animaltesting - Jezebel

posts about #animaltesting more →
Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
Cat Killer "Likely To Graduate To Adult Crimes" • Obama Tacitly Supports Transgender Rights
Halston Taps Design Head At Last, Nepotism Surprisingly Not At Play

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Deaf Mute
08/08/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
Why does anyone care how many lab-bred animals are being killed or harmed for these tests?
Even if it was wasteful? They are not people. I really have a hard time understand this increasingly popular philosophy of "respect all living things as if they were human".
We are humans, our emotions are a large part of who we are and how we have survived as a species. This is great, when it is applied to other humans.
But when it is being applied to other species, it is a waste and childish. I equate people who are concerned about this "ethical" dilemma to those children who worry about stepping on a bug (funny enough, a lot of these same people actually don't care about bugs).
To be honest I find it quite dangerous, because when it all comes down to it the reason people are concerned about these puppies, bunnies, and mice is because they are warm-blooded and arbitrarily "cute", which scares the life out of me. I hope the day doesn't come when someone chooses an animal life over a persons because the animal was "cuter".
Reply

WashingMyHair promoted this comment Deaf Mute was starred Deaf Mute was unstarred

WashingMyHair
08/09/09

@Deaf Mute: Hmm, maybe you should look up the studies that find a definitive link between the way people view and treat animals and the way they treat other human beings. If they don't respect animals, they usually don't respect other humans either. What does that tell you?

There are many people that have been hurt, abused, neglected and let down by other human beings. However, their pets have always loved and cared for them, no matter what! Tell them that how they feel is wrong.

The fact that we have the ability to reason and feel emotions is EXACTLY WHY we should never deny compassion and understanding to animals and ALL OTHER LIVING BEINGS. No matter how ugly or cute they are.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply

Edited by WashingMyHair at 08/09/09 5:38 PM WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

TheAnglerfish
08/08/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
Let's not forget that animals are increasingly directly relevant to human disease. My work is in emerging infectious zoonoses (diseases that "jumped" recently from animals to people -- these are most of the "new", scary diseases) like SARS, avian flu, Nipah virus, H1N1, Ebola etc. Experiments with animal subjects are part of understanding the ecology of the disease in question. And when we have that, we're better equipped to control and even prevent outbreaks.
Reply

thesciencegirl promoted this comment Edited by TheAnglerfish at 08/08/09 4:52 AM TheAnglerfish was starred TheAnglerfish was unstarred

chebella
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
I think the Guardian article is being very selective and careful in how they present information. While I don't doubt her statistics on failed stroke and cancer medications, we should take into account that virtually all of successful drugs in humans were first successfully tested in animals. I don't think the fact that the animal model is different from the human model even comes close to negating its importance. Animal testing is invaluable in producing both new knowledge and new drugs.
Reply

Jenloveshercurves promoted this comment chebella was starred chebella was unstarred

Dorilys
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
As a scientist using animals as models of disease, I understand that animals do not perfectly recapitulate the human condition. However, all diseases and all disorders are so very complicated and cannot be studied in cell culture. Cardiac disease effects the kidneys, etc. These diseases need to be studied at the level of the organ and the whole organism to get an accurate idea of what is happening, necessitating use of something that both has organs and the whole system. We can't use humans. We're left with animals.
I don't know any researcher that enjoys working with animals. I dislike it very much. However, I have hope that one day, work that I have done using animal models will help someone with a disease.
What makes me upset is the fact that I occasionally get notices stating that my safety is in jeopardy because people who don't like animal research go to extreme measures. I understand the flaws in the system. That's part of being a good scientist. However, I don't want to be targeted for hoping to make the world a little better.
Reply

Dorilys was starred Dorilys was unstarred

WashingMyHair
08/07/09

@Dorilys: It's unfortunate that you have to sometimes fear for your safety. Protest and activism on animal rights and welfare issues are important. However, it's wrong to threaten harm to others because they disagree with their practices. That makes these people no different than the likes of Dr. Tiller's killer.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

