brumdaisy

There is no need for me to prove my point about the reliability of alternatives to animal testing. This point is accepted across the industry, the point is that companies such as Glaxo dont want to pay for it.

brumdaisy

lol I was speaking (typing) in both a metaphorical and physical sense. I dont know about people who live by Portan Down but you'll find that there are many people around HLS who take an active (non ALF!) interest in HLS. HLS isnt the only one either so a lot of people have friends/family or just know people, who work there.

Oh and I've worked at HLS.

645

Let's face it, we won't resolve our differences on this BBS. You've resorted to insult, so I'm not going to continue. It's ironic though, as we both care deeply for animals. There's nothing in my previous posts that says otherwise - I would love to see animal testing avoided, if at all possible. One day that WILL happen.

Leslie

The things that went on at Porton Down in earlier times with respect to testing toxic substances on humans were truly disgusting. The patients thought they were being tested for a common cold cure instead of having deadly nerve gases applied to their skin for goodness sake!

I personally think it is acceptable to test lifesaving drugs on animals as long as they are looked after and their chance of suffering is alleviated. I am totally against any form of experimentation for cosmetic reasons.

Les

Diablo

Pot, Kettle?

Who have I characatured? And as for backing anyone into a corner, are you having a laugh?

I asked a simple question, based on the morality issue. A question you are uwilling to answer because that answer is, in fact, that yes, animals do suffer, even in the most respected of testing institutes.

That is a basic fact. Whether or not the outcome is worth that suffering is, as I have said, a matter for each of us to deal with, having regard to what is important to us.

A valid point. Entirely reasonable. But I don't have to like it...

Love it...now having to resort to calling me "laddy boy" in some pathetic misguided attempt to project your own personna to a more superior, mature level....

Are you unable to discuss this without such pathetic attempts to try and bolster your position, and hence the authority with which you profess to speak?

You don't know me from adam, 645, so don't (again) be so arrogant as to consider you do.

My reference to you arrogance was the manner in which your posts evidence not your inability to agree with anothers stance (entirely reasonable), but your inability to accept that someone has the right to have a different opinion to you.

Similarly minded people? LOL ...All i've done is give an opinion that this is a moral issue. Personally, I would happily see a global ban on animal testing to any degree. But I'm not so naieve as to believe it will happen.

Animal rights in china are non existent currently. In any event, trying to justify animal suffering because it will happen somewhere else otherwise is hardly a cohesive argument.

"If I don't make the animal suffer, someone else will" Thats ok then

Justification of animal suffering because, in your opinion, it is worthwhile for the benefit of mankind is an entirely different matter, to which you are entirely entitled to your opinion. As is your right.

I don't have to understand drug testing to hold a view on the morality of testing on animals. What is so difficult to understand about that? I'm not trying to argue that there are viable and safe alternatives. I accept that, the use of humans aside, there are not. I'm neither so stupd or naieve to believe otherwise.

However, just because this is currently only way doesn't mean I cannot hold the view that it is morally wrong.

Perhaps if you had read my posts, rather than just going off on the "stop complaining, we have to do it that way, and what do you know anyway" angle, you would have seen that I was puting forward the opinion that it is a moral issue, not simply a scientific one.

After all, if it was purely scientific, we would be testing on humans, not animals.

And as for "terrorist acts", I agree. However, what needs to be taken into account is that this is not just about human welfare - its about money, profit and greed in equal measures.

Pharmacutical companies don't operate for the good of mankind, now, do they? The operate for the benefit of their executives and their shareholders. They operate to make money, first and foremost.

So lets not gloss over this entire "debate" with "human welfare" and helping sick people, shall we? Certainly, its an important part, and I'm not denying that.

But answer me another basic question (and I'm more than willing to be proved wrong on this).

How many of the reputable animal testing laboratories in the UK and the US are entirely owned, run or funded by the private sector, for profit, as opposed to the number that are owned, run and funded by the public sector purely for the good of medical science?

I find it somewhat enlightening that you are so vigerously defending what appears to be (or in some way connected to) your profession.

Just who are you trying to convince here?

ScoobLou

iTrader: (21)

Thats not possible

Ditto what you have said Diablo.

I've also seen plenty of pictures of animals which have been tested on, it really isn't pleasant and I don't see why its necessary in this day and age.

Chip Sengravy

right....

so thats why the pharm Co's are using cloned animals at 7K?? a pop, to limit the amount of control subjects within their studies?

