posted 06-15-99 09:06 AM ET        

A few facts about animal research (from misc. sources):

1. More animals are killed by cars or in animal shelters in the US than are used for research.

2. More than 80% of the animals used in research are rodents.

3. Medical research in many cases has come back to help animals (ie. hip replacements on dogs).

4. Less animals are being used thanks to advances with artificial skin, cell cultures, and tissue samples.

posted 06-15-99 03:48 PM ET            

1. Your first fact does not mean anything other than what it states. Simply because more animals are killed by cars or in shelters (i. e. human intervention) does not mean that using animals for research is just fine. For example, more people are killed in car accidents than in school shootings. does this mean that school shootings are perfectly ok?

2. I don't see your point here. So what if they're rodents, elephants or cute, cuddly animals like bunnies- they're still animals, and all animals have rights. To say "well, we can test on rodents, but not on parrots," is discrimination.

3. Let's use a human analogy here. Say we needed to test and disfigure or kill a million humans for a cancer vaccine which would eventually save the lives of tens of millions of humans- would we do it?

4. Well, that's good to hear. The less the better.

In any case, when it comes to testing for products which are to be use by humans, humans can be the tested. The rest of the creatures should be left alone, which is their right, in my opinion. And for those of you who think animal testing is an excellent idea because it benefits your species, try losing some of your selfishness and thinking again.

posted 06-15-99 05:16 PM ET            

1. The first statement implies that many of the people that complain about animal research are the same type of people that open their doors and let their dogs and cats run freely through the neighborhood. And scientists have done more to reduce the number of research animals than SPCA sponsored animal shelters have done to educate the general public about being responsible pet owners.

2. The use of rodents is more accepted among people who aren't pro animal research and yet they appreciate the benefits it gives. There is a hierarchy of types of research animals being used. Nonhuman primates and dolphins are at the top since they are considered "more intelligent" and animals such as rodents, reptiles, and birds are at the bottom.

posted 06-16-99 08:59 AM ET            

So, Hugo, unless you can back up your outrageous claims with some sort of evidence, they don't make any sense to me. If animals don't feel, then why don't they like pain?

Koshko: If something is considered necessary, that doesn't mean it's not cruel. And for the most part, animal testing IS cruel, whether it's done on humans or bugs.

Kefaed: Again, there is no "lower". All you are saying is "My species is better than your species because we've done this and that, so therefore we can do whatever we feel like doing to you."

posted 06-16-99 10:43 AM ET            

Animals can feel pain and fear just like us. Most animals, and practically all animals used in animal research, are intelligent. Maybe not as intelligent as most humans, but I still do not think anyones life is worth less, just because he/she is stupid.

Hugo Rune: Small tissue samples usually do not have a complete and working central nervous system, sheep on the other hand, do.

Koshko: A couple of hundred years ago, blacks were bred for the exact reason of working as slaves in the fields for white. They existed to work. It was their job. They were destined for slavery.
That does not mean slavery is right. And that lab rats are destined for experimentation does not mean that is right either.

posted 06-16-99 12:15 PM ET            

There is no better system to conduct research in than animal models. Tissue cultured cells and in vitro tests are fine starting out, but before you test on humans in clinical trials, you have to test in an animal model. Better them than me or any other human.

That said, I'm totally against putting animals through needless suffering - If you're going to start research in animals, it better have been well tested in other systems first, and had damn well better be for a good reason - medical research, not cosmetic testing.

posted 06-16-99 12:47 PM ET            

Not so long ago, all humans thought that the earth was flat. When Earth "became" round, people said that Sun revolves around the Earth. Then, people said that we are at center of the Universe. Today, we (not all of us) think that we are alone in the Universe, and what's worse, we might think that we are the superior race in the Universe.

Anyway, this got a bit out of hand, but I still stand by my believes. No testing on aminals should be allowed, unless it's crucial to our own survival, which involves terminal ill human beings or such, otherwise it's plain wrong.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

posted 06-16-99 03:58 PM ET            

There are animal use committees whose sole job is to review animal use protocols and scrutinize them. It's their job to find out why the research is being done, if it's beneficial, make sure the research isn't duplicating something that's already been done, how many animals are being used and why, what species and why, will pain be involved and why, and a load of other items. These committees are made up of scientists, veterinarians, and impartial community reps. There are also agencies that nationally certify animal facilities. These agencies pick an animal facility apart piece by piece to ensure it's operating IAW the Animal Welfare Act, Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regualtions, and the Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, along with NIH, FDA, and other agency standards.

posted 06-16-99 08:05 PM ET            

4Horses: So, let's say that all animal testing involves a painless prick. It seems to me that lethal injection is rather similar. Animal testing is akin to lethal injection for innocent people.

