For or against animal testing?

[kiwimama]

I'm so against animal testing. It really is disgusting and I refuse to use cosmetic products that have been tested on animals, and also, if possible boycott the companies that test on animals. Thank goodness we have a beauty products store here that stocks only products that haven't been tested on animals, because otherwise it would be alot harder for me.
If anyone out in the community did some of the stuff that these laboratories do to animals, you'd be flung in jail for animal cruelty and torture but seems labs are allowed to do anything they want.
They would be able to test a huge amount of things on humans if they just put a bit of money into it. For instance, they test the effects of nicotine by securing masks on beagles and then making them run on treadmills while breathing in nicotine to see the effects etc. SURELY they could find some of the millions of humans who smoke that would be willing to do this and be paid for it?!?!

 

[kiwimama]

In the uk cosmetic testing on animals is illegal. For medicine it is very difficult. I don't think we are more important than animals but I do want good modern medicine. The more 'advanced' the animal the more dubious I am about their use but then the less like us the animal the less relevant the results probably are. A good example of this is using the fruit fly as a model organism for genetic research. This is widely done however flies happen to be particularly weirdly evolved in a totally different way to us meaning they have very different genes fulfilling comparable functions.

Fortunately in the UK we have very strict regulation over animal testing. Any vertebrate research requires a licence. Working on chimps and the likes has to go through millions of hoops including ethical committee review of the methods and outcomes. This is not the case in many other countries and there is certainly an argument it's better done here as humanely as possible than elsewhere with little or no regulation.

My declared interests - I am a vegetarian and have carried out animal research. This was removing brains from live worms in order to collect RNA. It was horrible and a good part of why I quit research. I could never work on anything 'bigger' for sure.

Good points raised pb, but remember, just because the animals weren't tested on in your country, doesn't mean they weren't tested on elsewhere. Big companies get other animal testing companies in places like China where animal welfare is non existant, to test their cosmetic products on animals, then they stock the product in Western countries, so you will still be using cosmetic products tested on animals. For me, if I had to use a cosmetic product tested on animals, I'd rather use one that had been tested on in my country, rather than a place like China.

 

[PeanutBean]

I don't use foreign cosmetics. It's a reason to buy British! Body Shop here isn't such a niche these days. Big companies like Boots only dermatologically test now.

I think there is an issue that generally people don't understand what scientific research involving animals is like. It's not just drugs that use animals in research, there are also techniques and methods piloted with animals too, something that is relevant regardless of relatedness to people. And when considering drugs trials the animal testing stage is only one part of a very long process. Yes drugs may pass that stage and then be harmful or ineffective in clinical trial but such is the nature of research. Many drugs are rejected at some stage in the process but many pass on to clinical trial with complete success. You win some you lose some but is that a reason not to try?

Animals are used in a great variety of ways to greater and lesser degrees of invasive research. It's really not a simple debate. But it's certainly an emotive one! Since being a practising scientist I've not yet been able to decide my own position in the debate. I feel and understand both sides. It hasn't helped me reach a conclusion yet!

 

[PeanutBean]

Just done a google and it seems animal tested cosmetic products or ingredients cannot be sold in the UK. Also there seems to have been a big milestone ban in 2009 and a further one in 2013 across the EU.

 

[SKATERBUN]

Theres a lot of research being being done into growing human cells to test medications, im sure this testing will be a lot more ethical and give more accurate results than seeing how a rat is affected. Im with Kimmer, IMO our make up is so diffent to animals that how can we ever be truly positive that something is safe just because a rat 'survived'/died.

I used to work near another branch of Glaxo btw, and yeah they were always having demos outside. The demonstrators nearly always come across as militant and disruptive and sadly they detriment their cause and are looked upon as lunatics.

 

[PeanutBean]

The use of stem cells to grow specialised cell cultures is a very valuable new technique. It's very expensive though and has it's own limitations. Where an effect needs to be observed in vivo (ie in life) a cell culture won't be of any use. As new techniques are developed that can replace existing animal research they do. I'm fairly confident that the use of animals (vertebrates at least and octopus as it's so clever) in experiments that will be invasive and/or harmful to the animal has to be justified. This process means considering all possible alternative methods and the ethics and humanity of the methods employed.

Stories like the beagles is nicotine mask must date back decades. We well know the effect of nicotine. I'd like to see a link to the research paper this was used to produce before I will believe this was something done even in recent decades. I've been hearing that story since the '80s when I was passionately against animal testing.

 

[PeanutBean]

Here is a good link to get a summary of the situation in the uk:
https://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/animal-research/

Note:

where there are no non-animal alternatives
when the benefits expected from the programmes of work are judged to outweigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned
the number of animals used and their suffering must also be minimised

And that's been since 1986!