And RE the google search....yes, there will be thousands of pages on this, and they are all written by people that live in cuddly fluffy bunnyland (©ajm ) , just like you

645

I think it's you trying to convince me, wouldn't you say? I'm simply putting forward the argument, as stated on the website and petition to which the original poster referred, and so eloquently stated HERE.

Your position seems to be that there should be no animal testing. Okay then. I understand and respect that. However...I'll repeat my question - please answer truthfully. If you needed drugs, to save your life, that had been tested on animals, would you take them? If loved one needed them, would you discourage them from taking them? Think hard on that one...

My position is clear - I'll state it myself, rather than you try and characterise it. I don't like the thought of animal testing. The sooner we can find a real and safe alternative, the better. I've said that all along. In the meantime, we are where we are - i.e. in some situations, testing on animals is the only route. If you think otherwise, then you don't understand enough about the subject. I would be VERY grateful to those who developed life saving drugs with animal testing, should I ever need to use them. I think scientists who adhere to the highest standards of welfare should be allowed to continue, with all the necessary checks, without fear of their life. When a better method comes along, and they're in the pipeline now (computer modelling, although this only works for single organs at present, it's nowhere near modelling the interactions across the whole body, and then there's always the risk of novel drugs having unintended side effects or causing an interaction that isn't modelled).

I find it very insulting that you try and take the holier than thou position on this. You're as dogmatic as anyone else who's posted here, including me. Just admit it! I'm not a practicing scientist, although I have a scientific background. I have some friends who work in this field, two working for Christie's hospital doing cancer research, two others at Cambridge. I know them well, and they're good people. The company directors they work for may or may not have human kinds' best interest at heart (but we don't know them do we?). However, the scientists do. They are paid relatively poorly, I can assure you. I suggest you pick up a copy of New Scientist each week and take a look at the job adverts at the back. You'll be surprised at the salaries for some of the jobs, which require very high levels of expertise, experience and qualifications. I wish they could be here to put forward their case - it would be so much better than I can do on their behalf.

On your specific questions, I'll answer them:
1. How many of the reputable animal testing laboratories in the UK and the US are entirely owned, run or funded by the private sector, for profit, as opposed to the number that are owned, run and funded by the public sector purely for the good of medical science?

I honestly don't know, but I suspect other than grants, minimal. However, I do know that the result will be a reflection of the governments pathetic investment in all areas scientific in this country, not just pharama.

2. I find it somewhat enlightening that you are so vigerously defending what appears to be (or in some way connected to) your profession.

I have a scientific background, but do not work in this area. However, I have done a great deal of research on this subject and spoken with close friends who work in this area. If you count my friends as connection, so be it. Maybe if you were a little closer to it, you might see the full argument, not just the emotional one-sided pages that litter a google search. We are talking about critical drug research here, not cosmetics, or any other non essential area that in my view should NEVER be tested on animals.



There you go Diablo. Much as you'd like me to be a nasty, horrid, animal hating, heartless scientist, I'm not. I just happen to come down on one side of your "moral" argument, having weighed up all the facts. If we had a referendum, and the people of this country voted in favour of a ban, I would respect that. I'd argue against it, but I'd stay within the law. That's all scientists are asking of animal rights protesters. As it happens, I think that the majority of people in this country would put forward the same points as I have.

ScoobLou

iTrader: (21)

erm just so u know cuddly fluffy bunnyland doesn't exist, would have thought you'd have known that

brumdaisy

Jeeeez that is NOTHING in this industry. Start talking in billions THEN I'll think you have a valid point to make

Spoon

This is from somebody who admitted it was funny to park in a disabled space.
The very same people who could benefit greatly from testing are worthy of mocking one minute.

*Post 9*
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...sabled+parking

Geddon

I'm sure scientists- ie the people that need animal testing- don't do it for their amusement.
I work for a contact lens company. Our lenses must get tested on animals for toxicity reasons. All the testing that preceeds this is with the anticipated result that they are safe for humans. I believe in this case it is an FDA requirement to do this.

My thoughts are you only test on animals when you've done all the work you can do before hand and so animal testing is used as a final check before human trials.

Obviously there are some experiments that need to be done on animals when testing reactions and so forth for experimental drugs- eg cancer drugs. I'm sure Scientists will exhaust all other avenues before going down the animal testing route but sometimes it is the only answer.