Blueberry26
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
Well, at this point though testing on animals is not a perfect prediction of the effects on humans, it is better than simply testing on cells or in assays. Often drugs are tested on a large scale to determine if they will even come close to having the desired effects, as well as to determine how dangerous they are to living beings. This happens before getting to animal trials. When things are tested on animals it's mainly because what happened in a petri dish may not happen again in a living, breathing organism. No biological process happens in a vacuum, so testing on animals gives researchers the chance to see interactions with other processes. So no, not perfect. But until we get a much better computer model or a ton of people willing to be tested, it's difficult to argue that it is completely unnecessary.
Also, usually compounds that are tested on human volunteers have already been tested on animals, and are therefore more likely to be safe. If you don't test on animals first, this safe-guard is gone. So who wants to volunteer first?
Reply

Hooplehead promoted this comment Blueberry26 was starred Blueberry26 was unstarred

Blueberry26
08/07/09

@Blueberry26: Plus, a lot of the diseases that we're trying to treat or cure aren't well understood enough to make models either. You have to really understand how something works to make a good model of it, and usually we don't. Because that can take decades, and the development of the drugs themselves already takes long enough and enough money.
Reply

Blueberry26 was starred Blueberry26 was unstarred

clodia
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
My husband has his Ph.D. in Toxicology, and he's killed many a rat in his day. His post doc is essentially trying to find a way to test individual cells or systems rather than having to use whole live animals. Every test that he does leads him further to the conclusion that with our current level of knowledge, there is no way that we can stop testing on animals. We simply do not know enough about the organs, the organ systems, and how each individual component interacts with each other.
The other thing that he says is that research scientists would love to stop animal testing. Partially because the majority of the people who work with animals in all the labs that he's worked in are animal lovers, and partially because it's so expensive. Rats cost anywhere from $10-40 each, not to mention their upkeep, which quickly adds up when you are discussing studies of 500 rats or more.
Further, animal testing is strictly regulated. Strictly. You have to approve everything that you plan to do to them, and you can't change anything without going back and getting papers signed in triplicate.
As for the cosmetics industry - I have nothing that I am willing to say to support it. But when it comes to hard scientific or medical research, there are no viable alternatives. If there were, scientists would have already jumped on them.
Reply

thesciencegirl promoted this comment clodia was starred clodia was unstarred

greengrey
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
Do people who are against animal testing turn down every vaccine/drug/cure founded on the back of animal testing?
Reply

Hooplehead promoted this comment greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

slowpoke.r
08/07/09

@greengrey: I'll bite, on the off chance that you're asking a serious question and not simply trying to bait people.

No, I don't turn down every thing that was founded on the back of animal testing, as that would be next to impossible. It's a difficult position and one that is easily open to being labeled hypocritical, but that makes it no less sincere.

That said, I will not get a flu vaccine because of the eggs involved. But I do take aspirin and when I had minor surgery a few weeks ago they did put me under. I use product; most product ingredients were at some point tested on animals, though I only buy cruelty-free. I try to only buy household products that are cruelty-free as well. But I eat bread and grains despite the fact that many small rodents are killed in commercial mowing. In short, I have an ethical issue with testing but am not a total nutbag who doesn't get that our species has benefited and continues to benefit enormously from animal testing, myself included.

The idea is to stop unnecessary testing- like that done in the cosmetics industry- and to regulate and find viable alternatives to medical testing. The idea is not to become ill and die so that I cannot forward that cause.
Reply

slowpoke.r was starred slowpoke.r was unstarred

Scout
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
my partner is in science, and works both with stem cells and in hematology. he tests on and kills many mice in any given year. he also tests on dogs. these aren't cruel, torture type situations and even though animals do die, they are always treated with respect and compassion.

Just the other day he accidentally banged a little mouse's head and it went into a seizure like fit and died within seconds. he's still heartbroken over it. This from a guy who regularly cuts off the tips of their tails and performs euthanasia on mice pups that aren't needed.

the beagle mixes that are used in the stem cell arena often live for years as test lab animals and , after a certain age, are adopted out. i can tell you that he can remember the names (actually numbers) of almost all the dogs he's worked with.

The mice model isn't the best, dogs are better, porcines even moreso and, of course apes being the best. But people have so many issues with testing on apes that the only model widely available (nevermind less expensive) are mice.

You cannot take advantage of modern medicine and be against animal testing (and I'm not speaking to cruel vivisection nor cosmetic testing)
Also, the only option is to test on humans and as it stands, there is a literal cottage industry in human clinical trial; these people earning an income as guinea pigs

New Scientist had an interesting article on this just last month.

