Or even a domestic cat hunting a bird or a mouse? How much fear does the prey feel? Or pain as the carnivore bites down on the neck? You are trying to duck the issue: every species exploits other species. This is completely unavoidable in animals; every animal must at least exploit plants.

 

mooeypoo (post 336):

'Perhaps but the problems start with defining what a "Good Cause" is (to you it can be one thing, to me another, and we each can consider each-other's subjective 'good causes' as absolutely not worth it), and the second problem is what TYPE of actions justify what type of means.'

 

PC - Yes. There were causes good enough for the Aztecs to sacrifice humans. There are causes good enough to lead one nation to attempt genocide.

 

lucaspa (post 345):

As a member of an IACUC, we shut down the research of a scientist for not taking proper care of his animals.'

 

PC - I have already mentioned that committees and regulatory bodies involved in this cruel business can be corrupt.

 

That is your wishful thinking.

 

Whatever is decided, there's no way to ensure researchers stick to the rules.

 

Yes, there is. Did you miss my statement how we closed down a researcher for not following the rules? I've kept it for you. Animal facilities must be regularly inspected. Since IACUC members cannot receive any compensation, what is the source of corruption?

 

Bank robbery is against a law. That doesn't stop bank robbers robbing banks. They know there is a high risk of getting caught. They do it all out in the open. The punishment if caught is a long prison sentence. Researchers have little chance of getting caught if they break their laws.

 

Your premises are wrong. Researchers have an even better chance at getting caught if they break the rules. Remember, they have people outside their lab caring for and inspecting the animals. People whose jobs depend on the researcher following the rules. If the researcher doesn't and then they get caught in an FDA or USDA inspection, the animal facility is shut down and the caretakers are out of a job.

 

They do it all behind closed doors.

 

IACUC meetings are open to the public. You won't trust me but then you say false things that anyone can look up and see are false! Who has the credibiliity problem here?

 

The punishment - if any - is minor.

 

Not for the scientist. You might perceive it that way because there is no jail time involved, but having your research shut down is a MAJOR punishment.

 

lucaspa (post 345):

'It's not entirely "subjective". We can define what ethical principles we agree on (and these are not derived "subjectively", either) and then reason to conclusions.'

 

PC - I, and many others, would not agree with you on what is ethical.

 

That does not mean it is all subjective. Either you are I might have made a mistake in either our premises or our reasoning.

 

lucaspa (post 345):

'What I find is that a lot of the emotion against using animals for testing comes from examples that are stated but do not exist. Some of the examples are outdated. They did exist but were the reasons regulations and IACUCs were established; to eliminate those situations.'

 

PC - No, I don't believe that IACUCs or the FDA can eliminate those situations.

 

Oh, but they did. For instance, one of the early pieces of evidence against using animals in research was a video showing a researcher waving a blowtorch over the skin of a pig to cause burns. No researcher could possibly perform that research today.

 

PC - I might have mentioned this before but I don't believe what vivisectors say.

 

Several times! However, you can read the regulations for yourself.

 

Humans cut corners, they don't always bother to adhere to rules and regulations.

 

But now the burden of proof is on you to back that claim. You must show specific instances where the rules are not adhered to. Please do.

 

PC - How do you know these wonderful cures couldn't have been made without vivisection? Or that vivisection resulted in better cures being scrapped? Using non-humans is a lottery. You can't know which data will be applicable to humans. Most of it isn't.

 

1. Because we never would have had the necessary tests for efficacy and safety without going to animals. You seem to forget (altho you argue for it) that research in humans is extremely limited. There are lots of experiments we simply are not allowed to do in humans until there is animal data. So we couldn't have made it to human clinical trials without the animal data.

2. It's possible that "better" treatments were scrapped. The system is biased towards safety at the expense of efficacy. Do you want to change that bias? Your other comments say "no".

3. Using non-humans is NOT a "lottery". That is part of the mythology AR people must have. After all, if animal testing is predictive of human success, the AR position crumbles. So in this instance, by your own criteria, we can't trust anything you say. However, it is demonstrably otherwise. I can provide several instances where we can trace a successful treatment/drug by the scientific publications and you can see how animal testing was critical. OTOH, you must show how, in the last 50 years, the majority of new treatments/drugs were not based on animal research. Please do so.

 

lucaspa (post 358):

'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.'

 

PC - I'm sure it's a drop in the ocean compared with the money spent on marketing drugs.

 

Irrelevant answer. The original claim was that there was NO sponsored research on animal alternatives. This shows otherwise. Also, NIH funds are completely separate from money spent marketing drugs. You simply can't compare the 2. Of course the pharma companies market their drugs; companies market cars, houses, computers, and every other product. So what? It costs over $500 million to bring a drug to market. The companies have to recoup that cost or their are no new drugs.

 

lucaspa (post 358):

'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.'

 

PC - The same could be said about children's homes and retirement homes. From time to time, reports of abuse emerge. But the residents are not supposed to suffer abuse. Does that stop abuse? Does it heck as like!

 

As you admitted, the policies do stop abuse! "From time to time". Yes, occasionally individuals will get around any system. By your logic, we should shut down children's and retirement homes because there will be abuse! So stop taking care of those children and old people, a very few of them will be abused! Do you see the flaw and irrationality in your argument?

 

PC - Animals are complex and one species cannot be a reliable model for another.

 

You've repeated this several times. Since this argument is essential to your AR stand, why should we believe you? You have motive for making this statement. As I noted in other posts, the literature is full of papers making comparisons between animal models and human conditions so yes, one species can be a reliable model for another. As just one example, guinea pigs are a reliable model for human vitamin C deficiency.

 

When all the steps have been taken to test a drug at the cellular level and its chemistry has been analysed and it is time to test it in a whole, living orgnism, that organism should be a human.

 

Really? And I suppose we are going to see you at the head of the volunteer line?

 

lucapsa (post 362):

'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?'

 

PC - New cleaning products are not needed - especially not if their development leads to the harm, pain or death of any animal. Non-humans can't be relied on to predict toxicity or efficacy. Has anyone mentioned that before?

 

You've mentioned it, and it is still wrong. Non-humans have been used to predict both. I notice you did not mention new drugs/treatments. Since you think that there are a lot of undesirable side effects to any new drug in humans, why would any human volunteer to test a drug without animal testing first? Would you? So the end result is still a complete halt. If that is what you want, then be honest enough to say so.

 

lucaspa (post 372):

'That is the fallacy. Pharmacokinetics are remarkably similar between mammalian species. The distribution of metabolic routes of drugs is different, but all the routes are there in different mammalian species.'

 

PC - Slight differences anywhere can have large implications.

 

And they can have NO difference. Look, no one says animal testing is perfect and eliminates all risk when we go to humans. That's why we have phased human clinical trials. But before we ask a human to take the risk, the animal testing has provided data that the risk is minimal and worth it. You have a very low regard for your fellow humans if you want to just pump any new compound into them first.

 

lucaspa (post 372):

'That's a bare assertion. Please post the peer-reviewed scientific papers to back that up'

 

PC - What, the peers who are vivisectors? That's rather like asking a freemason to back up the story of a fellow mason or to denounce freemasonry.

 

The claim was about scientific data that was said to exist! Therefore we can rightfully expect to have scientific papers documenting that scientific data. Sorry, you can't claim "science" and then say that there is none!

 

You really don't understand how science works, do you? We as scientists get fame by showing things to be wrong. Think about it. Einstein is famous for showing Newton to be wrong; Hawking is famous for showing Einstein to be wrong. Darwin is famous for showing all the Special Creationists to be wrong. It works at all levels of science.

 

lucaspa (post 372):

'Because of evolution, the differences between species are not as great as you make out.'

 

PC - The differences are great enough. If they weren't you could go straight from mouse to patients .

 

Sometimes we can. The use of adult stem cells for recovery after heart attacks did go from mice to human clinical trials. And they are working out quite well!

 

 

lucaspa (post 372):

'Again, untrue. Because of evolution many of the biological systems are very similar.'

 

PC - Not similar enough when condidering how a drug will work.

 

lucaspa (post 372):

' The actual record is that animal efficacy is a strong predictor of human efficacy.'

 

PC - Can you guess what I am going to say? Correct - give that person a cigar! It is not strong enough when considering what a drug will do.

 

It is very late. I can hardly keep my eyes open. To be contiued.

[Mr Skeptic]

There is the fact that most new drugs fail when tested in humans. They didn't fail in the earlier non-human tests otherwise they would be unlikely to go to human trials. The results, in those cases - the majority - aren't repeated in humans.

 

Keep in mind that most chemicals are either toxic or inert to start with. If there were less chemicals, they would be tested far more extensively. As it stands, there are far more chemicals than could be written in all the libraries in the world, so the focus is on quantity and cost rather than on finding a use for every single one of them.

 

And I am trying not to be rude but this forum is very different to other forums I have been on and I find it puzzling. I won't say more as I don't want to be rude.

 

It's a science forum. Most forums don't require people to provide scientific evidence for what they claim. It can take a while to get used to for some people, and some never get used to it.

 

In my mind, using any animal that can feel pain or fear in ways that will cause it pain or fear or that will cut short its life, is cruel. As has been said before, at one time it was not thought cruel to kidnap humans, take them across the sea, and make them work as slaves.

 

It has always been thought to be cruel. It was also legal and convenient. Just like everyone accepts that war is cruel, but wars are not outlawed.

 

This is well known. Probably why there is such an interest in pharmacogenomics. But other species are even worse models for humans than other humans are.

 

Yes, but if you accidentally kill or harm a human in a trial, it is far worse both morally and economically than harming an animal, or even several animals. The morality part of that is my opinion, but the economic portion is a fact. If you feel that it is preferable to test drugs on humans than on animals, please volunteer to test drugs on yourself so that animals don't have to.

 

In any case, animals are far more closely related to us than you realize. To give an example, some amoebas respond to the same chemical signals as used by our bodies, and respond in a similar manner as white blood cells. And that's about as far from humans as you can get. Mammals are extremely similar to us, other than our cerebral cortex.

[jdurg]

Ugggh. It's very painful reading through this thread, but thankfully this hasn't broken out into a personal assault against each other. Thank you!

 

Now, I think there are some ideas in people's heads that need to be cleared up. First of all, drugs aren't discovered by just throwing things together in a pot and hoping something good comes out. It starts out by defining what it is you are looking to treat. Companies spend years researching the disease/impairment and trying to figure out what is causing it. Look at the advances in HIV research. Science has begun to figure out exactly how the virus works, replicates, and infects cells. This has led to much better treatments as the treatments can be developed based on these modes of attack.

 

So the company now has a condition/disease in mind that they want to treat. They will now investigate more into what is causing that condition/disease. (This is all considered the "Research" part of R&D). Once they think they have discovered a pathway that they can develop a new drug for, they begin the chemical research. They try and synthesize this chemical, and if they do, they then run it through numerous analyses to figure out its exact structure and see what level of purity they can develop it at.

 

With the synthesis route determined, this compound and all the data about it gets put into the computer. These computers (which I have now been fortunate enough to actually see) are MASSIVE! We're talking multiple floors in large buildings FILLED with systems all computing in unison. More computing power than we could ever imagine. The structure of the compound, and all data determined from the analysis are fed into this computer. It then researches the billions, if not trillions, of compounds that are already known. It sees which ones it resembles the closest and what those similar compounds do. The computer will then spit out this information along with what these other compounds do. If the similar compounds all produce toxic effects, the drug ends there and never touches a living creature.

 

If the similar compounds haven't produced toxic effects, then further testing can take place.

 

Here is, again, where I think people are not fully grasping what pharmaceutical research is about. They don't just dump the chemical into every single animal they can find. From the computer research, they know which organ systems are targted, which pathways it will affect, and what metabolites are "likely" to be produced when this compound is ingested by humans. They will then test the compound on animals WITH THE SAME, if not INSIGNIFICANTLY different biochemistry. So if it's a compound that is likely to be targeting the liver, they'll test it on an animal with the same liver function as a human.