Medicine would not be where it was today without animal testing IMHO.

esp ltd

iTrader: (1)

Why can't we use all these dodgy asylum seekers.......if they die we'd be saving our taxes being wasted.....if they live we could deport them thus killing 2 birds with one stone

brumdaisy

1) Id argue that a few of them do get kicks out of it but for the majority its called a living, what else are they going to do, sign up for New Deal? Do you have any idea how much these people get paid?

2) Feel free to prove me wrong but so far as I am aware there is NO legal requirement to test drugs on animals.

3) Your thoughts on only testing on animals when all the work is done is admirable but very wrong. Millions of animals are tortured and killed every year because companies find it cheaper to test 'ideas' out than do their homework

4) "I'm sure Scientists will exhaust all other avenues before going down the animal testing route but sometimes it is the only answer."

Oh bless you. You are so misinformed. I suggest you read the other posts on this thread. There is plenty of evidence that categorically proves that animal testing is unreliable. However it remains the cheapest, so is rarely the 'only answer'

5) As the vast majority of players in the pharmacuticals industry refuse to invest in more humane testing I couldnt comment on your last comment, as there is NO evidence to support it or disprove it . Oh I just commented

Geddon

You could never disagree with the last comment. There are no substitutes against our closest genetic matches.

Not all scientists are dr deaths btw

I did say 'I believe'- I will research further.....

PS Please don't patronise me - I am putting my point of view across and I'm sorry if you don't like it.

brumdaisy

Im sure they used to carry out medical experiments on crims in the victorian days...

brumdaisy

what? than bunny wabbits with long ears and cute fluffy wuffy bunny tails ?

show me the evidence, or seeing as Im not as lazy as ollyk just point me in the right direction and I'll listen....

Geddon

You imply we are only talking rabbits?
Since when did 'animals' consist of rabbits only?

brumdaisy

I dont wish to imply what you're talking about, personally I think you are highly un/misinformed on the entire subject, but if, on a friday night after several glasses of wine and lots of pizza, I want to talk about rabbits, then i will do so

hectic

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

brumdaisy

pmsl juvenile

hectic

you STILL laffed tho

brumdaisy

im pissed! now go away before u kill this thread too

hectic

tis my sole purpose

Leslie

I understand that the Chinese will skin a live snake in front of the customer in a restaurant. Might be worth addressing that sort of behaviour!

Les

middxsti

There is an organisation called FRAME-the fund for replacement of animals in medical experiments.Recently they have used human skin cells instead of animals in research,and guess what the results where?the human skin cells were found to be more reliable and accurate than the use of animals.
But the problem is tony blair!he refuses to offer FRAME financial support to carry out further research,as the initial research costs are expensive,but if they could get uk goverment funding,this could be a breakthrough.

People have gone undercover at huntingdon life sciences[europes largest animal testing lab in the uk] a while ago,and the findings were disgusting.
Beagle puppies barely 2 mths old were beaten and punched because they refused to take 10"syringes in the stomach,the same puppies were burnt alive to test burn relief creams,and the same puppies were subject to steel wire being used to snap their legs,to test bone healing,while conscious!And monkeys disected alive,without anaesthetic.
Anyone who is a dog/animal lover certainly wouldn't agree with this.

I can understand why animals are used,because medicines are needed for humans to survive and maintain healthy lives,but the goverment need to pull their fingers out their asses and help organisations like FRAME,but instead they spend tens of billions on the pointless iraq crisis.

Suresh

Because of the animal nuts harassing GSK shareholders, I bought a bunch of GSK shares - which will be held in a nominee account account of course.

645

Good point Middxsti - and one I stated earlier. However, how does this help when testing the possible effect of a drug on body systems, for example brain tissue, heart muscle, interation between different organs, ciruclation, blood pressure, sight, hearing, smell, psychological effects, etc, etc. Our scientists will get there one day, and I agree we need MASSIVE injections of public money to fund this good work, but it's not there yet...

This method will avoid some animal testing, maybe for cosmetics and some topical creams, but not the complex drugs that treat complex diseases. It's all going in the right direction, and I support it 100%, but it's nowhere near a replacement as you imply in your post.

Warwick-hunt

well nat, i wouldn't be signing the petition, you can stick it up your ***.........
sideways.

you never know they may have done a test on a beagle and know how to get it out for you

suppose you think this is necessay http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r...gra/190800.stm

its all about money.

middxsti

warwick-hunt i'm with you.

Nat 21 what if someone forced a 10" needle up your *** i'm sure you wouldn't like it.These animals have no voice,that's why they are used.Why not sign a petition to find replacements for animals in research,a far more humane thing to do.