What we are doing is killing animals (in a painful or otherwise method) so that cosmetics and drugs that, for the most part, benefit our species and don't have any adverse side effects for our species can be created.

So: When it's OUR species we're testing drugs for, OUR species can test them. What cancer patient wouldn't want to test a drug that might cure millions of cancer patients? Why are other animals brought into the picture?

Hopefully, sometime in the near future, people will realize that humans, rats, komodo dragons and squirrels and all the other species are animals, just like white people, black people and all the other races are humans.

posted 06-16-99 10:10 PM ET            

I agree that we really don't need to do Cosmetic testing on them. Cosmetics are just for the Human Ego. On the other hand, Finding the cure for a terminal disease is for the Human existance.

Part of the reason animals are used are for discovering the long-term effects of something. A life expectancy of a Lab Rat is about 1%? of the life expectancy of a Human. A long term effect of a experimental drug could show up a mere couple of weeks in a Lab Rat, while it might not show up in a Human for a couple of years or more. By doing testing on animals as well, you will find bad effects of a Experimental drug sooner. In the long run, this can result in finding a drug with minimal ill effects sooner.

posted 06-16-99 10:52 PM ET            

quote:

---

Hopefully, sometime in the near future, people will realize that humans, rats, komodo dragons and squirrels and all the other species are animals, just like white people, black people and all the other races are humans.

---

Hopefully, sometime in the near future, people will realise that humans, animals, plants, rocks, sand and wind and everything else are things, just like white people, black people and all the other races are humans.

I just wanted to say something here, we are first and foremost human. It's not a matter of who's more intelligent or higher or whatever. It's a matter of us being human and doing what is necessary for the long term future of our species.

posted 06-17-99 09:20 AM ET            

#1- First of all a prick with a needle is not painless. There is a variable amount of discomfort involved depending on the animal's tolerance to pain and the skill of the person with the syringe. I'm sure you didn't mean to use the word "painless". But you demonstrated that you're not thinking rationally and in my mind that tends to label you as an animal rights fanatic.

#2- You confused me a bit.

" Animal testing is akin to lethal injection for innocent people."

Hopefully we don't perform lethal injections on innocent people. Are you implying that animals are innocent? Yes the animals are innocent, you are indeed correct. I believe three things:

1. Survival of the fittest.
2. The world is in such a state right now that animals must depend on us to survive and we must depend on them to survive.
3. Humans are the superior species and as such we decide what to do with the rest of the animals.

#3- "What we are doing is killing animals (in a painful or otherwise method) so that cosmetics and drugs that, for the most part, benefit our species and don't have any adverse side effects for our species can be created."

OK. You seem to have the concept of animal research down. Now what the hell are you trying to say with this statement?

#4- "So: When it's OUR species we're testing drugs for, OUR species can test them. What cancer patient wouldn't want to test a drug that might cure millions of cancer patients? Why are other animals brought into the picture?"

Animals are brought into the picture because there is something about them that mimics what happens in humans. For example, many pigs are used for heart research because a pig heart is similar in size to a humans and reacts the same way as a human heart depending on the problem. Many rodents are used in cancer research because their cells react similarly to human cells.

For the record: I believe in equality among races, but I'll never believe in equality among species.

If you believe that you have as much to offer as a squirrel, you have a pretty low opinion of yourself and should probably contemplate suicide.

posted 06-17-99 09:28 AM ET            

Actually, no. When testing out new medicines, you usually do not combine it with any other substances, like anesthetics, because the mixture may give different results than the pure medicine.

"The goal of most research isn't to make animals die a slow, agonizing death."

Maybe not the final goal, but slow death is one of the most commonly used methods. Have you heard of the LD50 test? It is the most common way to measure how poisonous a substance is. In the test you have a large number of animals that gets a dose of the poison in regular intervals. The time it takes for 50% of the animals to die is the measurement of how poisonous the substance is. And it is usually not painless.

"There are animal use committees whose sole job is to review animal use protocols and scrutinize them. It's their job to find out why the research is being done, if it's beneficial, make sure the research isn't duplicating something that's already been done, how many animals are being used and why, what species and why, will pain be involved and why, and a load of other items. These committees are made up of scientists, veterinarians, and impartial community reps."

We have a committee for that in Sweden as well, but unfortunately most of the people in the committee are very partial. Most of them come from the medical industry and gladly approves of their old colleagues animal tests "for old times sake", and because they might get a good job in the institutions that perform the tests, some time in the future. In a way I feel it is doing more harm than good, by legitimizing the tests. I hope these committees work better in other countries that has them.