 

After this testing, analysis of the animal organs and fluids will tell them how it was metabolized. They don't just see if the animal lives and go "Let's get to testing on humans!" They enter back into that computer system what that compound did with that animal. They will record the metabolic pathways they could see and what the biochemical interactions were. This is so that when a new compound goes through the system later on, the information will already be there. As a result of this, they will not need the extensive animal research needed before. This is quite cost effective.

 

So the drug has been tested on the animals and they are able to see the toxicity of the drug. If the drug was toxic to the animal they will know why. They'll also know if there is a good chance that this will be toxic on humans and the drug stops there. It's actually pretty uncommon for a drug to be stopped because it's "ineffective". If it's "ineffective" because it doesn't have the action on the specific molecule that the company was looking for, then yes, it will be stopped. But if it is ineffective for other reasons, it will be noted but human trials will continue.

 

Again, animals aren't tested on willy-nilly. They are chosen based upon what biological pathways/systems they have that are similar to humans. They are also not just thrown random chemicals. They are given compounds which have been developed to treat a very specific condition/disease in a very specific way.

 

When the drugs pass by the animal testing and the results show that it is not likely to be toxic to humans, it then starts the Phase I trials which are under SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much scrutiny and watch from all the regulatory agencies in the world that they are really quite safe.

 

The large number of "failed" drugs that have passed through animal testing is not proof that animal testing is useless. It's proof that the regulatory agencies are very strict, or that the expenses required to administer the drug are too high. (Animal testing is not intended to determine if the drug can be produced in an economically beneficial way. It is inteded to see if doing trials on human subjects will put people at too great of a risk). It is the tests on human subjects that determine if it's worth proceeding.

 

A drug might do everything the company wants it to, but might be too expensive to produce at the level needed to provided the benefit. That drug will be removed.

 

A drug might be perfectly safe in all the testing done, but if mixed with compounds C, X, Y, and G at certain doses that simply could not be imagined but were found in a couple of patients after being approved, it causes a serious adverse event. This drug will then be pulled.

 

A drug might be found to be safe in animals, but in humans the dose needed to provide benefit compared to the dose required to cause harm could be too close for comfort. The drug will then be removed.

 

There are too many ways in which drug development can be stopped after animal trials that are not reason to stop animal trials.

 

I just want people to understand that the animal trials aren't just "throw random chemical into a rat, goose, bunny rabbit, kitty cat, chimpanzee, toad, mouse, and dog and see what happens."

[Sayonara]

The IACUC I served on for 8 held our meetings at the local Olive Garden so that we got free lunches.

You are like... so corrupt.

[lucaspa]

You are like... so corrupt.

 

I know. It's obvious that we would do anything for those salads and breadsticks. Especially the breadsticks.

 

It starts out by defining what it is you are looking to treat. Companies spend years researching the disease/impairment and trying to figure out what is causing it.

 

Most of this research is actually done in academia. This type of research is what NIH gives out most of its money for. But again, much of the research figuring out the disease is done in animals. Let's take osteoarthritis for example. We can't go and harvest massive amounts of cartilage from humans in various stages of OA to look at the causes and biochemical events of the disease. People need that cartilage in their knees to walk around on. So there are animal models where the animal can be euthanized at particular points in the progression of the disease to look at the morphological, mechanical, and biochemical changes taking place. The most recent model is goats walking on concrete floors.

 

Here is, again, where I think people are not fully grasping what pharmaceutical research is about. They don't just dump the chemical into every single animal they can find. From the computer research, they know which organ systems are targted, which pathways it will affect, and what metabolites are "likely" to be produced when this compound is ingested by humans. They will then test the compound on animals WITH THE SAME, if not INSIGNIFICANTLY different biochemistry. So if it's a compound that is likely to be targeting the liver, they'll test it on an animal with the same liver function as a human.

 

This is very good! I'm glad you made this point. Yes, some initial toxicology testing (particularly for carcinogenesis) might be done in mice, but the tests for subtle toxicity and efficacy are going to be done in one (or 2) appropriate animal models -- not just any animal.

 

After this testing, analysis of the animal organs and fluids will tell them how it was metabolized. They don't just see if the animal lives and go "Let's get to testing on humans!" They enter back into that computer system what that compound did with that animal. They will record the metabolic pathways they could see and what the biochemical interactions were.

 

Again, good point! Lots of tissues are taken from the animals and analyzed. Remember, the company has to show to the FDA both efficacy and toxicity! FDA is going to ask them about effects on organ systems other than the one the disease is working on. Particularly lung, heart, brain, kidney, and liver. In the case of Viox and Celebrex, there was data on these organs. I would remind everyone that Celebrex (like Viox a cox-2 inhibitor) was never withdrawn from the market. The animal testing did predict both efficacy and toxicity.

 

It's actually pretty uncommon for a drug to be stopped because it's "ineffective". If it's "ineffective" because it doesn't have the action on the specific molecule that the company was looking for, then yes, it will be stopped. But if it is ineffective for other reasons, it will be noted but human trials will continue.

 

That first one is what we mean by "ineffective". If the drug is not efficacious in animals, it won't be tested on humans. Can you provide an example of a drug that was not efficacious ("ineffective for other reasons) that went to clinical trials?

 

When the drugs pass by the animal testing and the results show that it is not likely to be toxic to humans, it then starts the Phase I trials which are under SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much scrutiny and watch from all the regulatory agencies in the world that they are really quite safe.

 

Some caveats here. Phase I clinical trials are done on a small number of patients: usually those for which all other treatments have failed. Thus, for a new cancer drug, usually terminally ill cancer patients are chosen. The purpose here is to look for gross toxicity, since the number of patients is too small to pick up rare toxicity. Phase I is not for efficacy. If the Phase I cancer patients for a new cancer drug show improvement, that is a bonus. But even if they show no improvement but also don't show gross toxicity, the drug will move to Phase II. This trial involves a lot more people and is looking for 1) efficacy primarily and 2) not so common side effects.

 

But you are correct, the trials are carefully scrutinized. Or are supposed to be. Sometimes that scrutiny fails, but that is a political problem we must address and not a failure of animal testing.

 

A drug might be perfectly safe in all the testing done, but if mixed with compounds C, X, Y, and G at certain doses that simply could not be imagined but were found in a couple of patients after being approved, it causes a serious adverse event. This drug will then be pulled.

 

Another good point. Regulatory agencies err on the side of safety. For instance, chloramphenicol was pulled because 1 in 10,000 patients developed fatal liver complications. That's an extremely low risk, but there were other antibiotics available and therefore the risk was considered too high. However, even today there are 1 or 2 situations where chloramphenicol is used because there is no other antibiotic that will work and the risk of dying from the disease is so much greater than the risk of liver failure.

 

A drug might be found to be safe in animals, but in humans the dose needed to provide benefit compared to the dose required to cause harm could be too close for comfort. The drug will then be removed.

 

That's the therapeutic index I was talking about. Here there are legal considerations. The drug company doesn't have absolute control over the physicians who prescribe the drug or the compliance of the patients who take it. There are many patients who think "if one pill is good, 2 pills would be twice as good and I can get over the disease twice as fast." If the TI is close to 2, that patient will take enough to get toxicity. Is the patient blamed? NO! The company would be liable. So the company doesn't want to take the liability risk and will pull the drug.

 

I just want people to understand that the animal trials aren't just "throw random chemical into a rat, goose, bunny rabbit, kitty cat, chimpanzee, toad, mouse, and dog and see what happens."

 

Good point. That is never done. It would be impossible to get such a protocol past any IACUC I have ever dealt with. There is a section in the forms that is "Justification for the use of animals" and putting "I just wanted to see what would happen" is going to get the protocol rejected.

[iNow]

I think at this point we can all agree that testing on animals is very important, necessary, and useful, and that it is (and very much should be) done with extreme caution and awareness toward maximizing the well-being of the animals.

[PeacheyCarnehan]

 

The fact is that using "vivisection" to refer to any animal experimentation is deliberately misleading, and factually incorrect.

 

 

."

 

As I said, the meaning of words changes. It is not just anti-vivisectionists who use the modern definition of the word. Many modern dictionaries do - well, online ones.

 

Let me give you an example of why your mutation of the definition of vivisection is bad:

 

I am going to redefine "anal rape" in the same way that you redefined vivisection. Anal rape, in this experiment, is the "distressing insertion of any object into the anal passage".

 

Doctors should be sent to prison for trying to diagnose potentially fatal conditions with rectal thermometers, because they are committing ANAL RAPE! Never mind the circumstances, just listen to how it sounds when I say it like this: ANAL RAPE!!!112

 

Do you see my point?

 

 

.

 

No. Rape is against the victim's will.

 

The multi-quote system is not working. If I have to do each one separately it will take me about an hour. If I can't work out how to use the multi-quote within the next twelve hours I will have to use the method I used for my first post.

 

Or perhaps it is working. But when I try to post anything a message comes up saying my post or message is too short.

[iNow]

The multi-quote system is not working. If I have to do each one separately it will take me about an hour. If I can't work out how to use the multi-quote within the next twelve hours I will have to use the method I used for my first post.

 

In the bottom right hand corner is a double-quote icon (btw the "quote" and the "arrow" which represents "quick reply" buttons). Click the double-quote icon for each post to which you want to respond, then hit the "Reply" button at the bottom left of the thread. You only need three characters for a post to be submitted, so if you're getting an error that your message is too short, it means that you're doing something wrong (like putting your own comments inside the quote tags instead of after them).

 

However, I'm not sure what more you can share. This proverbial dead horse has been beaten, kicked, and urinated upon already.

Edited September 4, 2008 by iNow
wording fix

[PeacheyCarnehan]

Thanks. But I'm sure I did that. Now, when I click only 'Reply' after logging out and logging back in again, I get all of the post that I wanted to reply to. I did not use the 'quote' button this time.

[iNow]

If you've logged out then back in, you must start again selecting the posts with the double-quote button at the bottom right, then hit reply (not quote).

 

Again, though... what exactly do you have to share which hasn't already been said?

[PeacheyCarnehan]

After logging in again, I simply hit the reply button. The reply box had all of the text of the post I wanted to reply to. That's when I posted my previous reply. I then tried to use the multi-quote and quote button again. Again the message that my post was too short. I am going to another forum to practise there. They have a multi-quote system but I've never needed to use it.

 

I have quite a lot to say.

[SH3RL0CK]

If you've logged out then back in, you must start again selecting the posts with the double-quote button at the bottom right, then hit reply (not quote).

 

Again, though... what exactly do you have to share which hasn't already been said?

 

Perhaps PC has some legit links with hard scientific data to attempt to backup the claims PC has made? Considering the wealth of great links provided by those with a differing viewpoint, (s)he will definitely need A LOT of HIGH quality references to even begin to legitimately backup his/her claims.

 

Many thanks for the great work by lucaspa, Sayonora, et al (there are really too many contributors here I should credit) for their time in this link.

[Sayonara]

As I said, the meaning of words changes. It is not just anti-vivisectionists who use the modern definition of the word. Many modern dictionaries do - well, online ones.

But the meaning of the word as it pertains to the actual physical treatment of animals has not changed.

 

Online dictionaries are not technical resources. You cannot expect a middle-of-the-road common usage guide to words to have the precise scientific definition. This is not news to most people.

 

 

No. Rape is against the victim's will.

I guess that means you missed the point then.

[PeacheyCarnehan]

 

 

You will need to provide substantially better evidence before anyone is convinced.

The fact that most drugs fail when they are tested in humans should be enough to convince anyone that the drugs can't be tested in other species with any prior knowledge of what they will do in humans. They are tested in humans to see what they will do in humans. Usually, they don't do well in the humans.

