To believe that people who are against animal testing of pharmaceuticals should refuse any medicines or medical procedures tested on animals?

[Garcia10]

I've just read a post on another thread that has made me think about this issue.

It is law that all pharmaceutical products and most medical procedures are tested on animals before they are tested in humans. This is the requirement of both the FDA and the CTA. Basically animal testing has to occur or no new drugs can come to the market. The vast majority of drugs have been, and until a legalisation change, will be tested on animals.

There are predictive/computational methods available but they are not reliable enough for the regulatory authorities to allow the data to be used in place of data obtained from animals.

Many people seem to take a moral standpoint that animal testing is wrong, that they are against it and they judge others who are involved in the practice. All scientists would prefer there to be another method of treating new drugs but at present there isn't an alternative which would allow a drug to make it to the market.

My argument is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems a hypocrisy to me that there are individuals who condemn scientists who perform animal testing whilst at the same time taking the benefit of what the tests produce.

So tell me, anyone who would condemn scientific research on animals if your children were diagnosed with cancer would you refuse the chemotherapy? If you have fertility issues would you refuse IVF? If you are depressed would you not take anti-depressants? All these drugs have been tested on animals.

Also, in transparency what I mean is not that we target individuals but that we as a society look at what we do to these animals. There's that line if labs had glass walls we'd all be anti animal testing.

My dad in his training had to kill a cat every day for months and months, he was studying some respiratory thing. Every week day, it might have been for nearly a year. that's what I remember. What was that level of repetition achieving. He said it was to do with expectations, he didn't think that volume of animals killed was any where near necessary.

Nicky I know . I am actively pro animal rights across the board, not just animal testing, CIWF n BUAV r just two of many causes I support.

I don't feel that just because more die thru method a) it doesn't mean method b) isn't equally horrifying?.

I disagree on the transparency I'm afraid. If all labs had glass walls we'd all be against animal testing?? Maybe. Right up until we needed treatment then I suspect most people would stomach it.
A pp said
I don't like the thought of testing medicines on animals but understand it is a necessity.
I think most people feel like this.
If I had to focus on animal cruelty I would definitely look at the food industry before the medical industry.
If all abattoirs had glass walls we'd all be against meat??? More likely I reckon.

Nicky, this sounds pretty bad to me

Silver The course I did at Uni required all of us to complete the course required to obtain a license for animal testing (the very lowest level one that Skiptonlass was talking about). Many of my friends found it unusual that I won't eat intensively farmed chicken or eggs (or any animal products really)but agree with animal testing for medical research. That it was a hypocrisy.

Just had a very quick glance nigel. Without a doubt medical research causes pain and suffering to animals. It is without a doubt "pretty bad". Some of the cases on that link (the negligence)would lead to prosecution here. Malaria is also pretty bad. So is heart disease. So is under water trauma.

I hear you but there sounds as if there is a mismatch between the amount of animals used and the usefulness of the results. If 2000 rats are being tested and 3 would do, then why test 2000? I mean I don't know the numbers but I don't feel it is right that we experiment on them either. I have and will use medicine but I also wish that kind of experiment was reduced, refined, replaced by other organisms where possible.

I think you can believe something is wrong, but still do it without being a hypocrite, if you can justify why you are using it.

Yes, testing pharmaceuticals on animals isn't ideal, but it is necessary, and the law. Drugs in the UK are only legal having undergone an extensive testing procedure, as described by skiptonlass. Most of us here would not be alive, were it not for modern medicines that have been tested on animals (e.g. antibiotics).

It doesn't mean we wouldn't rather there was an alternative. In the future, perhaps we will grow synthetic human organ systems to test pharmaceuticals on, e.g. lab grown skin

I think most people would agree with you nigel. Not least the scientists involved. Even if you take the ethics out of it animal testing is very expensive. If I remember rightly there was a survey done at around the time that I was at Uni (years and years ago now) and the lower order species people found it most acceptable to test on were prawns

I'm not against animal testing per-se, but I do think that, for some drugs, it shouldn't be neccesary. And that means legal reform.

You can campaign for a change of law, whilst behaving WITHIN the law as it currently stands. If we don't make it known that the current practices aren't popular, why would they look for alternatives? How would things change?

This is more a govt/regulatory issue, than one for the scientists though. They are doing a legally mandatory job, and working to provide medicines that can save lives - it's not their decision at a legal level.