"By the way, animal testing is hardly going bring whole animal species to extinction. "

No, but the animals used still suffer. The nazi concentration camps were hardly going to bring the humans to extinction either, but they were still wrong.

"So it's not as though we're risking another species survival in favour of our own."

Animal testing will not help the survival of the human species. Humans are not exactly close to extinction.

posted 06-17-99 06:09 PM ET            

Ok, first of all, I'm not an animal rights fanatic, at least in my opinion. Simply because I believe animals should have the same rights we do doesn't make me a fanatic. And I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was a fanatic after I wrote painless, instead of painful, which I realize testing is in some cases. Please avoid sticking a label on me.

#1: Now, if "survival of the fittest" means that anybody who is killed simply wasn't fit to survive, then couldn't we logically kill anybody, a human or otherwise, and attribute it to survival of the fittest? If so, then weren't all the victims of the Holocaust simply unfit to survive?

#2: The world is in this state mostly thanks to human intervention. While it's true that the human race requires certain species to keep on going, I don't see what would die out without us. Oh, I know...Smallpox! There's something which has been shown to typically stick to humans. But of course, all species which the human race would have driven to extinction survive if we're gone.

#3: Well, I was sort of trying to show the idiocy of animal testing with this statement. It just seems so unbalanced. I mean, deaths of countless animals so that some people can have their cosmetics?

#4: Actually, animals are brought into the picture because we're too selfish to test our own drugs on ourselves. Not because, say, a pig's heart is similar to a human's. If you wanted to test a drug for a human, the ideal test subject would be a human! However, we don't test our drugs on ourselves because we have these guniea pigs (sometimes literally) sitting around. they can't protest. They don't know about side effects.

posted 06-18-99 09:40 AM ET            

OK.....I'll apologize for the label.

#1. I agree, we could kill anyone and attribute it to survival of the fittest. But I'm trying to talk about the population in general views animal research. I personally believe that we live too long and that diseases have a purpose. As far as the Holocaust goes, what happened to the Jews was very extreme and tragic and if they had been armed the outcome would have been different.

#2 It has been my experience through educational programming that many species would die without us. Specifically species that live in rain forests, the same rain forests that are being cut down for human use. Without human intervention to solve a problem created by humans many rain forests species are in danger.

#3 The use of animals to test cosmetics can be considered outdated information. I agree with you it was a waste of an animal's life and certainly not necessary. However, the use of animals to test drugs and treatments is acceptable in my book.

#4 Have you ever heard of MRVs? .....Medical Research Volunteers. They are people, healthy people in fact, that have agreed to have drugs tested on them. Of course these are drugs which have been previously tested on animals and hopefully are to the point where the desired affect will be achieved when the human is tested. The people are compensated for agreeing to be the guinea pigs. The military routinely uses MRVs.

Actually squirrels and chipmunks are quite similar. The question is would I consider them unequal if a squirrel's immune system acted more similarly to a human's than a chipmunk's immune system. In that case I would.

Yes, what do you have to offer to your species? Survival of the fittest, remember?

" I don't necessarily have a low opinion of myself, but I have a high opinon of squirrels."

posted 06-18-99 10:56 AM ET            

- Actually yes, whenever possible the prick of a needle is all the animal will feel. NOTE the keywords "whenever possible". When testing new medicines or vaccines you do not anesthetize the animal that's correct. But the testing of new medicines often only involves a needle and syringe or in some cases pills. However, when testing treatments, animals are routinely anesthetized to reduce trauma and stress to the animal. An example, let's say you were developing a new steroid to heal a scratch to the cornea. The animal would be anesthetized or perhaps only sedated while the eye was scratched. After that, the animal would not receive any further medication except the steriod to test its effectiveness. Yes the animal would endure discomfort or maybe even pain, but you reduced the stress as much as possible by initially anesthetizing the animal. Additionally many protocols have a clause that if the animal is suffering unbearable pain (as determined by the veterinarian), the animal can be sacrificed.

- I can't speak for your country but in the United States slow death is NOT one of the most commonly used results. Agreed LD50 studies are used to determine how poisonous a substance is. LD50 studies are also used for biological warfare testing and for the research of Ebola and Dengue Fever and a host of other diseases. Once LD50 has been achieved, what do you think happen to the other 50% of the animals on the protocol? Are they forgotten about to die from the effects of the test? No, they are sacrificed to stop their suffering.