At the end of the day, it IS an ethical issue but it is also a matter of health, medical advance and scientific progress in general.
Reply

Edited by Scout at 08/07/09 3:50 PM Scout was starred Scout was unstarred

thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
So, I just did a quick review of the literature in scientific journals about the use of animals and how predictive animal models are. Apart from one dude who is an animal rights activist publishing his biased arguments, there are few papers that do large meta-analyses of animal studies. I read one really good review (written by scientists who test on animals) that basically says that animal are not adequately predictive of human disease, and they go into great detail as to why that is. They do not, however, offer an alternative. They also focus on the effectiveness of animals in biomedical research vs. basic science research.
So, yes, I think it's fair to question whether animals are a good model for human biology and disease, and I grant that they are imperfect (some moreso than others), but I also don't think we have better alternatives, unless people really want to start testing on each other (look at the reaction to any deaths in clinical trials and you will quickly see that this is not the case).
Reply

GertrudeQuincy
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
i work in science and i am constantly criticized for refusing to do animal research. while thesicencegirl's comment below is true, we do learn something a lot of the time, there are also millions of animals killed every year for essentially no reason. failed experiments, etc. i feel that tissue culture work can be substituted for the majority of studies, and once you DO find a pharmaceutical that has gone through a FAR more rigorous preliminary testing protocol, perhaps then and only then, should it be tested on an animal as a last step before humans. if you want to learn about disease, study a human. if you want to make pretty cosmetics, kiss my ass. test them on humans. again, i'm not saying that animals have not been useful in the past, that we haven't learned anything... what i'm saying is that many times animals are used a.) to get funding, b.) to make something seem more important, or c.) needlessly/prematurely.

Reply

thesciencegirl promoted this comment Penny_Esq approved this comment GertrudeQuincy was starred GertrudeQuincy was unstarred

thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe.
08/07/09

@GertrudeQuincy: I know scientists who won't work with animals. Anyone who gives you trouble for that is a jerk.

Many animals are used needlessly. True.

But I do think there are a lot of assays you can't really test with in vitro models. I mean, it's not like you can make an immune system in a tube, you know? All you can look at is isolated effects of individual immune cells.
Reply

Edited by thesciencegirl wields the truth like a mighty axe. at 08/07/09 3:28 PM

Her Grace
08/07/09

@GertrudeQuincy: You can't claim that any given failed experiment, let alone all failed experiments, used animals for no reason. It may be that an experiment's failure leads to a better idea and better experimental design, or better concept entirely on the part of the scientists, which leads ultimately to a successful experiment and health.
Reply

Her Grace was starred Her Grace was unstarred

Dorilys
08/07/09

@GertrudeQuincy: Speaking as a scientist, I understand your decision not to work with animals. However, I feel that tissue culture very rarely ever recapitulates a real-world system. Most cells used in tissue culture are immortalized cell lines, and honestly, tend to be a little funky.
I will be the first to assert that tissue culture is ideal for proof of principle prior to animal work. However, as far as animals are from ideal models to study the human system, I believe tissue culture is that much farther.
As animals increasing the likelihood of getting funding or making research seem more important. I'm going to have to disagree based on personal experience.
Reply

Edited by Dorilys at 08/07/09 4:23 PM Dorilys was starred Dorilys was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?

Hazel and Fiver do not approve of animal testing.
Reply

slowpoke.r
08/07/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Neither do Rowf and Snitter.
Reply

slowpoke.r was starred slowpoke.r was unstarred

WashingMyHair
08/07/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Watership Down!
Poor Fiver. His prophetic abilities probably give him haunting nightmares about all of the cosmetic testing experiments done to his relatives.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

.
Reply

Edited by Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny. at 08/07/09 3:16 PM

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

@slowpoke.r: I don't know how these guys feel about it though.
Reply

slowpoke.r
08/07/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I am positive that this guy is all for it, but then, he's been through the ringer...or should I say, maze?
Reply

slowpoke.r was starred slowpoke.r was unstarred

WashingMyHair
08/07/09

@slowpoke.r: Algernon's views are split with regard to the results that come from this type of testing!
Reply

Edited by WashingMyHair at 08/07/09 3:23 PM WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

@slowpoke.r: Yeah, the drowning experiments detailed in this book fucked me up. Combined with Black Beauty, it provided the foundation for a future full of anthropomorphizing animals.
Reply

slowpoke.r
08/07/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Black Beauty did me in too. Also, I had the Breyer Collection of Black Beauty and Friends, which was pretty bizarre- one of the horses is beat to death and they make a plastic toy out of it? Very weird.

