AIBU to be shocked that the UK is still conducting tests (including for the cosmetic industry) on animals including dogs?

[LancashireButterPie]

Today I learned that the UK still conducts scientific tests on dogs, including beagles and that one site in Cambridgeshire breeds 2000 Beagle puppies for research purposes every year.
Not only that but the security of the site includes police protection, which, as tax payers, we are all paying for.
Call me naive but I really thought this practice ended years ago. Surely, in 2026, we do not need to test cosmetics on animals, including dogs.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. I can't watch them but I somehow in Facebook get sent videos from the beagle labs in the US where pipes are forced down their throats before the drugs/ (poison) is poured in. So sad that they are bred purely for this, will not see any love and affection from humans and when they are used up, they will be killed.

Animals are still used in medical research but not cosmetics. The vast majority of studies use mice or rats, to look at genetics and biochemistry. And these studies can have incredible results. I’ve seen a case where a kid was born with a rare genetic disorder. They engineered a mouse to have the same thing, found a drug that cured the mouse, then got approval to treat the kid and massively improved their condition, all in a couple of years. Medical research saves people and that matters.

All brands that sell their products in China test on animal because it’s mandatory.

I think the Cambridge lab is strictly for cutting edge medical research, not cosmetics, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Gene therapy is tested on animals first before going to trial on humans including children

SMA1 has been publicised recently and the therapy for this gene mutation is being used, but was originally tested on animals

genetic engineering is being used to save lives, children born with SMA1 did reach their 2nd birthday, they had a terrible death

Medical research saves people and that matters.
And it costs animals theirs, and that (to most people I expect, albeit to wildly different extents) matters too.

I do think its conceptually immoral, and then there's a wide range of different tolerances for the trolley problem of human life vs animal suffering.

All pharmaceuticals as a very minimum need toxicology testing in animals before it can be tested in humans in Phase 1 clinical trials. Tox studies are designed to use the smallest number of animals possible, as others have said animal work is expensive and heavily regulated and so nobody wants to use more animals than are absolutely required. There is a lot of research into the effectiveness of cheaper alternatives but ultimately you do need to test drugs in a whole animal system.

Far more animals are killed each year in this country are killed because they are strays, or because someone hits them on the road when driving, or because they are vermin. And of course we eat far more animals than we use in medical research. So I have to ask why are you posting about the tiny number of dogs that are used in highly regulated animal
research that saves human lives and not doing something about the hundreds of thousands of stray dogs we have?

China doesn’t make it mandatory anymore for most cosmetics. The exceptions now are deodorants and hair dyes. Even China is moving forward in this area. The Body Shop and Lush are available here now. Some companies do animal testing anyway but no one is making them, they’re hiding behind that excuse for their shitty behaviour.

It’s normal for medication, but it was banned for cosmetics years ago. Rightly.

Did this whattaboutism succeed on a mouse before you tried it out on humans?

No. Not all of us would. I do not take any medication, including OTC headache pills etc, due to the history of their development.

It's easy to have a moral stance on not taking any medication that has been tested on animals until you need it to survive. My child takes medicine every day otherwise they would be dead, and I welcome any research that will help them in the future and cure the horrible condition they have.

I do not believe you. You'd just suffer through the symptoms of something, lets say, congestive heart failure, without any meds - swelling up and drowning in your own fluids, a long, drawn out and highly unpleasant death.. rather than take the available medications because they or some element of them, has been tested on animals.

I can use that example, I have been in congestive heart failure, I have a pretty good idea what dying of that would be like because I very nearly did.

I do not believe you.

I will weep into my pillow tonight.

Genuine question on this because I can't get my head around your stance. Wouldn't you be better off taking the medicine, because at least you could then believe that they died for some good? If nobody took the drugs derived from those tests, it would mean that that both the people and the animals died for no reason.

Thank you for asking in the way you did.

IMO, no. I wouldn't be better off because it contravenes my ethics. I don't want to prosper from the suffering of animals or humans regardless of whether or not those 'benefits' are short or long lasting. I think it would be a personal indictment to do this and then hypocritical to state that I cared about other lives when, truly, I was just putting mine above all else.

If we stop feeding the machine of abuse, they will find other means for testing. If not, then I opt out, personally.

Others may do as they see fit.

I am more shocked that someone is shocked at it.

Human beings are awful to other animals just because we can be.

Cosmetic testing is banned yes, but we still buy those cosmetics from other countries that do test, so without crunching the numbers I do not see what difference it makes really. Consumers not buying things unless none of the items or ingredients have been tested on animals is the only answer. But no one person has the power, it would have to be most of the country and most folk plain don't care.

OTC pain relief is the easiest medication to not take for moral reasons tbh.

Would you turn down a life saving drug?

It's not, though. There is a historical development behind it that I object to.

Yes, I have a DNR, do not want to give or receive organs and will not do a blood transplant or infusion.

But, instead of interrogating me for my personal choices, I thought it might be useful for the OP to know that whilst we're not all 'shocked' that testing is undertaken on animals in our very 'enlightened' generation, many of us take steps to try and shut it down, in the way we can, where possible.

I'm truly shocked at the amount of people who have botox every batch is tested on animals and if you have Botox for cosmetic purposes you should be ashamed. My vegan friend has Botox!

In addition to licensing the facilities, researchers must have a license for each individual project they intend to carry out, and part of the legal/licensing framework is that other tests should be used if possible, so they'll only give a license for that use on that project if effective alternative methods are not available yet.
Also, each person performing the tests has to be individually licensed, and if they break standard conditions, welfare standards, or rules under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) that license can be revoked (of course a colleague would have to report them...)
That is not to say that animals don't suffer, they undoubtedly do, but it's weighed up against the potential benefit of the medical research before it's permitted.

Does she know it is continually tested ( IIRC on mice) if she does then I'd be 🤔 if she doesn't then she might be horrified. I wouldn't use it myself but I only found out recently.
I only found out that Botox = Botulism Toxin recently too .

Botox has multiple medical uses as well as its cosmetic use. It's not the only naturally occurring toxin that has medical uses although the others are used to treat more serious medical conditions than wrinkles so aren't as well known.

Most humans value human life above the life of other species. @FlyingPC has an extreme viewpoint if she is willing to die to prevent harm to any animal.