- The animal use committees I've experienced are fair. A committee is only as good as its members. And while you might not want everyone on the committee to be pro-research, you want them to be open to the idea of animal research. The goal is produce a practical, responsible protocol that will further research. Ideally you have one or two people (the primary and co-investigator) that want the protocol to be approved, and it's the job of the rest of the committee to pick the protocol apart and question everything. Put the investigators on the spot and see if they know what they're doing. If everyone on the committee knows their job, only worthy protocols will be approved. And since these protocols require funding, it's in the best interest of everyone to produce worthy protocols.

posted 06-18-99 11:49 AM ET            

"Progress toward phasing out the LD50 and the Draize* test has been rapid. Ten years ago, replacing these tests appeared overwhelmingly difficult.......Over the past decade major corporations.........have insitituted structural changes to promote alternatives. Here are some examples:

Hoffman-La Rouche has decreased its use of animals by 67% over a seven-year period. One of the techniques that made this possible is computer-assisted molecular modeling......In 1991 alone, Proctor and Gamble spent over $4.6 million on alternatives.....and they are sharing these results with others.....the National Cancer Institute has developed a new in-vitro screen for testing potential anti-cancer compounds which has reduced their animal use from 6 million to less than 300,000 annually, while improving the quality of research."

-Henry Spira, Animal Rights Coalitions 1994

*Draize test - used to measure the potential for chemicals to damage the human eye based on the damage inflicted in the eyes of concious rabbits.

"The FDA has no requirements for LD50 test data obtained by using the classic, statistically precise test." (Meaning LD50 tests are not required for drug approval)

-US Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine" 1989

"While the classic LD50 usually can be replaced by other tests that utilize fewer animals, there are still instances when precise acute dose toxicity data are needed. For example, the classic LD50 test may be necessary when examining the potency of highly toxic drugs."

posted 06-18-99 06:07 PM ET         

All this argument about animal rights seems silly to me, quite frankly. As a species, we are at the absolute pinnacle of the food web. Why should we act differently than another animal would in our position? In the natural world, one species will use another to increase its chances of survival, without mercy, regret, or remorse. It's simply what happens. If you think that we should act differently, then you're decrying the natural order of the world.

One of my good friends (he's going to marry my sister in a week!) is type 2 diabetic. If it weren't for animal testing, he would not be alive today. Quite frankly, I cannot see thousands, even millions, of rats, rabbits, monkies, or other animals, ever possibly being worth the life of one human being. It's possible in the future that studying sharks could provide a cure to cancer. How can you claim that the lives of SHARKS are worth the potential benefits to MILLIONS OF PEOPLE?

posted 06-20-99 12:25 PM ET            

"Ideally you have one or two people (the primary and co-investigator) that want the protocol to be approved"

Wouldn't it be more fair if everyone in the committee had an open mind, instead of already having one or two persons majority for the test, before the committee have even discussed it?

"Progress toward phasing out the LD50 and the Draize* test has been rapid. Ten years ago, replacing these tests appeared overwhelmingly difficult.......Over the past decade major corporations.........have insitituted structural changes to promote alternatives."

This is of course positive, as are much else of the improvements you have mentioned, but there are still very much that can be improved. From reading your posts, I get the impression that you think it has already gone far enough (or farther than enough), and that you are using improvements in conditions for some lab animals, as an excuse for why there is no need to change anything else. If that is your opinion, then I strongly disagree.

""While the classic LD50 usually can be replaced by other tests that utilize fewer animals, there are still instances when precise acute dose toxicity data are needed. For example, the classic LD50 test may be necessary when examining the potency of highly toxic drugs.""

Why is there need to examine the potency of a highly toxic drug? Isn't it enough to know that it is highly toxic? The effects on an animal can also vary much from the effects the drug would have on a human.

Philip McCauley

"I want to state that cosmetics testing on animals is a different issue from medical testing."

I would just like to point out that far from all medical testing is for the good of humanity, or something like that. Many experiments are done only for pure research, that will not be of any use at all, other than the use of benefiting the career of the scientist. And of the more practical testing of actual medicines that is done, there usually already exists very similar medicines (that works well) on the market.

"Why should we act differently than another animal would in our position? In the natural world, one species will use another to increase its chances of survival, without mercy, regret, or remorse."

In the natural world, members of one species will also use another member of the same species to increase its chances of survival, without mercy, regret, or remorse. Does that mean we should use use humans for painful experiments as well?

"Anyone here remember thalidomide?... ...Might this tragedy have been prevented by more thorough testing?"

posted 06-20-99 08:28 PM ET            

The primary investigator and the co-investigator wrote the protocol so of course they want it approved. And as I stated, the rest of the committee should be open to the idea of animal research.

Actually I don't think the improvements have have gone far enough. I can forsee the day when animals will not be used for research because most research will be done on laboratory created cells.