Animal tests get renewed backing

[monkeytrousers]

here

I think this is a tricky one. I'm a vegetarian, mostly for moral and ethical reasons and I'd like to hope that one day science and medicine could move away from this area. But at the same time I couldn't campaign against such testing while it remains vital to medical research, as I would support stem cell testing also.

I was briefly a member of the BUAV but their language was increasingly sensational and overly emotive and that made me doubt their findings. I wanted a more middle ground stance.

What does anyone else think?

Blimey MT, that's extremely kind of you but entirely undeserved on my part! I'm not ill, as such, just living with a medical condition that is fine as long as I keep taking the tablets - just like people with (well-controlled) asthma or diabetes.

However, I've seen first-hand what happened to people before drugs were available for this condition. My great uncle was put in a home as a toddler - my great-grandparents were told that was the best place for him. Broke my grandmother's heart, but her parents believed what the doctors said. Maybe they were right in society as it was then. But he had no life. No-one ever treated him with the respect and dignity due to any human being (apart from my Gran, and even she came from the school of 'talk loudly and treat him like a very dim child'). God, that's unfair to her, but you know what I mean, I hope). No-one ever taught him to read, for instance.

So I do understand how important medicines and medical advances are. I'm just grappling with the moral responsibilty for causing potentially extreme suffering to living creatures so I can benefit. I'm a vegetarian too, which either makes it worse (hypocrisy) or better (like carbon trading, at least maybe I'm offsetting the harm done to one group of animals by sparing others).

Edam, beautifully written.

Don't forget all sorts of companies participate in unnecessary animal experiments - for example, IAMS cat & dog food. Is that a life or death situation ? The animals in their 'care' live or rather, exist in a terrible condition.

Ameriscot2005 if you want evidence, take a look at here \link{http://www.uncaged.co.uk/iams.htm\

In fact, you could just type in a search for animal experiments & unfortunately you can take your pick of reading material.

I appreciate medicines need to be tested, but suffering must be kept to a mimimum & strict standards enforced.

TBH I applauded those that torment the people that supply the animals - afterall they're only in it for an easy buck - not for the benefits of medicine

RSPCA/ British Union Against Vivisection? Or one of the organisations trying to find alternatives?

That was a bit melodramatic, wasn't it? I was all tired and emotional Edam. But you did speak very eloquently!

Yeah, IAMS test on animals - of course they do, FFS.

But they starve animals, Ameriscot.

Yeah, according to trustworthy sources, eh?

/huckle - a pet food company starving animals. Maybe they're just testing the overweight pet formula

oh dear Ameriscot2005 what's with the FFS ? did you read that weblink ? do you think it's pleasant ? do you think testing to see if shampoo stings when it gets in our eyes is a worthy cause ? all these companies make household products which are full of chemicals, then they test on animals & then they make money by producing medicines to 'cure' us (not me as I don't go near that muck).

They test shampoo to see if it stings your eyes - no kidding, eh? We all know that already, right? Why use animals when you can use perfectly healthy and responsive human volunteers?

Which companies test shampoos on animals, pray tell? I don't really think a) they need to, b) that it would be economically viable.

There's a big difference between actually performing animal tests and reserving the right to do so. Or claiming that products have not been animal tested, and the actual animal test history of all cosmetic products in the marketplace.

do you don't want to answer my questions then ? just ask new ones - if you read the link you'd see it for yourself.

ooh, HMB - I was an anatomy technician at the Dick Vet from 89-92!!!

I remember the security scares during that time - it was really scary.

But you asked an irrelevent questions - animal testing to see if a shampoo stings your eyes.

Why are you having an affair?

After my time, I'm so old, but small world!

I remember walking down the corredors and seeing sheep being wheeled into the teaching rooms! Great place! And the horse boxes!

We didn't have any securety scare when I was there, thankfully

And the name, Dick vet! What a vlast. They used to deck the bust of the guy out at xmas with xmas tree decorations!

digging up dead bodies is pretty hideous mojomummy!

And bombs have been put under scientists cars, scientists get threatening phone calls about their kids, all nice stuff.

What used to make be laugh was that the ring leader of the people that used to picket Boots Pharmaceuticals whenI worked in their med info department was an insulin controled diabetic!

And the studies that led to the identification of insulin (in the ealy 1900s) would be unlikly to get a licence to allow them to happen these days. But he was happy enough to have his condition treated. He just wants to stop other peoples.

The testing of cosmetic products on animals has been banned in the UK and EU for years.

Lab animals and the conditions they are kept in are regularly monitored by vets from the Home Office. Every site that houses animals for tesing has to have a licence from the Home Office and one of the conditions is that a vet is available 24 hours a day to check out unwell animals.

The UK has the most stringent regulations in the world, the nasty stuff in posters doesn't happen here-it happens in the USA and India.

And having worked in the pharmaceutical industry I can tell you that the regulation governing animal testing are ,if anything, more stringent than those govening human trials!

Animal testing has been banned in the UK, but many companies ship their goods in from overseas, which allows them to bypass this law. Cleaning products are also tested on animals.

Ameriscot, I agree, it?s ludicrous to pour shampoo into a rabbit?s eye to see if it stings. We all know it does. But many cosmetic companies still keep doing it. Ingredients are tested and re-tested.

Info is all here

Animal testing is not banned across the board in the UK.

I used to exercise the Dick Vet horses - does that count as animal testing?

God, even smaller world! It was (when I was there ) a reasrch center for Grass sickness...Don't know if it still is.

And all of the treatment for animal illnesses have been tested on animals!

Not to mention, HMB, that human testing is relatively cheap - so that scuppers the myth that companies animal test just to make money.

You can't get reliable info from BUAV, PETA or any other eco-terrorist organisation - no point in providing pointless links.

Yes, and everone knows that drugs companied as just money making mosnsters, so that begs the question why they use more expensive animal tests? It is either

A. they a monsterous psychopaths who would rather lose money but enjoy causing pain

or
B there is, atm, no viable option

As a point of fact 60% of all drugs in testing never get to be tested in humans as they are found to be toxic in the animal phase of study. And please, don't trot out the old cobblers about penicillin and guine pigs that is grossly misleading.