Animal testing happens to be a path that historically has been pursued and financed. I don't think there is evidence to show that it is a necessity, or some sort of gold standard.

According to Animal Aid, in the UK 135 medical charities do not fund research involving vivisection, whilst 90 do. Interesting that the majority choose to fund research that does not use (non-human) animals.

According to FRAME:

An estimated 90% of potential new drugs that have looked promising in animal trials fail when they are tested on humans.

www.frame.org.uk/faq/

It's pretty appalling that whilst the government has long pledged to reduce experiments on animals, the number has instead increased.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/10/animal-experiments-rise-again-uk-genetic-research

To answer the OP's question - to expect those objecting to vivisection to avoid drugs is nonsensical, when there is currently no alternative. (It's about as sensible as asking if those in favour of animal experiments would volunteer their own pets for research.) There are other practical things that those against animal testing can reasonable do, e.g. reduce consumption of any unnecessary drugs; avoid supporting charities and organisations who fund vivisection.

I am opposed to all forms of animal cruelty. I do my best, but nobody's perfect so I make compromises.

I don't eat or wear animals (I'm vegan).
I give money to campaigning organisations (Animal Aid etc)
I donate to charities that care for people with cancer and charities that fund cruelty-free research (eg Dr Hadwen Trust).

If there were effective medicines that weren't tested on animals I'd use them. I don't buy cruelty-free homeopathic rubbish because it is quack nonsense. Despite my opposition to testing on animals, I believe in the scientific method and am an advocate for rationalism and critical debate.

Unfortunately, there is no alternative to traditional medicines that have been tested on animals. If myself or DD need painkillers or antibiotics etc there is no choice.
I wish that the medicines that are now available weren't tested on animals. Of course I would pay more for new medicines that weren't tested. But there's no point sacrificing my health or dd's health to prove a point.

With regard to cruelty free products - are the rules that all ingredients must be cruelty-free? Does that mean that any ingredient that has ever been tested is banned?

I'm against it for things like make up ect unnessary things. I would prefer not to die though in the process

I don't have a problem with the people who campaign peacefully and try to hold pharma companies to account if they think they are doing excessive/cruel animal testing (which I suspect happens very little as animal testing is carried out by dedicated scientists working in a strict regulatory environment) but the idiots who go and vandalise people's houses and make death threats and stuff, yeah, I kind of would prefer if they don't benefit from the work of the scientists whose lives they make a misery. It happened to some of my colleagues, red paint over their driveways and stuff like that. You have to be so careful telling people what you do for a living. The worst I ever got was a protester trying to stop me cycling into work one day - it was quite scary at the time though. What did they call me again, oh yeah, bunny killer. I've never killed a bunny although I suspect a few bunnies have bought it following preclinical trials on some of the stuff I made. Mostly asthma and emphysema drugs in my case. I sleep OK

I have to say, my conscience is pretty clear too... The work I was involved in has had direct impact on several types of cancer and also on some very nasty human developmental syndromes. I always took the best care of my animals and My lab had a very professional approach to our work.

In the future , we will have sufficient computing power to make in vivo work unnecessary. But right now, we are very far from that point.

I'd like to make one more point though - the more extreme wings of the animal rights lobby make things worse. By creating an atmosphere of fear they actually stifle debate. there is a debate to be had - that debate is " how do we do the research we need to do, in as humane a way as possible, using the fewest, lowest order animals? " if people are being targeted for even working with animals, that debate is not going to happen.

I'd like to see cosmetic testing banned completely. I'd like to see much higher standards in farming welfare (I eat meat, but I'm quite picky about what I eat and how it was produced.) I'd also like to see medical research brought much more into the open, for the public to be educated about what is done and why, and for the three r s to be more widely adopted globally.

We as sentient beings have a unique place in the earth's ecosystem in that we pretty much have power over many forms of life. That's a real responsibility.

Incidentally, the last animal rights bomb scare we had at my first university? They got the wrong department and left their "device" ( thankfully found to be a fake) in the maternity wing. Nice people, eh?

skiptonlass
I always took the best care of my animals

What happened to your animals when you had finished experimenting on them?

I'd also like...for the three r s to be more widely adopted globally.

You say that like it's been successfully implemented here. Can you explain why animal experimentation is increasing, despite pledges to reduce numbers?