 

 

Transplanting arguments between different but similar goals doesn't always work. If it did, it would sure have made this thread easier to read!

I was simply using your statement about different species to point out that the differences can also be seen in drug testing. I included the number of your post so anyone could check the context of what you posted.

 

 

Which is worse... testing on animals which might feel pain, or allowing millions of people to die from what are often medically trivial causes? Perhaps we are simply doomed to pick the lesser of two evils and live with it, and all the arguments are just pointless.

The two sides here have different beliefs about the validity of using non-humans to save humans. Some on my side believe that using them leads to millions waiting in vain for cures. I'm glad you believe that using non-humans is an evil.

 

 

Any attempt to protect animals from testing on the same basis needs to present evidence that they do in fact possess such faculties.

They possess lives and health. Vivisection takes those away from them. It causes them pain and/or fear/distress. And death.

 

Laws are not just opinions (well, at least not in Western democracies). That is utterly incorrect.

Forty-odd years ago it was the opinion of the Law in the UK that it was wrong to do abortions on healthy babies. Then it became the opinion of the Law that it was not wrong.

 

No.

I'm glad to hear that.

 

...the analogy between humans dominating the biosphere and you trying to take someone's house away is only superficially valid. It breaks down because the mechanisms and outcomes are entirely different.

The original poster was saying, I think, that humans, having taken over the world, thought they could do whatever they wanted to its inhabitants. That humans subjugate other species simply because they can. The original poster thinks that's wrong. So do I.

 

 

You have to remember that the tests performed in non-human stages are for toxicity as well as efficacy.

Yes. The non-human animals are used to test for both. Drugs do fail in the human trials for safety and effectiveness reasons, amongst other things.

 

Again, I don't wish to be rude, but if your aim is to educate you are not doing a very good job. You have introduced an entirely incorrect definition of "vivisection" which is well known as being a animal rights campaigners' device, demanded citations without offering any of your own, objected to thread management, argued by weak analogy, and claimed laws are opinion despite your entire view seemingly being no different.

My definition is correct. As I said, the meaning of words changes over time. Have I demanded citations? I can provide evidence for anything I've stated as a fact. My analogy isn't weak. Perhaps I could have been more clear on occasion but I was trying to keep my posts as short as possible. Laws are opinions. I have said that my belief that vivisection is morally wrong is my opinion and that others might not share it.

 

 

Neither anti- nor pro- is likely to be an objective source, to be honest. It is important to remember though that information is not correct because we are convinced or incorrect because we are incredulous.

 

It is hard to find any unbiased opinion with this subject. Even medical studies can be biased - especially if they are funded by the drug companies. Everything I have read has led me to the belief I have now. Many years ago I was opposed to vivisection on moral grounds only. I believed that it was scientifically valid. Probably because I had been told it was. When I started to look into it and think for myself, I found that it is not science - that it can't be used to reliably know in advance what a new drug will do.

 

It is disingenuous to use the terms vivisection and animal experimentation interchangeably - please stop it. This thread has never been about vivisection, and if this carries on it is going to result in strawman warnings.

 

Come on, now. Would you deny me free speech? I have told you why I call it vivisection. 'Animal testing' is a euphemism, like 'sacrificing', 'abbatoir', 'euthanising', and many others. It conjures up a vision of rats sitting with pencil and paper doing a spelling test. If you say that causing fear and pain to anyone for the purpose of medical experiments is not vivisection and that vivisection is only to be used when referring to cutting into live tissues, you must use the term when talking about operations on humans, tatooing, ear piercing, and perhaps even pruning roses. I think the word 'vivum' refers only to animals and not plants, but why stop at animals? It is not used when referring to operations, because the full literal meaning of the word was never intended to be used. As the literal meaning is not used, other meanings can be attached to it. As have been over the years. That's the way language changes. I don't ask anyone to stop saying that other animals can't suffer. I find those statements very annoying but I know it's pointless asking people to stop saying them.

 

The people on this thread already have differences in opinion about the meanings of 'suffering', 'ethical behaviour', and 'cruelty'. No doubt, our opinions of the meaning of 'vivisection' will remain different. Will someone who says goats can suffer be accused of strawmanning?

 

I don't think that anyone is arguing that animal testing is "right". What most of the people who argue against the anti- position state is that animal testing is (a) a necessary evil, and (b) not anywhere as bad as campaigners make out.

 

... when they are told that actually, lab animals have quite a good life and that they would be doing more good campaigning against the cruel treatment of domestic pets.

 

Now that is propaganda. The animal abusers put that lie about. As Mandy Rice Davis would have said: 'They would say that, wouldn't they?' It is not a good life to be kept prisoner, denied your natural life, tested on and then killed. It doesn't matter how quick or painless the death is. It is wrong to treat any animal like that. If you can't understand that, no amount of explaining will change your mind.

 

 

Do you think that this is likely, in any but freakishly rare cases?

 

Probably not. I give the benefit of the doubt to people who say they are in pain. But I also know that other animals feel pain. In fact, they might feel it more. Intellect can control pain. We can rationalise and take our minds off pain. Other species can't do that.

 

Yes, and as I said, if you read the thread you will see that we have extensively discussed the difference between an animal showing a pain response and an animal experiencing suffering in the same order as a human, and we have not yet seen any compelling evidence that the two things approach being the same state. By all means pitch some evidence in to that part of the discussion because all the other participants seem to have run dry,

There can be no evidence of what a non-verbal animal is feeling subjectively (and there's none for what a human is feeling, except what they say). For that reason, if for no other, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The dictionary definitions of 'suffer' include 'to bear', to undergo. Someone who is undergoing pain or distress is suffering. Unless the meaning has changed lately, like another word has. I mean the word to have the definition given above. I think most people understand it like that. The amount of suffering between species might be different but which species suffers most? There is no way of telling.

Temple Grandin wrote:

 

'When the structure of the brain and nervous system is studied, there is no black and white line between people and higher mammals such as chimps, dogs or cows. The genome project has shown that humans and mice share many genes (Gunter and Dhand, 2002). In mammals 30 to 40% of all genes are involved in nervous system development and function. The basic design of the nervous system and the neural mechanisms that process fear and pain are similar in humans and other mammals (Rogan and LeDoux, 1996).'

 

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

 

I don't agree with her on many things but she believes, as I do, that other animals can suffer. It is enough for me that they feel pain, distress and fear. Deliberately causing them those feelings during experiments is wrong. It is cruel.

 

 

 

And yet they still allow animal testing. I wonder why that might be?

Polititians believe the vivisectors that it is necessary. Money comes into it. Just as it did with slavery.

 

 

Although I am sure you have real conviction in your belief, it is possible that you are simply wrong about the way that animals work. Anthropomorphising hard-wired responses is a folly when you are trying to present a rational position.

 

No. If you are talking about suffering, I didn't think anyone still believed that responses to damage in non-humans were simply unfeeling responses - if that is what you believe. To quote Temple Grandin again:

 

'Science has shown that animals such as mammals and birds feel pain in a manner similar to humans. Insects, viruses and microbes are not able to feel pain or suffer. More research is needed to determine the extent that fishes and amphibians feel pain. Present research shows that they do experience fear. Fear is very aversive and animals should be shielded form situations that cause great fear. Fear will cause a great rise in stress hormones.'

 

I refer to what vivisection-supporters say because they have similar beliefs to some people here. I'm not sure if Temple Grandin is a vivisection supporter, though.

 

 

Yes, however this was due to the appalling conditions (of both transport and treatment after sale), and the use of sentient, self-aware, and self-determining beings as unpaid, "owned" labourers.

Many white people thought black people weren't as aware as white people. That they were sub-human. My point was that at one time it was not thought wrong. And then, at a later time, it was thought to be wrong.

 

 

...due to the incredibly strict regulatory practices which have already been described at length in this thread.

 

I have already shown that these regulatory practices are open to abuse. Well, I haven't shown evidence for that yet but I can. I was waiting until someone challenged me. I have all the evidence just waiting. If some system can be abused and there is money to be made by doing so, it will be abused. Drug companies and some medical researchers have already shown their disregard for human life. The welfare of rats and monkeys will be of even less concern to them, especially when measured againt profits or the thoughts of prestige for making some discovery or authoring some highly-praised study.

 

 

Your argument's reliance on the slave trade parallel is, in principle, no different to the fatal logical flaw that resulted in Godwin's Law.

 

I don't understand what you mean. I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before but I looked it up. I still don't understand what you mean. If you think it inappropriate to liken vivisection to the slave trade, I and many others don't think it is. To use the slave trade again, at one time if someone had said that black slaves should be treated well - and shouldn't even be slaves - because puppies were treated more kindly, they could have been denounced for using an inappropriate comparison. After all, it could have been argued, puppies have more right to good treatent than do slaves. People treat puppies kindly because they deserve it, being such nice little dears. Slaves don't deserve kindness. In fact, it makes them lazy. Anyone using that argument would be of the opinion that slaves are not worth any more than the use that can be wrung out of them. That person would not be able to understand that black people are humans and should be treated well. Just as there are people here who don't believe or can't understand that other species that can suffer should be treated well. Other species, they argue, don't suffer. I said that some people didn't believe that black people could suffer in the same way as white people.

 

 

Yes, let's change another definition just enough to allow more evocative phrases at the cost of being accurate and intellectually honest.

 

Cruelty is always deliberate and directed for its own sake. That is what the word means. Malice is therefore a pre-requisite.

 

As far as I can tell, you think that something done to non-humans that can cause pain and fear is not cruel if done for a good ( to humans) purpose. But it would be cruel if just done for no reason except the desire to do it.

 

 

It is a common problem in threads like this for a poster to talk about a group within a group, unintentionally tarring them all with the same brush. I would take it as a given that iNow does not truly believe all animal rights campaigners are the same.

 

Glad to hear it.

 

If you are trying to "educate", then you should provide valid links to backup your statements. These links should be credentialed, respected, peer-reviewed, and relatively recent scientific sources, not a PETA blogger.

 

If you are trying to propagandize without a supported arguement, then carry on as you are, although I don't think many people here will agree with you.

 

 

What would you like? Just ask.

[iNow]

And the only reference in that entire long article was a paper about the fact that some animals have thoughts and that we should be cautious using language describing them as property.

[PeacheyCarnehan]

You are confusing vivisection with drug testing. Two different things. And animal studies using "vivisection" or surgery have been very good at extrapolation to humans because the anatomy is so close.

 

I use 'vivisetion' in its modern definition. I am talking about new drugs. It is in their use that most failures are found

 

 

There is motivation for drug companies to fudge the data. Not so much for academics in medical research. There we get gigged if we don't call them as we see them. The motivation for drug companies is why there are regulatory agencies like the FDA to monitor things.

There have been cases where researchers aren't even allowed to see the data they've collected. The researchers have no say in which studies are presented and which are hidden. Studies have been hidden. Medical journal articles have been ghost-written by drug company employees. And there's the well known effect on medical studies in which drug company-sponsored trials are more likely to be favourable to the drug than in those trials that are not sponsored by drug companies.

 

That's not true. The reliability has not been that bad. As you note, the reliability is so good that drug companies sometimes try to hide their animal data because it is unfavorable! If the animal testing were not reliable, they wouldn't have to do that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I will write it a bit more clearly. I thought the meaning might have been clear from what I have already said: Lab animals cannot reliably simulate the effects of a new drug in humans so that it is known beforehand that their results will be accurate. It is only when the drug is tested on humans that it can be seen if they were accurate.

 

Drug companies hide data from clinical trials where it says the drug is ineffective. I think they have also hidden data which suggested potential harm. They have certainly tried to play down the potential danger. This is after the previous tests in non-humans said it would be effective.

 

 

So, are you volunteering to test one of these rejected drugs?

If there was nothing else, if they were tested properly and I had a serious disease, and I thought it might help, yes.