However, I mostly blame Disney for my anthropomorphizing tendencies- Lady & the Tramp especially.
Reply

slowpoke.r was starred slowpoke.r was unstarred

slowpoke.r
08/07/09

@WashingMyHair: Well, I heard that at first he didn't think about it, then he thought it was okay, then he realized the difficult moral choice involved and what the future might bring to him, then he thought it was okay, then he didn't think about it...
Reply

Edited by slowpoke.r at 08/07/09 3:49 PM slowpoke.r was starred slowpoke.r was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
I think that this article is incomplete because it doesn't mention the money aspect of animal testing. Animals can be purchased for pennies when computer rendering and human compliance costs much more.
Reply

firecracker
08/07/09

@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Ah this is not true. Animals are extremely expensive as test subjects. If I could switch my science-ing to a computer model i would in a heart beat, it would in insanely cheaper in the long run than animals. Animals cost bunches, plus housing and feeding them is also very expensive.
Reply

slowpoke.r promoted this comment firecracker was starred firecracker was unstarred

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
08/07/09

@firecracker: Thank you. The last book I read on the subject said that while computers would be cheaper in the long the initial upgrade to them would be pricey. Is this incorrect? It made since to me because it seemed like cosmetic companies wouldn't be far reaching enough to consider the long term.
Reply

Edited by Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny. at 08/07/09 3:21 PM

dearwalnutgrove
08/07/09

@firecracker: That's definitely true in my lab. The mice are genetically engineered to be narcoleptic. They don't breed easily because of their health problems and therefore a large population of them is very expensive to maintain.
Reply

Scout promoted this comment dearwalnutgrove was starred dearwalnutgrove was unstarred

Scout
08/07/09

@dearwalnutgrove: the dogs used at Fred Hutch are housed in a very, very large space, have many, many caretakers and require, of course, a lot of food. Working with dogs is HUGELY expensive.
So one can imagine working with the likes of pigs, horses, or apes is exponententially so.
Mice, while still pricey, are cheap by comparison.
Computers would be the cheapest way to go but, of course, they could not be used in many ways animals provide
Reply

Scout was starred Scout was unstarred

Dauphine
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
My expression is the epitome of the D: face after reading about the rabbit tests. The bunnies do not need to suffer for mascara.
I'm divided on the animal testing for medical purposes, though. There was a debate in the EU a year or so back about testing on primates and I find it interesting that, of all animals used in testing, primates are the least utilized, despite the close genetic similarities with humans. Lots of studies on amphibians and fish, though.
Reply

Abra promoted this comment Dauphine was starred Dauphine was unstarred

Abra
08/07/09

@Dauphine: Could it be that primates are less utilized because companies test on lower-level animals first, and most drugs/products fail in the earlier stages?
Reply

Abra was starred Abra was unstarred

NefariousNewt
08/07/09

@Abra: More like primates reproduce more slowly, therefor cost is proportionately higher, as is their care. Primates are generally used for very late-stage trials, where a drug/vaccine is on the cusp of becoming available for humans, and needs to be tested on the closest analog possible.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

AthertonMerriweather
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
I'd say they should just test this stuff on Ann Coulter, but I'm not sure she's human.
Reply

WashingMyHair
08/07/09

@AthertonMerriweather: That's probably the only time I'm gonna laugh at a comment in this thread. Thanks!
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

battleaxonista...is a humorless bitch
08/07/09

In reply to Should We Stop Testing On Animals?
This is the time I know I can never be director of the NIH or NSF or anything because I would just be all like 'wtf srsly?' when the nutters try to talk to me.
Reply

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#animaltesting

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Should We Stop Testing On Animals?

Cat Killer "Likely To Graduate To Adult Crimes" • Obama Tacitly Supports Transgender Rights

Halston Taps Design Head At Last, Nepotism Surprisingly Not At Play

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment