Animal experiments

Having just finished reading Richard Adams' "Plague Dogs" which I hadn't read for years, it got me wondering just how many experiments are still being carried out on animals. When I was a student I can remember regular anti-vivisection rallies and marches etc, but you just don't hear of them anymore.

I am going to do a google search when I get back from collecting my son from nursery, but in the meantime does anyone know how much of this still goes on? Are animals only used when absolutely necessary?

I work in the field of research science, so I can most certainly confirm that animals are used.

The vast majority are mice or rats. The licensing from the Home Office is strictly controlled, and any and all procudures must absolutely be vetted through the Home Office and Grant Funding Body.

Anyone carrying out in vivo based research must also have a personal Home Office licence, and must reapply for every new project undertaken.

Animals are only used after all in vitro data has been exhausted, or when in vitro data is no longer sufficient, e.g. prior to application for clinical trials.

As both a research scientist and animal lover, I am happy in both the way that this research is controlled, and how the animals welfare is enforced. IMO, pet hamsters kept in cages for people's kids are often worse off.

You may find this link helpful;

http://www.understandinganimalresear...d_the_three_rs

Personally i think vivisection is out dated and a waste of time due to species difference. Its barbaric and disgusting that it still gets funding in this age.

Wont say more as i am very anti vivisection and it may get a bit heated!

ETA: check out huntingdon life sciences if you relly believe all lab animals are well looked after and its for the greater good!!!

Hmmmm could you clarify species difference? So, for example, our murine counterparts' genome is 96% identical to ours. A huge number of disease genes present in humans have homologs in the mouse etc etc. Species difference isn't that different!! All the signalling mechanisms, pathways etc are all the same, even more with transgenic knock ins!

Certainly not a waste of time if you look at the advancements in our knowledge of, including the development of new drugs, just for example;

Cancer signalling pathways
Cystic Fibrosis treatments (including gene therapy)
Understanding the signalling targets of the Huntington's Disease gene mutation
Epigenetic factors in cancer pathology
Gene targets for Type II Diabetes
Drug targets for muscular dystrophy
The new HPV vaccine

I could go on.............

This page is good, a timeline of advancements in medicine and science, all only possible through animal research in the first place;

http://www.understandinganimalresear...ealth/timeline

I don't just "believe" they are well looked after, I see it with my own eyes every day.

Personally, I think its a vital thing and cannot see it being abolished completely. I am in support of all testing for medical research.

by species difference i refer to the fact that Guinea pigs are allergic to penacillin (sp?), but luckly Flory and chain used mice which are not. Difference species react differently to drugs then humans do.

And yes it is a waste of time and money. The cures and advancements in disease could still have happened with out animal research. Just because they were used doesnt mean they had to be.

'Recently-conducted studies show a huge proportion of animal tests are not actually used in the ways that we would expect them to be (to lead to human trials if they suggest the treatment works safely, to not lead to human trials if they do not). There are many examples of animal tests being conducted at the same time as similar studies on humans by other researchers (see Animal Testing on Trial), suggesting that animal tests do not play the vital role we are led to believe they do.' - Taken from BUVA

“The claim that animal experimentation is essential to medical development is not supported by proper, scientific evidence but by opinion and anecdote. Systematic reviews of its effectiveness don’t support the claims made on its behalf.” (Pound, P. et al. 2004. British Medical Journal 328, 514-7.)

There is plenty of doctors and scientists who beleive the same:

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/dav.html

or for more info visit www.buvv.org

re the mis treatment of animals, maybe you lab is one of the few nice ones but there are plenty where the animals are not looked after. Then you have the trade involved in breeding animals for the lab. People dont like puppy farming or rodent farms for pets so why is it excepable for labs? This is a less upsetting image of a lab with rabbits:



Rabbits are restrained by their necks in stocks with a probe inserted into their rectum, hardly cruelty free is it? From undercover work in novemeber 2010

I cant remember the details but i know the Beagle farm in East riding wanted planning permission for a bigger site and there were loads of petitions against it ..

I am divided on this subject

I worked for GlaxoSmithkline a few years ago and I remember we had a lockdown because we got word PETA was targeting us (the site I was on was manufacturing - no research went on at all) One of the bosses going to his car got his head smashed in with a baseball bat

and the problem is that it is currently the law that all new medicines are tested on animals first

so the change needs to happen with the government and not the companies
and I know companies are working hard to develop alternatives simply because testing on animals is so expensive

I dont like it - but then I eat meat, I take medicines and give them to my pets and I wear leather

I think we have to make sure things are as cruelty free as is possible and animal testing is used sparingly
and we work towards alternatives

but as it stands just now its something that has to be done

A family member has worked with laboratory animals in the past...

The companies do not always like to share their information, and so experiments are sometimes duplicated

Animals can and do suffer pain, at times, because you cannot always give pain relief for some experiments.

Without being emotional, it can be torture.

It's difficult, because we do need to advance science and to have safe drugs etc, but I am not totally convinced that animal experiments are the way to go, nor am I convinced that we have the "right" to do experiments on animals. Of course, there are opposing arguments also. And someone will always come up with "but what if it's your child/parent who is very ill"? and of course where do vet drugs come from?

I don't know what the answer is, I find the whole thing extremely upsetting. I do know that if i were dying, I'd rather have sufficient care and pain relief, (hopefully) than have a new drug that had caused pain to hundreds of animals. Oh, it's hard to even think about it. I find it distressing to be honest. I wish the world were different.

Wys
x

Sorry but GlaxoSmithkline is a truely evil company and one I avoid when ever possible! Of course i dont condone violence at all but i dont like the company.

Yes it is currently the law that all new medicines are tested on animals first which has to change before anything else. however there is no excuse for household products, cosmetics, food ect to be tested on animals in the UK. There is also no excuse for this company to give trade to Huntindon life sciences which is as far removed from humane as you can get.