 

No, we don't. We use the word "euthanasia".

I think I was replying to a vivisection supporter who used the term. But my criticism stands - you lot seem afraid to call a spade a spade. Are you ashamed to use the correct word in case it makes you look bad?

 

That's why clinical trials are designed in such a way as to eliminate the placebo effect. Haven't you ever heard about "randomized double blind" studies? Phase II clinical trials are all randomized double blind.

I was referring to drugs already on the market. Some drugs, quite often due to marketing hype, are thought to be miracle drugs. These drugs might work, or work better than they would, because people - patients and medical staff - believe the hype.

 

But even in clinical trials which are double-blinded and Random-Housed the placebo effect is impossible to eliminate. Many, or most or even all, in the trials will hope and/or assume they are being given the drug rather than the placebo. That will make whatever they take work better. The drug might even have a slight therapeutic effect. That will be maginified by its own placebo effect.

 

Some here will say that is ridiculous. Careful thought will make you think otherwise. I think.

 

1. Because of evolution, knowing about other animals does help us know about humans. We are related to other mammals by descent with modification.

2. And that part of research "not applicable to humans" is part of the falsification I talked about above. That is the part we are certain about. However, we wouldn't know it was not applicable to humans unless we had done it first.

The fact remains most new drugs fail in clinical trials. I don't think we should put much trust in other species to help us with computer programmes.

 

 

And yet we have all these cures because of research on animals! How about that?

And we have all those drugs that didn't get through the clinical trials. About 90% of them.

 

 

You can do that in the USA too. It's a Category C study, in which pain relieving medication can't be used. It's very difficult to get a Category C study approved. The justification must be airtight. I speak as someone who sat on an IACUC for 8 years and have submitted my own proposals -- none of which have been Category C.

If someone desperately wanted to do the research and they had powerful backers, the law/legislation/rules would fly out of the window. They might not even need the powerful backers. I didn't say that IACUC's definitely had conflicts of interest or had corrupt members. But other regulatory bodies do or have had.

 

But of course the AR people are all saints, with no agenda and they would never distort the truth for their cause, would they?

 

There's no need for distortion. The paucity of reliable, accurate results in humans that come out of non-human tests speak loud and clear to anyone who will listen and who hasn't been deafened by the vile din of the vivisection propaganda.

 

No. The major reason is the legal/ethical status of the clone: is it fully human or a piece of property? There are also technical/practical reasons:

1. Cloning so far is very inefficient, requiring 500 to 1,000 ova for every clone produced. It's difficult to get that many human ova. Are you willing to donate yours?

2. It turns out that some of the enzymes necessary for the initial divisions of the fertilized ova reside in the sperm in humans. Therefore primate and human clones are more difficult to generate than rat or mice clones.

My reply, though true, was slightly tongue in cheek.

 

 

WOW! You really like to slander researchers! How many do you personally know?

Not one. I choose my friends carefully. Well, I would if I had any.

 

Again, are you willing to volunteer to take a drug that quickly killed a rat? Or are you going to think "rats and humans are both mammals and any drug that kills a rat is likely to kill me."?

See above. What about the drug that does no harm to a rat or dog but might harm a human? You wouldn't know until it harmed a human.

 

 

Notice that word "rare". And sometimes that happens. Often the drugs do not have an unpredicted rare side effect.

I'm replying to your comment. I haven't checked Dalek's original post nor my original reply to that post. The unpredicted rare side effect could be picked up by more advanced testing, if enough money was spent on developing more advanced systems and there was the will to do it. But most drugs fail in the clinical trials.

 

Don't you think we would use serum-free media if we could? The reason people started using fetal bovine serum was because the cells died in serum-free media.

 

But serum-fee media are avaliable now and being used. I think they are more expensive and have to be made, whereas foetal calf serum is easy to obtain and they could even be specially bred for the purpose. No, I'm not advocating that. Just acknowledging how barbarous the human race can be.

 

Because up until recently none of the in silico systems were accurate compared to the known data we already had from animals. If your in silico program predicts drug A will be harmless but you know from previous testing that drug A caused liver toxicity, then you don't trust the program. Duh! Remember GIGO. A computer program is only as good as the input. If that is flawed, then the output is flawed. And up until the last 5 years or so, we didn't have enough data to model complex whole animal interactions. We still don't for most things. That's why you have to use the whole animal.

 

If you have a prediction that drug B will be harmless but you know from previous testing that drug B caused liver toxicity then you don't trust the prediction. Ray! Given the old-fashioned, Victorian methods used now, the prediction and the liver toxicity would probably have come from non-human testing, but that is what these people believe in. Even now, one species might predict non-toxic and another might show liver toxicity.

 

If in silico is not given the seal of approval no court will believe it no matter how accurate. Perhaps I should say that, because of possible future litigation, no court will risk giving it much weight if lots of money is involved .

 

So why should you object? After all, since you think animal testing can't predict what happens in humans, why not use humans? According to you, using humans as the first line of testing is the only way to go.

 

However, you have cited a lot of "programs" but not documented any of them. Please do so.

 

I would object because I am against forcing people or duping people when doing so could lead them into harm. Any humans should be willing and informed. But before they are used other methods should be used to make sure the drug is safe.

 

Other methods? QSAR, imaging, microdosing. These and others have been mentioned before.

 

"opinions" or positions get discussed to determine their validity. Saying something is an "opinion" doesn't exempt it from critical evaluation.

I am of the opinion that it is wrong to use other species to test drugs for humans. And wrong to use humans as vivisection subjects. I think that's what the original poster was going on about - using murderers.

 

 

Yes to both. In the wild the dam finds a secluded spot away from the male: a defendable spot. However, in a cage there is no way to do this. Nests are usually in corners, but the male is right there.

 

Once the pups grow fur, I've never seen a male rat eat them. But newborn rats are vulnerable.

I still say that rats don't normally kill their own pups. It is more likely they are stressed or the pups are unhealthy.

 

I'm not sure now what the original reason for this bit about rats was. Probably fattyjwoods' contention that testing on rats is disgusting. And then you said that he or she can't project human feelings onto rats, that rats eat baby rats and that if we projected our feelings onto them perhaps we should eat babies, too. It is not normal for rats to kill healthy babies of their own if the adults aren't stressed. Other, unrelated, rats sometimes do for various reasons including wanting to bring the female into mating readiness, wanting to take over the nest, and hunger. But it dosen't really matter to this discussion.

 

 

This wasn't that. Rats fight off predators. Basically, once a rat gets used to a procedure, you can do anything you want with no risk. Even for the first couple of times (and I witnessed that), when the rats were carefully immobilized so that they would not bit the researcher, then don't flinch or show any outward signs of pain to the injection. Their entire objection is to being held.

Well, we'll have to take your word for it and that nothing else was done to them that could have caused them pain or distress. Lab animals can and do feel pain, stress or terror. It is still wrong to use them.

 

You need to be careful about projecting your human perceptions on other animals. You make a big deal about rats and humans not being predictors about human reactions. Consistency demands that you do the reverse: what happens with humans cannot be used to say other species are the same as humans.

My postition is that rats and humans do not react to drugs in the same way. They do react to other things in very similar ways, though. Things like being chased by a predator, being frightened or being subjected to something painful or stressful.

 

Yes. I have seen rats in pain from infection, inadequate anesthesia, or failed bone fixation.

Fair enough. But you are willing to put them at risk of feeling such pain. I would not be. It does not benefit them.

 

 

PC, my job in no way "depends" on causing pain or terror to animals. Most of my research is cell culture. Nor do any of my animal experiments require the animal to have any more pain and/or discomfort than a human undergoing the same procedure. Therefore all my protocols include the same analgesic treatment a human patient would get.

Your job depends upon your willingness to put rats at risk of suffering pain, stress and terror. If you were only using cells, it wouldn't.

 

But it appears that you have no first-hand experience of animal behavior. Your positiion depends on animals feeling pain and you don't want to hear any contrary evidence. Therefore, by your own logic, anything you say about how much pain animals feel should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

I know that the test animals can feel pain. If it is possible for any procedure to cause them to feel pain, there will be times when they do feel pain. How much depends on the experiment and the experimenter. I have also read testimony from ex-vivisectors and lab assistants who said that the lab animals do feel pain. I don't think anyone would deny that animals feel pain. I also object to them being used in any way that can harm them, stress them or make them feel fear and that is not for their benefit.

 

That's a convenient way to get rid of evidence against your position, isn't it? Since that same argument applies to yourself just as well, why should we pay any attention to you?

I don't expect certain people here to pay attention to, or have any faith in, anything I say. I am here to reach those who are willing to learn and to think for themselves.

 

I didn't say "sacrifice", did I? I said "euthanasia". And the reason is twofold:

1. We don't like killing animals. We really don't like seeing them in pain. My first experience with animal research occurred as a junior in college. I was at Kansas U Medical Center working with a guy studying whether the drug antabuse was an effective means of preventing alcoholics from drinking again. For the experiment he needed to know precisely how much water the rats had. The way to do this is to put measured water in a syringe and the "needle" has a ball on the end. Hold the rat, put the ball at the back of the throat, tilt the syringe and needle up, and have the needle slide down to the stomach and then inject the water. The guy showed me this very quickly (he had done this thousands of times). The second rat I did I missed the esophagus, got the trachea and injected 15 ml of water into the rat's lungs. He thrashed for several seconds as he drowned. I threw up. It obviously haunts me today.

2. Euthansia is different from "killing" (so is "sacrifice"). Killing does imply pain and fear on the part of the victim. Euthanasia implies the lack of both. I like carbon dioxide inhalation. But the rat into a box and run carbon dioxide thru it. The rat quietly goes to sleep. A colleague prefers cervical dislocation in the mice he works with. Why? Because, according to him, he can dislocate the cervical vertebrae in a hundredth of a second, sparing the mouse any pain.

What a terrible thing to happen to the poor rat. I would have killed it immediately if I thought there was no way to save it.

 

Killing does not need to imply or cause pain or fear. I have killed different types animals to put them out of their misery, in ways that didn't cause pain or fear. It was instantaneous. They never knew what was going to happen and didn't know what did happen. I killed them. I didn't euthanase them. I would never use such a word.

 

The articular cartilage defects were completely regenerated to the point that you can't tell where they were. Now, how can I do "human-based research" without vivisection on humans? Is it OK to do vivisection on humans? If so, why isn't it OK to do so on rabbits?

Has this been translated to humans? Does it involve a new drug that needs to be metabolised in the body?

 

Who is Sciecewiz and what is your source? Please give a citation.

Sciecewiz is the person you were answering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/13/controversiesinscience.ethicsofscience?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Vivisection: Study finds 115 million animals used in tests worldwide, guardian.co.uk

http://www.bret.org.uk/gov.htm or 150 million http://pharmatimes.com/Forums/forums/p/2093/2102.aspx#2102

 

 

And why should we trust these people? Oh yes, you depend on them and they agree with you. So of course they are trustworthy.

I don't always trust figures from anti-vivisection sources. I check them myself when I can.

 

You didn't answer the question. Do you know what an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is? Do you know the mandatory composition of these committees? Have you ever sat in on any meeting of one? If not, how can you say how much of their deliberations are due to "corruption" or whether the committee people can be trusted? BTW, one of the requirements is that committee members can receive no compensation whatsoever. The IACUC I served on for 8 held our meetings at the local Olive Garden so that we got free lunches. Most committees don't get that.

I know that any body of people who are involved in making decisions which can have huge financial implications for their employers can be biased. Corruption is harder to prove but we know that there are corrupt police and polititians. There is proof of corruption in other regulatory bodies. It seems the IACUC of the university of Washington did not do its job properly. They receive millions of dollars in grants to do vivisection:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/15988507.html

 

There's also more evidence of IACUC negligence (to put it politely):

=================

According to a USDA inspection report, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which oversees UT's (University of Toledo) animal research, failed to notice how researchers weren't following protocol.

