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?

That's not what the thread is about Ameriscot. You're hijacking it.

What is the thread about and how am I hijacking it.

In my experience of Mnet, after about 50 posts, most threads have evolved somewhat. I think Mojomummy was the first to let the thread deviate away from pure medicines...Blame her!

Good God..

Eh, Monkey? Is that the best you can do?

animal protestors get away with 'extreme acts of cruelty' too

HMB, I'm sure you did. But something is going very badly wrong with the system when pharma can suppress information that may damage their share price as in Vioxx and Seroxat. There was a huge attempt by the Royal College, the regulators and the drug company to hush up concerns about Seroxat.

That's not directly relevant to animal testing (except that animal testing for medical research is not a simple issue of 'medical research is always beyond criticism'). But it may explain my comment that big pharma whlie doing valuable work is also capable of engaging in some pretty murky practices.

Christ, do I have to rise to the bait of idiots? No..lahdidah

They do Jools, no one's defending extremism here..Even though we're being accused of it. What can you do?

Did anyone see The Mighty Boosh last night. Very funny

Sorry, Monkey. You start a topic and flounce when someone doesn't agree with you. That says more about you than it does about me.

Call me what you like, but I am not an idiot and I do have very valid (non-sensationalist) points of view based on direct employment in the sectors of industry mentioned in this thread.

Flounce? Me? Still here.

fuzzy bunny lot morally superior

Eco-terrorists

AS your comments colour the discussion so how can we discuss anything really

Threatening to flounce is worse than flouncing quietly.

Make a positive point of your own, then, Papillon, instead of nit-picking at language.

sigh

...and?

Ameriscot if you want a fight I got you someone to fight with. Please, enjoy..!

I´m busy right now discussing string theory, orgonomy, spirituality and beyond on the phone - can´t talk atm

oh that's good - so there is no unnecessary suffering to animals ?

as someone who works in the industry I can absolutely assure you that there is no unnecessary suffering.

I also cannot beleive that someone suggested that we test drugs on criminals - I'm disgusted

i before e except after c

Common sense would say that there is no unnecessary suffering, otherwise you are suggesting that the scientists who carry out these tests are unusually cruel and I find that hard to believe. Companies are only going to carry out animal testing if they have no alternative and it is the only way to ensure that a product is safe or that it carries an acceptable risk to human consumers. Before they do the animal testing they are going to review the scientific data that already exists (from previous animal studies, perhaps), look at computer models and perhaps small studies on human volunteers (depending on the chemical they are testing) or using lab-grown skin.

From what I see, it looks like the big companies are all committed to minimizing animal testing by developing alternatives, sharing all their data and by lobbying governments to relax the animal testing requirements that have been around for 40+ years when there was not very much historical data to rely on.

It seems really easy to accuse corporations of cruelty for the sake of making money, but these allegations are not true (although there are always going to be pockets of improper behaviour which goes against company policies). You have to remember that it is people who work in these companies and under their lab coats they are probably very ordinary, pleasant and caring.

Well put Skeptic.

May I also add that animal testing in the UK is the most regulated in the world and has the highest standards of animals welfare (animal welfare chirites in the 70's are to thank for that). Antivivsection groups are driving animal research out of the UK and to countries such as China and India. Animal welfare will not be high on the list of priorities in these countires.

More animasl are killed as vermin (approx tenfold but I don;t have the exact figures to hand) than are killed in research. Similar numbers of cats and dogs are killed by welfare organisations as are used in research.

the guinea pig farm that was horrendously targetted has had to close down

Unfortunately companies aren't committed to minimising animal testing. Ask the RSPCA. They make vague noises about it but don't actually sign up to anything concrete. Link below.

And Huntingdon Life Sciences - one of the main targets for protest - were actually convicted of cruelty to animals, in a court of law. Sadly it just isn't the case that we can assume that everyone engaged in breeding, caring for and using animals in experiments behaves as humanely as possible. Many people do, of course. But there has to be proper scrutiny and regulation to ensure that suffering is minimised. We can't just assume that it is.

RSPCA