 

[freckleonear]

We can't be sure that because something is safe for animals it is safe for humans and sadly there will be medications that pass all the safety testing and yet still turn out to be harmful. Despite that, animal testing has prevented many harmful drugs and chemicals from being used on humans.

When I was in university I remember a news report about a company that was testing on humans instead of animals. The volunteers were paid huge amounts of money and the drug had already passed many safety checks. Sadly it left a group of fit and healthy young men dead or in comas. As much as I wish it wasn't necessary, animal testing does save human lives.

 

[Chaos]

Like the title says.

I don't agree with animal testing but then I don't know how we would test medications which can save a humans life!? We eat meat and wear by products of animals so im not too sure how I feel about this one!

Against it. A soul is a soul, why should their life be worth any less than ours?

There are medical trials where they pay people to test things, that could be a way forward. But then, the drug companies, God forbid would have to spend money.

 

[cherryglitter]

I dont think their lives are worth less than ours, at all! It breaks my heart.

But if it were my baby or my cat going to be tested on, I know which I would choose.

 

[Dragonfly]

I heard how Iams cat and dog food tested on their animals they are not humane at all and thats just the food! There was a campaign I seen a few years ago somewhere for that.

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes Dragonfly, veterinary medicine is also tested on animals.

Quite often when one hears about clinical trials going wrong (like one a couple of years ago maybe that made the news and lots died) it is actually down to other circumstances. In that recent one the dosage was given incorrectly which is what led to the deaths. It's not always that clearcut but certainly not testing on animals first wouldn't save lives at the clinical trial stage!

 

[LadyofRohan]

Sadly, in the US animal testing is necessary to have almost anything passed by the FDA (at least from a bio implants perspective). And 99% of the time animal testing is performed BEFORE there can be any clinical trials involving humans. Clinical trials take years, sometimes decades, to do. If you stop animal testing then people are going to die/suffer because they have to wait for clinical trials to finish. That drug your father is taking to keep his blood pressure down? Or that new tendon replacement that allows you cousin to walk without pain? All of that was tested in animals before it could be done. If we waited for clinical trials to complete just for the pilot information (is the implant osteoinductive, is there any chance of an immune reaction, are the biomechanical properties sound enough for weigh bearing etc) before even doing the ACTUAL testing then you would never have anything approved.

All accredited animal testing facilities do their best to minimize pain or discomfort to the animal. At least from the studies we have conducted, the animals are given pain medication and anti-inflammatories, they are well cared for and given the best food and accomodations while they heal. These are state-of-the-art facilities with environmentally controlled accomodation. Depending on the animal (sheep, cows, etc), some are even allowed outside in pastures for most of the study after healing.

I'm not a big fan of it either, but it literally saves the lives of thousands of people every day. When it comes to cosmetic testing, etc. I think that's cruel and there shouldn't be a lack of people who could be used in trials testing cosmetics like makeup or shampoos. But when it comes to medical implants/drugs/procedures animal testing is a sad necessity.

Just my 2 cents

 

[kiwimama]

Sadly, in the US animal testing is necessary to have almost anything passed by the FDA (at least from a bio implants perspective). And 99% of the time animal testing is performed BEFORE there can be any clinical trials involving humans. Clinical trials take years, sometimes decades, to do. If you stop animal testing then people are going to die/suffer because they have to wait for clinical trials to finish. That drug your father is taking to keep his blood pressure down? Or that new tendon replacement that allows you cousin to walk without pain? All of that was tested in animals before it could be done. If we waited for clinical trials to complete just for the pilot information (is the implant osteoinductive, is there any chance of an immune reaction, are the biomechanical properties sound enough for weigh bearing etc) before even doing the ACTUAL testing then you would never have anything approved.

All accredited animal testing facilities do their best to minimize pain or discomfort to the animal. At least from the studies we have conducted, the animals are given pain medication and anti-inflammatories, they are well cared for and given the best food and accomodations while they heal. These are state-of-the-art facilities with environmentally controlled accomodation. Depending on the animal (sheep, cows, etc), some are even allowed outside in pastures for most of the study after healing.

I'm not a big fan of it either, but it literally saves the lives of thousands of people every day. When it comes to cosmetic testing, etc. I think that's cruel and there shouldn't be a lack of people who could be used in trials testing cosmetics like makeup or shampoos. But when it comes to medical implants/drugs/procedures animal testing is a sad necessity.

Just my 2 cents

I have always read that either the animal is killed after they have done their "job" or they are healed up to go through more traumatic testing.

They would probably have trouble finding people willing to have chemicals squirted into their eyes, to see if it blinds them or causes irreparable damage.. ?