 

One of the monkeys received a tracheotomy, an incision in the windpipe, which was a breach in procedure, the inspection report said.

 

"The monkeys were supposed to be intubated," said Michael Budkie, executive director of SAEN.

 

Budkie said that the primates died under questionable circumstances.

 

According to the UT statement, John Wall, a neuroscience professor, "deviated slightly" from approved protocol during an experiment.

 

Wall declined to comment.

 

http://media.www.independentcollegian.com/media/storage/paper678/news/2007/02/08/News/Monkey.Deaths.Stir.Rights.Organization-2706641.shtml

 

=====================

If the link doesn't work - it's a longun - and anyone is interested, I can post the whole article.

Whether or not the monkey felt pain, the IACUC was negligent. Cases like this only come to light when someone makes the effort to report them, and is in the right place at the right time to learn about them.

 

Look at the results in advances in medicine over the past 50 years.

That doesn't answer the question of: 'How do you know it speeds up research? How do you know it is not holding up research? Don't ask the vivisectors, they are biased.'

 

No, they don't. They can't. Anyone having connections to drug companies can't serve on an IRB. In fact, we had an example in ethics this year of a physician working for a pharmaceutical company that wanted to teach residents in clinic. This was allowed only under the condition that her prescription use was monitored to ensure that she was not overly prescribing the drugs her employer made. After a year -- during which she was clean -- she asked if she could join the IRB. She was told "absolutely not" because of the potential conflict of interest.

 

I'm afraid the people you trust have given you some really bad information.

New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 355:2321-2329 November 30, 2006 Number 22

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/22/2321

 

We have to hope that those who responded were telling the truth and not hiding even more conflicts of interest.

 

This is also interesting but refers to for-profit IRBs which, presumably, are not in universities:

 

'Second, the U.S. oversight system is not well equipped to monitor a highly competitive, market-based, multinational research industry. The Office for Human Research Protections has no jurisdiction over privately sponsored studies, and the Food and Drug Administration inspects only about 1% of clinical trials.2 IRBs, the most important bodies charged with protecting subjects, were designed primarily to review trial design, risk–benefit ratios, and informed-consent documents. Recent research scandals — which have been uncovered largely by investigative reporters rather than regulators — have concerned a very different set of issues: fraud, conflicts of interest, unfair payment practices, and unsafe or degrading trial conditions. Such problems are magnified still further when studies are conducted at private testing sites and reviewed by for-profit IRBs that are financially dependent on research sponsors.'

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/22/2316

 

 

Please cite a source! In the USA the rules expressly forbid payment for participation in Phase I trials.

There is mention of the TGN1412 case in the second paragraph of the article quoted from above.

 

There is also this for British Phase 1 trials:

 

'Payments

Many trials are demanding of the subject and involve long periods of residence, many visits to the trial site, urine collections, and multiple blood tests and other procedures that cause discomfort, as well as lifestyle restrictions. So it is right to pay subjects - healthy subjects and patients - who volunteer for phase 1 trials more than just any expenses that they incur.5 The

amount should be related to the duration of residence on the unit, the number and length of visits, lifestyle restrictions, and the type and extent of the inconvenience and discomfort involved. As a guide, payments should be based on the minimum hourly

wage 5 8 and should be increased for procedures requiring extra care on the part of the subject or involving more discomfort.5 Payment must never be

related to risk.

 

'Subjects who withdraw or are withdrawn even for medical reasons should not always be paid the full amount.'

 

Guidelines for Phase 1 Clinical Trials

2007 edition. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

 

Which one? As you should have noted, I was arguing against using unwilling human participants in human trials. However, it is unclear why you think this is so. After all, you say the only way to test new drugs is on people. So why not use people? My position is that the ethical thing to do is test animals first.

I am reluctant to say but it is a big country that recently held the olympics. I know you were arguing against human vivisection. I was just adding more information. See above somewhere for my reasons for being against forcing humans to be test subjects.

 

Same thing. You won't accept any data contrary to your view. All you've given is an invalid reason why you won't accept any such data.

In all the years I have been involved in AV I have seen nothing to change my views on this matter. Some workers might do their best for the lab animals but they are still involved in cruelty. There is also the very real possibility that people who are involved in such things can become inured to the suffering of others, due to long exposure. What might have been bizarre or unacceptable to them can become normal and acceptable.

 

So what about physicians? They "experiment" on you every time they treat you. By your logic, you shouldn't go to a physician. But I bet you do.

These 'experiments' that GPs conduct on their patients are done with the patitents' consent.

 

Apples and oranges. After all, we can consult the victim. And you can inspect the animal protocols and visit animal research facilities to check for yourself to see that the animals are treated humanely. PC, what you are forgetting is that science is public. Everyone must be able to get the same results in approximately the same circumstances.

There have been numerous cases where animal 'welfare' rules were broken and where the relevent authorities were negligent in enforcing them.

 

Same way human patients are tested: to a mild pain stimulus. In this case a toe pinch. If the animal draws the foot away, anesthesia is not complete. Now, just what percentage of human patients have reported pain while under general anesthesia? This is not local; but general. Complete unconsciousness.

I don't know how many humans report pain whilst anaesthetised. More care will be taken with them. Humans can be nusiances who complain and whinge. As I said above, it is possible that people involved in cruel work can become used to seeing and inflicting suffering. They might even think they are not doing anything cruel. There is evidence - gained by those wicked AR people - that lab workers are sometimes routinely cruel, and many times are indifferent to suffering.

 

So do humans! Don't you feel fear/anxiety before an operation? I know I have. So why do you want a condition to apply to animals that we can't satisfy for humans?

The fear a human experiences before an operation is for something they are willing to undergo. And it's for their benefit. The lab animals don't benefit and they would rather be somewhere else doing something else.

 

How about plants? The plants are in a cage, aren't they? They are grown and then savagely killed -- oftentimes torn out by the roots.

You don't need to tell me that. I am a member of the PLO (Plant Liberation Organisation).

 

How about a lion hunting? Or even a domestic cat hunting a bird or a mouse? How much fear does the prey feel? Or pain as the carnivore bites down on the neck? You are trying to duck the issue: every species exploits other species. This is completely unavoidable in animals; every animal must at least exploit plants.

Those other animals can't change their behaviour. We can. I am at present trying to convince a local tiger to use humane methods of killing.

 

Yes, there is. Did you miss my statement how we closed down a researcher for not following the rules? I've kept it for you. Animal facilities must be regularly inspected. Since IACUC members cannot receive any compensation, what is the source of corruption?

As I said above, corruption is not always easy to prove. There is evidence that IACUCs can be incompetent. In 'Science' 27 July 2001: Vol. 293. no. 5530, pp. 608 - 609 they have an article. I've only seen the comment:

 

Reliability of Protocol Reviews for Animal Research

 

Scott Plous* and Harold Herzog

 

A random sample of 50 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) participated in a study of the protocol review process. Each committee submitted three animal behavior protocols it had recently reviewed, and these protocols were reviewed a second time by another participating committee. The results reported in this Policy Forum showed low levels of reliability in protocol judgments within and between committees. In addition, a majority of approved research protocols were disapproved or deferred by the second committee.

==============

 

In their supplementary information they show a table of protocols. In that section they say:

 

'*In one case, a protocol involved both rats and primates (categorized in the table as "primates") and in four cases, protocols involved rats and other mammals (categorized as "other mammals").'

 

 

Your premises are wrong. Researchers have an even better chance at getting caught if they break the rules. Remember, they have people outside their lab caring for and inspecting the animals. People whose jobs depend on the researcher following the rules. If the researcher doesn't and then they get caught in an FDA or USDA inspection, the animal facility is shut down and the caretakers are out of a job.

That doesn't stop rule breaking. And rule breakers aren't always punished.

 

IACUC meetings are open to the public. You won't trust me but then you say false things that anyone can look up and see are false! Who has the credibiliity problem here?

See above for evidence of IACUC negligence and incompetence.

 

Not for the scientist. You might perceive it that way because there is no jail time involved, but having your research shut down is a MAJOR punishment.

There are researchers and lab assistants who have been caught out but have not been punished.

 

Here are excerpts from an article in the Guardian of 5 years ago, which show rules were broken and crimes went unpunished:

 

To the dismay of animal rights activists, the documents reveal how primates were used in the search for a solution to the chronic global shortage of human organs for transplant. Baboons were transported from the African savannahs to die in steel cages the size of toilet cubicles. The documents show that a quarter of the primates died from 'technical failures'.

 

Researchers describe how monkeys and baboons died in fits of vomiting and diarrhoea. Symptoms included violent spasms, bloody discharges, grinding teeth and uncontrollable, manic eye movements. Other animals retreated within themselves, lying still in their cages until put of their misery.

 

Others never even made it to HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences), suffering painful deaths en route. Faxes from global wildlife dealers reveal how at least 50 baboons were taken from the African plains for the experiments. In one shipment the creatures spent 34 hours in cramped transport crates - 10 hours longer than approved by the Home Office, which chose not to take any action.

 

Many of the 1,274 pages of documents reveal a litany of failings that will serve to ignite further controversy over HLS, which last week won a ground-breaking injunction preventing animal protesters getting close to employees' homes. Fundamental questions over the value of vivisection itself will also be asked.

 

The papers reveal attempts to bury the true extent of animal suffering from experiments conducted at the HLS laboratories between 1994 and 2000. Serious incidents of unlicensed animals suffering were not adequately investigated and regulations were not enforced properly.

 

Breaches of the law even went unpunished in some cases, with the Home Office limiting itself to letters of 'admonishment'. One previously confidential paper reveals how the Home Office worked with Imutran - the former British subsidiary of multi-million drug giant Novartis, which was in control of the programme - to underestimate the suffering caused by the most severe experiments.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/20/health.businessofresearch

 

That does not mean it is all subjective. Either you are I might have made a mistake in either our premises or our reasoning.

Again I say, I and others would not agree with you on what is ethical.

 

Oh, but they did. For instance, one of the early pieces of evidence against using animals in research was a video showing a researcher waving a blowtorch over the skin of a pig to cause burns. No researcher could possibly perform that research today.

See above somewhere. There's very little real protection.

 

Several times! However, you can read the regulations for yourself.

Regulations are just as good as the will to keep them and police them.

 

But now the burden of proof is on you to back that claim. You must show specific instances where the rules are not adhered to. Please do.

See above somewhere. But, have you never heard of humans breaking rules and regulations?

 

 

1. Because we never would have had the necessary tests for efficacy and safety without going to animals. You seem to forget (altho you argue for it) that research in humans is extremely limited. There are lots of experiments we simply are not allowed to do in humans until there is animal data. So we couldn't have made it to human clinical trials without the animal data.

1. Because you can't do them in humans doesn't mean they couldn't be done without non-humans. There are already many other methods that should be used and should be improved.

 

2. It's possible that "better" treatments were scrapped. The system is biased towards safety at the expense of efficacy. Do you want to change that bias? Your other comments say "no".

2. David Graham, of the FDA Office of Drug Safety, said that the system is biased towards efficacy and that safety gets an easier ride.

 

================

Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH, November 18, 2004. Before the US Congress.

Pages 4-5.

 

The corporate culture within CDER (Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research - part of the FDA) is also a barrier to effectively protecting the American people from unnecessary harm due to prescription and OTC drugs. The culture is dominated by a world-view that believes only randomized clinical trials provide useful and actionable information and that postmarketing safety is an afterthought. This culture also views the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client, over-values the benefits of the drugs it approves and seriously under-values, disregards and disrespects drug safety.

 

Finally, the scientific standards CDER applies to drug safety guarantee that unsafe and deadly

drugs will remain on the US market. When an OND (Office of New Drugs) reviewing division reviews a drug to decide whether to approve it, great reliance is placed on statistical tests. Usually, a drug is only approved if there is a 95% or greater probability that the drug actually works. From a safety perspective, this is also a very protective standard because it protects patients against drugs that don’t work. The real problem is how CDER applies statistics to post-marketing safety. We see from the structural and cultural problems in CDER, that everything revolves around OND and the drug approval process.

 

When it comes to safety, the OND paradigm of 95% certainty prevails. Under this paradigm, a

drug is safe until you can show with 95% or greater certainty that it is not safe. This is an incredibly high, almost insurmountable barrier to overcome. It’s the equivalent of “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” And here’s an added kicker. In order to demonstrate a safety problem with 95% certainty, extremely large studies are often needed. And guess what. Those large studies can’t be done.

===============

 

3. Using non-humans is NOT a "lottery". That is part of the mythology AR people must have. After all, if animal testing is predictive of human success, the AR position crumbles. So in this instance, by your own criteria, we can't trust anything you say. However, it is demonstrably otherwise. I can provide several instances where we can trace a successful treatment/drug by the scientific publications and you can see how animal testing was critical. OTOH, you must show how, in the last 50 years, the majority of new treatments/drugs were not based on animal research. Please do so.

3. Every successful new drug for humans that had earlier non-human testing will have lab animal data that you can trace back to. That is because those treatments are the minority that succeeded in humans out of the large number that don't but that also had non-human testing. But the majority of new drugs that fail cannot be so traced. And that is because there is a break in the line of data when the human effects don't agree with the non-human. Furthermore, the 'successful' results from non-humans might just be those that happen to agree with the human. There could be other non-human results that didn't agree. Whole clinical trials can be hidden. It would be even easier to hide the results from some dogs or monkeys.

 

 

Irrelevant answer. The original claim was that there was NO sponsored research on animal alternatives. This shows otherwise. Also, NIH funds are completely separate from money spent marketing drugs. You simply can't compare the 2. Of course the pharma companies market their drugs; companies market cars, houses, computers, and every other product. So what? It costs over $500 million to bring a drug to market. The companies have to recoup that cost or their are no new drugs.

You're right. Not a good answer as there is some funding, but I didn't say there was none. But it is a pittance.

 

As you admitted, the policies do stop abuse! "From time to time". Yes, occasionally individuals will get around any system. By your logic, we should shut down children's and retirement homes because there will be abuse! So stop taking care of those children and old people, a very few of them will be abused! Do you see the flaw and irrationality in your argument?

Humans can tell about abuse to them, or their relatives can. Human carers, however cruel, are unlikely to be as uncaring as those who are cruel to non-humans. Most humans in those places are probably well cared for. They are there to be taken care of. That is the purpose of those places. Vivisection labs are there to do things that deliberately lead to pain or suffering or death. It is more likely that people looking after humans will treat them well. Not necessarily so with those who are in charge of non-humans. They don't have to keep them well for longer than the duration of the experiment. Even then, some don't even manage that.

 

You've repeated this several times. Since this argument is essential to your AR stand, why should we believe you? You have motive for making this statement. As I noted in other posts, the literature is full of papers making comparisons between animal models and human conditions so yes, one species can be a reliable model for another. As just one example, guinea pigs are a reliable model for human vitamin C deficiency.

You have a motive for saying non-humans can be reliable models for humans. All these models for humans still manage to give such wrong information that most new drugs fail in clinical testing.

 

Really? And I suppose we are going to see you at the head of the volunteer line?

No. Not unless I needed the drug and I was sure it had gone through an extensive battery of tests.

 

You've mentioned it, and it is still wrong. Non-humans have been used to predict both. I notice you did not mention new drugs/treatments. Since you think that there are a lot of undesirable side effects to any new drug in humans, why would any human volunteer to test a drug without animal testing first? Would you? So the end result is still a complete halt. If that is what you want, then be honest enough to say so.

I have mentioned new drugs before. I'm tired and can't be bothered to check back but I probably said something about the non-human models not being good enough for it to be known beforehand that their data will be accurate and applicable to humans. Mostly, it isn't.

 

And they can have NO difference. Look, no one says animal testing is perfect and eliminates all risk when we go to humans. That's why we have phased human clinical trials. But before we ask a human to take the risk, the animal testing has provided data that the risk is minimal and worth it. You have a very low regard for your fellow humans if you want to just pump any new compound into them first.

I've already said that the first human is the first human to test something. The non-humans are so unreliable that the human becomes a guinea pig.

 

The claim was about scientific data that was said to exist! Therefore we can rightfully expect to have scientific papers documenting that scientific data. Sorry, you can't claim "science" and then say that there is none!

Without going back over posts I'm not really sure what you're going on about. But there are many scientists who call into question the whole peer review process. There is evidence that medical journal reviewers have conflicts of interest. In some disciplines there are so few potential reviewers that it is not wise to give a really bad review because they might do the same to you next time. And they will know who you are even if you use a nom-de-guerre.

 

Sometimes we can. The use of adult stem cells for recovery after heart attacks did go from mice to human clinical trials. And they are working out quite well!

I was referring to drugs. That's not like testing a drug. I would say that stem cells work in similar ways in mammals just as cells divide in similar ways. Stem cells are common to both species. Human stem cells are used in humans and mice stem cells in mice. It's the stem cells, which are part of the particular animal, which do the work not some drug that is thought to work in similar ways in mice and humans - and usually doesn't. I would say that the drug equivalent of this would be like giving one drug to mice for, say, cholesterol lowering and another drug to humans for the same purpose. You can't give the mouse drug to humans. You give each species the drug that has been seen to do the job in that species. You just used the mice to see if their drug would work in them. Even with drugs that are tested on non-humans and then work in humans, you are just seeing those that happened to do so. Forgetting that most don't. That is not reliability.

 

Human heart problems are often caused, or exacerbated, by lifestyle. The mice don't have human lifestyles. Even if this procedure helps humans it won't change their lifestyles and they are likely to develop the same problems again. The money would be better spent on educating and motivating people to lead healthier lives instead of living unhealthily and expecting mice to be killed so these people can later have the damage to their hearts undone.

 

Keep in mind that most chemicals are either toxic or inert to start with. If there were less chemicals, they would be tested far more extensively. As it stands, there are far more chemicals than could be written in all the libraries in the world, so the focus is on quantity and cost rather than on finding a use for every single one of them.

 

Not sure what you mean. When the lead compound gets through non-human testing the drug company is fairly certain they have something worthwhile. But mostly they don't have when it goes into humans.

 

It has always been thought to be cruel. It was also legal and convenient. Just like everyone accepts that war is cruel, but wars are not outlawed.

Indeed it was legal and convenient. I believe most white people - or at least the legislators - thought it was not cruel. But if most people did think it was cruel and still did it - why, that's like the present attitude towards non-humans: It's cruel but has to be done. The people doing these vile things will be of the same mind as those people who saw nothing wrong in slavery or thought it wrong but neccesary.

 

 

Yes, but if you accidentally kill or harm a human in a trial, it is far worse both morally and economically than harming an animal, or even several animals. The morality part of that is my opinion, but the economic portion is a fact. If you feel that it is preferable to test drugs on humans than on animals, please volunteer to test drugs on yourself so that animals don't have to.

I believe that the whole system needs changing. That extensive, non-vivisection safety testing needs to be done. That it should take as long as it needs to take. That no expense should be spared. That a constant search be conducted to improve everything.

 

In any case, animals are far more closely related to us than you realize. To give an example, some amoebas respond to the same chemical signals as used by our bodies, and respond in a similar manner as white blood cells. And that's about as far from humans as you can get. Mammals are extremely similar to us, other than our cerebral cortex.

 

Not similar enough. Plants might share a common pathogen recognition pathway with animals. Perhaps we should experiment on beech trees.

 

I read somewhere that a gene has been found in two distinct types of monkey. The gene is actually a combination of two other genes. At the DNA level the genes are similar but molecularly, their beginnings were different. If this is true, even very close similarities are not close enough.

 

jdurg #400

 

quote: A drug might do everything the company wants it to, but might be too expensive to produce at the level needed to provided the benefit. That drug will be removed.

 

quote: It is the tests on human subjects that determine if it's worth proceeding.

 

 

 

I know that some drugs are stopped in the clinical trials for commercial reasons. But most fail for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Of those that fail for commercial reasons, there's a possibility that some of them could fail for reasons of safety or effectiveness if they had been allowed to continue.

[Sayonara]

The fact that most drugs fail when they are tested in humans should be enough to convince anyone that the drugs can't be tested in other species with any prior knowledge of what they will do in humans.

Can we see some compelling evidence that "most drugs fail when they are tested in humans" is actually a fact? I suspect that it is true, if only for biochemical reasons, but it is good to get into the habit of evidencing such claims on a site like this.

 

 

The two sides here have different beliefs about the validity of using non-humans to save humans. Some on my side believe that using them leads to millions waiting in vain for cures. I'm glad you believe that using non-humans is an evil.

Bear in mind that the anti- side needs to find a reason, any reason, to support their objection. The pro- side needs no such reason because the system works, and is constantly improving.

 

When I say "the lesser of two evils", I am using the common English phrase. Perhaps I should have said "the lesser of two not brilliant choices" to remove ambiguity. I do not think that testing on non-humans is inherently evil; such an attribute can only be applied to intentions, not to mechanisms.

 

They possess lives and health. Vivisection takes those away from them. It causes them pain and/or fear/distress. And death.

We are not discussing vivisection, despite your repeated claims that we are. I have already warned you about this and the next infraction (in the thread, not in this post) will result in warning points.

 

My reply to the above, substituting vivisection with "animal trials", is that you cannot validly make those same claims for all experiments across the board.

 

Forty-odd years ago it was the opinion of the Law in the UK that it was wrong to do abortions on healthy babies. Then it became the opinion of the Law that it was not wrong.

That change in the law came about as a result of the rational discussion of new and more informative medical data. It was not changed on a subjective whim.

 

I would respectfully suggest that if you are going to argue about how laws are formulated and applied, then you will suffer a crushing defeat on that front, given that the subject is a major aspect of my career.

 

 

The original poster was saying, I think, that humans, having taken over the world, thought they could do whatever they wanted to its inhabitants. That humans subjugate other species simply because they can. The original poster thinks that's wrong. So do I.

And that is just your opinion. Funny how "just an opinion" is good enough for you, but not good enough for the pro-stance.

 

What you have to realise with regard to that kind of scenario is that there is no absolute moral position. Stating that your moral outlook is the only right one is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

 

 

Yes. The non-human animals are used to test for both. Drugs do fail in the human trials for safety and effectiveness reasons, amongst other things.

I don't think that was in dispute. I take it from the rest of your posts that you find this wasteful. I don't particularly think that stance is limited to the anti-testing group; certainly nobody sets out in the medical research business because they want lots of bunnies to die. It's generally better for business, research, and bunnies if the test media are not lethal.

 

 

My definition is correct.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

 

As I said, the meaning of words changes over time.

Yes, that on its own is true. But it does not mean that you can take a propaganda term and apply it to something which it does not mean in order to colour your opponent's arguments.

 

Have I demanded citations? I can provide evidence for anything I've stated as a fact.

Pretty sure you did earlier on. It was a week or more ago though so I can't point to a specific post. I should have quoted at the time.

 

If you CAN provide evidence, do it at the time that you make the claim. The onus is on you to do this; it is not the convention to wait for people to ask you to back up your own points.

 

My analogy isn't weak.

They really are. Arguing by analogy is notoriously difficult to pull off well though, so I would not stress over it.

 

Laws are opinions.

No, they are not. I strongly suggest that you abort that approach.

 

I have said that my belief that vivisection is morally wrong is my opinion and that others might not share it.

I don't understand how you expect your opinion to make any difference to the reader if you truly believe that stating "laws are opinions" somehow invalidates what they state. That is not internally consistent.