Unfortunately, even if you are 110% against animal testing, you are never going to be able to live a life never using a product that hasn't been tested on animals. Everything we use everyday will have been tested on animals at some point.
The only thing I take faith in is that we are now coming up with more techniques to test products in labs without using animals at all. I hope that in the future, even though it will be many, many years away, we won't need to use animals at all in testing anything.

 

[PeanutBean]

Where have you read that kiwimama?

 

[kiwimama]

It would have been off the internet, although tbh, I wouldn't be able to say exactly which one, as I don't tend to read up on anything to do with animal testing anymore because it upsets me too much if I accidently click on a website run by activists.

On Wikipedia (yes, I know, not a reliable source!) it says that the majority are euthanised after testing. When I think rationally, there are millions upon millions of vertebrates tested on each year. 85-90% of them are rodents - surely they don't rehome millions and millions of rats and mice every year? I can't see how that would work, even if there were suitable for rehoming after being tested on, where would they find that many people willing to rehome them? They surely must euthanise the majority of the animals used? It would be interesting if you knew statistics, as you seem quite knowledgable being an ex researcher.

 

[PeanutBean]

I'm afraid I don't know the stats for vertebrates for the uk. As you say though the majority are rodents, I think it would be unlikely the larger animals would be. It would depend on the research in question. In some cases it would render life impossible for the animal, for example generic studies into cancer or obesity. In many cases the end point of the research would include histology and genetic study in order to fully understand the effects in which case in rodents this would necessarily mean sacrifice. However it does have to all be done humanely and I doubt it would be in any way worse than slaughter for meat. I would've thought some experiments might be such that the animal could be used again, behavioural studies perhaps.

I think there is general a misperception that all animal research is invasive, painful, inhumane etc which simply is not true. I notice though that no-one has batted an eyelid about my own role in science which involved pain and sacrifice of animals but I guess worms don't matter.

 

[Blah11]

I don't know. For make-up and stuff, def not. Drugs that will save lives Im undecided on. I'd rather an animal than a human

 

[lesleyann]

if a few rats/mice being killed can save lives then i say its worth it tbh.. 20dead rats or 1,000's of humans dead from a disese dont even really need to think about it

and yes there are new things being done currently trying to make a synfetic (sp?) Cell currently they can make synfectic(Sp?) RNA but if you need a living being animals are still closer than a cell..Also embryonic stem cells they help ALOT of people but im torn on the last tbh

 

[LadyofRohan]

Sadly, in the US animal testing is necessary to have almost anything passed by the FDA (at least from a bio implants perspective). And 99% of the time animal testing is performed BEFORE there can be any clinical trials involving humans. Clinical trials take years, sometimes decades, to do. If you stop animal testing then people are going to die/suffer because they have to wait for clinical trials to finish. That drug your father is taking to keep his blood pressure down? Or that new tendon replacement that allows you cousin to walk without pain? All of that was tested in animals before it could be done. If we waited for clinical trials to complete just for the pilot information (is the implant osteoinductive, is there any chance of an immune reaction, are the biomechanical properties sound enough for weigh bearing etc) before even doing the ACTUAL testing then you would never have anything approved.

All accredited animal testing facilities do their best to minimize pain or discomfort to the animal. At least from the studies we have conducted, the animals are given pain medication and anti-inflammatories, they are well cared for and given the best food and accomodations while they heal. These are state-of-the-art facilities with environmentally controlled accomodation. Depending on the animal (sheep, cows, etc), some are even allowed outside in pastures for most of the study after healing.

I'm not a big fan of it either, but it literally saves the lives of thousands of people every day. When it comes to cosmetic testing, etc. I think that's cruel and there shouldn't be a lack of people who could be used in trials testing cosmetics like makeup or shampoos. But when it comes to medical implants/drugs/procedures animal testing is a sad necessity.

Just my 2 cents

I have always read that either the animal is killed after they have done their "job" or they are healed up to go through more traumatic testing.

They would probably have trouble finding people willing to have chemicals squirted into their eyes, to see if it blinds them or causes irreparable damage.. ?

Unfortunately, even if you are 110% against animal testing, you are never going to be able to live a life never using a product that hasn't been tested on animals. Everything we use everyday will have been tested on animals at some point.
The only thing I take faith in is that we are now coming up with more techniques to test products in labs without using animals at all. I hope that in the future, even though it will be many, many years away, we won't need to use animals at all in testing anything.

Yes, usually animals are euthanized at the end of the study because histology and histometrics are part of the analysis.

As far as cosmetics are concerned--now we have the technology to identify detergents and chemicals down to the last molecule. I would think that we have a good understanding about what chemicals can cause damage to eyes and skin and at which dilutions. That's why I think testing like squirting detergents in an animal's eyes to see if they cause damage is a bit too much because IMO we should know by now if a chemical can damage tissue on some level.