 

 

It is hard to find any unbiased opinion with this subject.

Unfortunately true. It does mean spending a lot more time finding your sources, but of course the payoff is more reliable information.

 

Even medical studies can be biased - especially if they are funded by the drug companies.

I am glad to see that you are not blind to that; it can cause real problems when corporately supported studies (or at least, those which ARE biased) slip through the net. Fortunately it does not happen as often as people might think, because there is no profit to be gained by spending billions on a research project which was green-lighted on the back of self-delusion.

 

Everything I have read has led me to the belief I have now.

That doesn't make a comment on what you should believe, because it only represents what you have chosen to read.

 

Many years ago I was opposed to vivisection on moral grounds only. I believed that it was scientifically valid. Probably because I had been told it was. When I started to look into it and think for myself, I found that it is not science - that it can't be used to reliably know in advance what a new drug will do.

And now you know that vivisection is not really anything to do with drug testing. Hallelujah! You can stop wasting your time on fiction.

 

 

Come on, now. Would you deny me free speech? I have told you why I call it vivisection.

If by "free speech" you mean using an incorrect word which has very negative connotations in common language, then yes. Although I have to add that I would also qualify that by pointing out that you would also be using your own definition of "free speech".

 

Your reasons for making up the definition of vivisection don't go any way towards justifying it on any level.

 

'Animal testing' is a euphemism, like 'sacrificing', 'abbatoir', 'euthanising', and many others.

None of those are euphemisms - they have precise meanings.

 

It conjures up a vision of rats sitting with pencil and paper doing a spelling test.

That is a product of your imagination, not the words themselves. Additionally, if you truly object to this phrase on those grounds, then by choosing to use "vivisection" instead (which evokes images of animals carved up and plugged in), then surely you are just being a complete hypocrite?

 

If you say that causing fear and pain to anyone for the purpose of medical experiments is not vivisection and that vivisection is only to be used when referring to cutting into live tissues, you must use the term when talking about operations on humans, tatooing, ear piercing, and perhaps even pruning roses.

And in certain technically-minded conversations, that is a word which is used. However in the common language it isn't, because people who are talking about their new tattoo or their floral deftness don't talk like medical dictionaries.

 

As the literal meaning is not used, other meanings can be attached to it. As have been over the years. That's the way language changes.

Those changes can't be crow-barred in by an agenda which wishes to equivocate with completely different topics. Let me make this absolutely clear: you are not going to fool anyone here on this point, and if you genuinely believe it, then you need to have a long hard think about why.

 

I don't ask anyone to stop saying that other animals can't suffer. I find those statements very annoying but I know it's pointless asking people to stop saying them.

You using a word incorrectly and someone making a statement you disagree with are not equivalent.

 

The people on this thread already have differences in opinion about the meanings of 'suffering', 'ethical behaviour', and 'cruelty'. No doubt, our opinions of the meaning of 'vivisection' will remain different.

The idea is that you listen to the arguments and decide if the evidence supports them, and then you are able to apply the differences to your opinion. By iteration you shift your opinion closer to representing the true state of affairs.

 

Believe me, sufficiently compelling evidence will swing people's positions. People who consistently fail to be swung from the pro-testing to the anti-testing camp are not just being stubborn or difficult: in actuality they are simply not being given any compelling evidence. That is hardly their fault, is it?

 

The thread is not about vivisection, and the meaning of that word is not a product of your opinion.

 

Will someone who says goats can suffer be accused of strawmanning?

Depends if they are using the comment as a strawman or not, obviously. You don't call a logical fallacy based on the inherent sequence of a particular group of words; you call it based on either the intention behind the statement or erroneous reasoning which it contains.

 

 

Now that is propaganda. The animal abusers put that lie about.

Support this or don't make the claim.

 

It is not a good life to be kept prisoner, denied your natural life, tested on and then killed.

That depends on whether or not you have the brain capacity to be aware of concepts such as freedom and slavery, and to be able to see further than the bowl of delicious bunny food that is magically refilled each day, and to have a sense of temporal expanse comparable to that found in humans, and to have some kind of prior knowledge of your death and an appreciation of what this means for you as an existent consciousness, and so on.

 

Or to put it more simply, Mandy Rice Davis makes an argument based in anthropomorphisation, which is just plain stupid.

 

 

It doesn't matter how quick or painless the death is. It is wrong to treat any animal like that. If you can't understand that, no amount of explaining will change your mind.

Well you have some problems here. First, you have already stated that this is your opinion (others share it, but this is beside the point). Second, you have made the contention that "just an opinion" means that a principle can be ignored if one does not believe in it. So any effort to use the above quote as a basis of argument is fundamentally contradictory.

 

Also, it is not a matter of people "not understanding" what is right and wrong, as if there were some absolute and ineffable compass. It is a matter of people being capable of making value judgements. How many rabbits do you think a human life IS worth? Will the number change if you know the rabbits won't be killed?

 

 

Probably not. I give the benefit of the doubt to people who say they are in pain. But I also know that other animals feel pain.

As I stated before in a reply to you, this is not an issue. We know (most) animals can feel pain. The issue is in how their experience of suffering compares to ours, which is orders more difficult to establish. This is not something that is used as an "excuse" to allow people to continue doing their evil and pointless experiments on animals. If compelling evidence emerges that animals share the human experience of suffering in terms of torture, then you can rightly expect a swift and robust response from the bodies regulating animal testing.

 

In fact, they might feel it more. Intellect can control pain. We can rationalise and take our minds off pain.

I don't think that is generally true at all, certainly not without expert command of very specific training which is not general fare for most people.

 

There can be no evidence of what a non-verbal animal is feeling subjectively (and there's none for what a human is feeling, except what they say).

No proof, sure. No evidence, wrong. It does rather depend on what species you are considering, granted, but we do know a great deal about endocrine and neurological systems in many animals used as test subjects. Your personal lack of knowledge on the subject does not qualify as a rebuttal.

 

For that reason, if for no other, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The dictionary definitions of 'suffer' include 'to bear', to undergo. Someone who is undergoing pain or distress is suffering. Unless the meaning has changed lately, like another word has. I mean the word to have the definition given above. I think most people understand it like that. The amount of suffering between species might be different but which species suffers most? There is no way of telling.

That the definition you pick out of a dictionary and the common usage term do not correlate to the proper scientific meaning for the thread context should not come as any great surprise.

 

Temple Grandin wrote:

'When the structure of the brain and nervous system is studied, there is no black and white line between people and higher mammals such as chimps, dogs or cows. The genome project has shown that humans and mice share many genes (Gunter and Dhand, 2002). In mammals 30 to 40% of all genes are involved in nervous system development and function. The basic design of the nervous system and the neural mechanisms that process fear and pain are similar in humans and other mammals (Rogan and LeDoux, 1996).'

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

And none of that provides evidence either for or against any animals having a humanlike experience of suffering.

 

I don't agree with her on many things but she believes, as I do, that other animals can suffer. It is enough for me that they feel pain, distress and fear. Deliberately causing them those feelings during experiments is wrong. It is cruel.

I don't know what sort of experiments you are imagining, but there are not many I can think of where the objective is to deliberately inflict pain, distress, or fear.

 

Perhaps you might give some consideration to arranging a visit to an animal testing lab to see with your own eyes exactly how animals are treated?

 

 

Polititians believe the vivisectors that it is necessary. Money comes into it. Just as it did with slavery.

Yes, it is all about back-handers and labelling groups, and nothing to do with helping save lives and improve the health of people. Well done, you have fixed humanity.

 

 

To quote Temple Grandin again:

'Science has shown that animals such as mammals and birds feel pain in a manner similar to humans.

This is not in dispute.

 

Present research shows that they do experience fear. Fear is very aversive and animals should be shielded form situations that cause great fear. Fear will cause a great rise in stress hormones.

I think you would find it very hard indeed to find anyone actively involved in animal testing who was opposed to those statements.

 

I refer to what vivisection-supporters say because they have similar beliefs to some people here. I'm not sure if Temple Grandin is a vivisection supporter, though.

I sincerely doubt it, but then she seems like she might have a notion of what the word actually means.

 

 

Many white people thought black people weren't as aware as white people. That they were sub-human. My point was that at one time it was not thought wrong. And then, at a later time, it was thought to be wrong.

True in itself, but not justification for pre-supposing that at some point in the future a similar situation will unfold for animals, and that therefore your views should be forced onto all the people who will die without medical aid.

 

I have already shown that these regulatory practices are open to abuse.

That is neither here nor there. We do not level sanctions against everyone in the country because a minority break laws - this is because you cannot judge and convict everyone following the rules based on the actions of those who aren't. To do so is utterly irrational.

 

Well, I haven't shown evidence for that yet but I can. I was waiting until someone challenged me. I have all the evidence just waiting.

That is not the way it works. You make a claim of fact, you post the evidence (or link to it) there and then. Waiting to trip people up is intellectually dishonest, and simply belies a belief-driven agenda.

 

If some system can be abused and there is money to be made by doing so, it will be abused. Drug companies and some medical researchers have already shown their disregard for human life. The welfare of rats and monkeys will be of even less concern to them, especially when measured againt profits or the thoughts of prestige for making some discovery or authoring some highly-praised study.

I don't particularly disagree that any of this can or does happen, but unfortunately for you it is not an argument against the conventionally regulated system of animal testing which is in place.

 

I don't understand what you mean. I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before but I looked it up. I still don't understand what you mean.

I'm sure it will come to you if you think about it. To be honest, you don't have to understand. Only people seeking to enhance their objective viewpoint by reading this thread need to.

 

 

As far as I can tell, you think that something done to non-humans that can cause pain and fear is not cruel if done for a good ( to humans) purpose. But it would be cruel if just done for no reason except the desire to do it.

No, it COULD be cruel in either case. What determines if an act is cruel is not the reason for the act being performed, but the intentions of the person carrying out the act. I suppose you could say it is like the legal concept of mens rea.

[insane_alien]

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

 

viv·i·sec·tion / ˌvivəˈsekshən/ • n. the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research (used only by people who are opposed to such work).

 

∎ fig. ruthlessly sharp and detailed criticism or analysis: the vivisection of America's seamy underbelly.

 

just to quote the oxford english dictionary there, a dictionary that is up to date and often considered the most up-to-date and complete english dictionary. basically meaning if the word/definition isn't in there its not technically english.

 

as PC's definition isn't there(and i can only find that definition on anti animal testing sites) i think its safe to assume that its utter mince and propaganda.

 

not that it matters as we should be using the scientific definition which is clearly defined and cannot change less a few large libraries worth of literature have to be reproduced to cover that mistake.

 

vivesection only applies to operations on live animals. if it doesn't involve cutting them open then it is NOT vivisection.

 

Now, can we PLEASE move on from this unproductive and idiotic arguement as you have been shown to be wrong to exhaustion.

[Mr Skeptic]

PeacheyCarnehan, I see your "Animal testing doesn't work because most drugs don't work on humans" and raise you a "Gravity doesn't work because hot air balloons don't fall"

[jdurg]

PC. For your own benefit, I would suggest that you stop all this propaganda regarding drug testing and pharmaceutical companies. From what you have posted, it is VERY obvious that you have NEVER spent a day of your life in the pharmaceutical industry and have absolutely no clue what it is like.

 

You've stated that the pharma industry hides data in order to get their drugs out. That is so far from the truth that it could be considered libel. Every regulatory agency on the planet from any country in existance can demand at any point in time to see ALL of the data on a clinical trial. ANY clinical trial. If the company refuses to give them access, the company can be heavily fined and shut down. If it is found that a company falsified data, or threw out pertinent data, those involved in that hiding will go to jail. I work in the industry, and even if I played no part in the hiding of data I could go to jail. If I found out that data was being hidden or falsified, I would go to jail.

 

You also don't seem to understand how the efficacy of a drug is determined in a clinical trial. It isn't determined qualitatively by asking every subject "So, do you think you're feeling better?" The results are determined through lab data (which is quantitative) and ECGs, stress tests, x-rays, ultrasounds, biopsies, etc. ALL test results that are NOT subjective. In addition, the number of subjects taking place in these trials are very large. There are some 5-6 year studies with over 5,000 randomized subjects. That is a LOT of data that can NOT be fudged.

 

At the end of a trial, Clinical Study Reports are written and the MASSIVE bulk of those reports are Adverse Event data. The company sponsoring those trials can not withold one single AE regardless of suspected causality.

 

In addition, Clinical Trials are very heavily analyzed before even going into existance. The process of developing a protocol (The specified manner in which the trial has to be carried out and specifics about the subjects that can be included in the trial) takes quite a while. Even then, the protocol has to be approved by every regulatory board in the countries that the study is carried out.

 

With regards to the researchers (Investigators as they are properly called) not having access to the data, there's a reason for this. If a doctor is participating in a trial and knows that the drug works or does not work, he/she is more likely to become biased and potentially falsify data. This is too high of a risk to the safety of the patients and the eventual consumer. So the investigators are not allowed access to the unblinded data. They can get the CSRs if they so choose, but for everyone's benefit it is best that they do not know the success or failure of a drug. They are ONLY permitted to know the subject's status in the trial (Placebo or Active Compound(s)) for safety reasons. (I.E. the patient has a serious AE and they need to know this information for proper treatment). Even then, before they are unblinded the Investigator will have to decide whether or not to take the subject off of the "drug". (To them, they don't know if "drug" is placebo or active compound).

 

It's fairly obvious that you are quite passionate about your beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, passionate feelings can help lead to great research. However, this is a scientific community and beliefs won't win you any arguments. Coming into a debate with heresay and beliefs will not sway anybody's beliefs or win any debates. It is a massive shame when someone learns a little bit about something and believes they are an expert on the subject which you appear to be.

 

I too had some misbeliefs about the pharmaceutical industry until I actually did my research and even became a part of it. Then I saw all the lengthy regulations and requirments and LEGAL implications for not following them.

[lucaspa]

There have been cases where researchers aren't even allowed to see the data they've collected. The researchers have no say in which studies are presented and which are hidden. Studies have been hidden. Medical journal articles have been ghost-written by drug company employees.

 

Please document all that. Wait a minute. Are you referring to the physicians in double-blind studies? As Jdurg noted, they cannot have access while the trial is underway. They cannot know which patients are getting treatment and which are controls. Such knowledge could bias how they evaluated the patients. AFTER the trial is over, I don't know of a single case where the physicians/researchers don't have access to the data. They are required by both law and custom.

 

PC, you are slipping between 3 different claims:

1. Animal studies themselves are immmoral

2. There are NO safeguards for animals.

3. There are abused of the existing safeguards on animals.

 

You are trying to use examples of #3 to argue for #1. But that doesn't work. Let's take this out of animal testing. As you noted, there are occasional abuses of children in orphanages and the elderly in nursing homes. In both cases there are safeguards in place. However, even tho there is the occasional abuse it does not follow that it is immoral to have children in orphanages or the elderly in nursing homes!

 

 

And there's the well known effect on medical studies in which drug company-sponsored trials are more likely to be favourable to the drug than in those trials that are not sponsored by drug companies.

 

Which is why all such funding must be disclosed! ALL funding for papers must now be disclosed so any possible conflict of interest (which is what you are talking about) is done. However, you do realize that a lot of your complaints applies to CLINICAL TRIALS, and you approve of those. You can't be internally consistent and say that these claims mean that we must stop animal trials but it is OK to continue doing human clinical trials! Can't have it both ways.

 

Which shows that you are simply rationalizing a prior belief, not trying to objectively analyze a situation ethically and reach a objective ethical conclusion. So, since all this is rationalizing an a priori belief, I'll ask you again: why should we believe anything you say? Why would you not say anything -- true or not -- to rationalize your belief?

 

I thought the meaning might have been clear from what I have already said: Lab animals cannot reliably simulate the effects of a new drug in humans so that it is known beforehand that their results will be accurate. It is only when the drug is tested on humans that it can be seen if they were accurate.

 

But animal models do simulate reliably. All the drugs and treatments on the market, and all the drugs and treatements witheld from clinical trials attest to that. Clinical trials are done because we insist on double-checking the results from animals.

 

Drug companies hide data from clinical trials where it says the drug is ineffective. I think they have also hidden data which suggested potential harm. They have certainly tried to play down the potential danger. This is after the previous tests in non-humans said it would be effective.

 

The first and second, as Jdurg has pointed out, are illegal. Usually there is room about potential danger for reasonable people to reasonably disagree. That was certainly the case with Viox and, before that, chloramphenicol. Deciding how "bad" the danger is becomes a question of ethics, not science. What level of risk are we willing to accept? That changes, of course, depending on the situation and the consequences.

 

If there was nothing else, if they were tested properly and I had a serious disease, and I thought it might help, yes.

 

But look at all those "ifs". You didn't have those qualifiers in your original idea! Instead, you thought drugs that were toxic in animals should be tested on humans. But no, you won't volunteer. You won't volunteer, for instance, to test a new NSAID for headaches that previously was toxic in rats, for instance. Would you?

 

 

my criticism stands - you lot seem afraid to call a spade a spade. Are you ashamed to use the correct word in case it makes you look bad?

 

Euthanasia is the correct term. Just as you insist that "vivisection" is the correct term. In your case, you want to most emotional impact even if it is incorrect. Are you afraid to use the correct term "animal testing" because it would not make animal research look so bad? Sauce for the goose.

 

I was referring to drugs already on the market. Some drugs, quite often due to marketing hype, are thought to be miracle drugs. These drugs might work, or work better than they would, because people - patients and medical staff - believe the hype.

 

No, you were talking about testing. Since the original testing was raondomized double blind, we know ahead of time whatever placebo effect there is. We know the real effect before they get to market.

 

But even in clinical trials which are double-blinded and Random-Housed the placebo effect is impossible to eliminate.

 

It's "randomized". You really don't know what that experimental design is, do you? Go do some reading. "Randomized means that patients are randomly assigned to a the control group or the group receiving the drug.

 

Double-blind means that neither the patient nor the person evaluating the effect know which patients got the drug and which did not. This eliminates bias and also means, if there is a placebo effect, it will be in both groups. That means that any effect of the drug above and beyond a placebo effect is going to be detected. If instead, the drug is ineffective and there is only a placebo effect, then both groups are going to be the same. You won't get a false positive. You may get a false negative if the real effect of the drug is smaller than a placebo effect.

 

Many, or most or even all, in the trials will hope and/or assume they are being given the drug rather than the placebo. That will make whatever they take work better. The drug might even have a slight therapeutic effect. That will be maginified by its own placebo effect.

 

Sigh. PC, you are making lots of Arguments from Ignorance. This is one of them. If ALL the patients think they are getting the drug but only half are, then what the placebo effect is going to do is make it look like the drug has no therapeutic effect because the controls will also do better. This will eliminate the difference between those that take the drug and those that don't. THINK ABOUT IT! The effect of a double-blind trial will be exactly opposite of what you think.

 

The fact remains most new drugs fail in clinical trials. I don't think we should put much trust in other species to help us with computer programmes.

 

that part about computer programs is complete does-not-follow. We are talking about anatomy and physiology, not the ability to write computer programs. WOW, it's difficult to conceive how you thought computer programming was relevant.

 

Jdurg and I have both given lots of reasons why drugs "fail" clinical trials that have nothing to do with the failure of animal testing. You must address those reasons and show they are incorrect.

 

If someone desperately wanted to do the research and they had powerful backers, the law/legislation/rules would fly out of the window. They might not even need the powerful backers. I didn't say that IACUC's definitely had conflicts of interest or had corrupt members. But other regulatory bodies do or have had.

 

But it's IACUCS that are necessary for the preliminary animal testing! If they don't have conflicts of interest or corrupt members, then your whole first sentence is invalid! IACUCs ensure the rules are followed, and if they are not corrupt, then it doesn't matter what the "powerful backers" want. Look at one example. The ONLY way human embryonic stem cell research was done was by avoiding the law/legislation/rules and going where they don't apply!

 

The paucity of reliable, accurate results in humans that come out of non-human tests speak loud and clear to anyone who will listen and who hasn't been deafened by the vile din of the vivisection propaganda.

 

All you have to do is a superficial PubMed search on ANY disease and drug to refute that "paucity of reliable, accurate results" claim. ALL the currently used treatments, and the ones that never made it to humans, went thru animal testing. All you have to do is go LOOK at the evidenced and not be deafened by the vile din of animal rights propaganda. See?, this name calling works both ways, doesn't it? So how about you just stop that and LOOK AT THE DATA. Scientific data is PUBLISHED. It's available to everyone.

 

See above. What about the drug that does no harm to a rat or dog but might harm a human? You wouldn't know until it harmed a human.

 

On that off chance is why we go thru phased clinical trials! I've said this before PC, please pay attention. No one claims that animal testing is 100% reliable. Nothing in biology is. There are variations -- between individuals and between species. But animal testing is reliable enough as to be essential.

 

Look, if you had done the testing on Viox or thalidomide your way, they still would have caused harm to humans! You would not have tested thalidomide initially on pregnant women and thus would not have known about the teratogenic effects until lots of people used it. Viox is harmful only to a small portion of humans, so again human testing would have missed it (and did, as a matter of fact). Now, because there are going to be some times when the drug is not obviously harmful to a person, do we stop developing new drugs?

 

What we are saying is that animal testing reduces those examples of harm to humans to a very few. If we went directly to human testing, we would have a LOT more dead people around. YOU already indicated that you won't volunteer. So, how can you be so hypocritical to want other people to take the risks you refuse to?

 

More later.

 

For anyone interested, this is a website that will get you access to FDA drug approval data: https://www.pharmapendium.com/index.jsp

 

"PharmaPendium puts drug safety data of US-approved drugs at a researcher's fingertips. It lets researchers understand the full scope of projected risks early in the drug development process.

 

• Search hundreds of FDA Approval Packages to find valuable animal and human studies and approval information

• Get a longitudinal view of preclinical, clinical and post-marketing drug safety information

• Analyze gold-standard data to compare toxicities and adverse effects in animals and humans "

 

For this disuscussion, notice that you can follow a drug from animal testing (preclinical) to clinical to post-market for both efficacy and safety. This will dispel the animal-rights myth that animal tests have no reliability for humans.

 

Peachy, the data is there. It's public. You and all your animal rights friends can access it. This dispels your claim of conspiracy and cover-up.

 

I think everyone, except Jdurg, is going to be surprised at the amount of data is in an FDA approval package.

Edited September 8, 2008 by lucaspa
multiple post merged

[christiannnna]

I personally think animal testing for beauty products is wrong, but whats done is done. either way EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT WE BUY HAS BEEN TESTED ON ANIMALS AT SOME POINT.

I don't think it's fair on the animals, but sometimes it has got to be done.

 

I have no problem with the fact that animals get tested on to find cures to diseases, and medicines etc.

But I read somewhere that researchers try to make sure the animals get the least pain. And all of the animals (there aren't many) get treated good, and fed.

 

But they should start using criminals.

[Sayonara]

I personally think animal testing for beauty products is wrong, but whats done is done. either way EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT WE BUY HAS BEEN TESTED ON ANIMALS AT SOME POINT.

I am of the opinion that if we ever start drastically scaling back animal testing (with or without an alternative in mind), that's where we should start. Cosmetics.

 

But they should start using criminals [for diseases and medicines].

Why?

[insane_alien]

well, it would offer a huge deterrent to people doing illegal stuff.

 

get busted, get tested on.

 

but i think you'll find that that will not be a popular thing