Animal Testing

[Brij]

The story that inspired me to ask...

As far as I'm aware, the above story is a new step in animal testing.

I'm not going to get too emotive about this, since just because I am shocked by this does not mean I would presume that everyone agree.

I was just wondering, from you sciency ishers, what you would suggest as an alternative? Would it be viable to request human volunteers already suffering from the disease? Are there any simulations that we can use without involving animals at all?

[ina]

I don't know enough about diseases/medical research to know whether other ways of achieving results through tissue culture or anything like that exist. However, I just think it's wrong to use animals for that kind of thing... Look at the language they use when they speak about the monkeys: they are "models", not sentient beings. That says a lot, doesn't it?

I'd like to know, too, whether people who have the disease (or at least the genes) have been asked to volunteer as guinea pigs; after all, they do tests on volunteers all the time (not always with very encouraging results, either).

[Brij]

ina, I couldn't condone it, either. However, I find these things really hard to condemn on the grounds that it could result in effective treatment for a distressing condition, so just as I would not expect a Jehovah's Witness to deny me a blood transplant should I need one, I don't think I would be able to protest effectively against animal testing like this (testing shampoos is another question altogether) with a clear conscience.

[MKG]

Testing on animals (aside from the moral arguments) is still (as far as I know) a mandatory step in the development of any new drug, and until this has been completed satisfactorily, a licence for human testing (another mandatory step) will not be issued.

So who is at fault - the drug company obeying the regulations or the government which creates them?

I hate the idea of animal testing. There are promising alternatives still in development (stem cell/human tissue) but these are not yet proven and, even if they were, the high-stance moralists would (they've already begun) object.

At the moment it's a no-win situation for everyone - unless, of course, we already have it right and animal testing turns out to be the correct path to follow. That's doubtful but, if we want to get rid of it, we have to replace it with something which is effective.

[Brij]

So maybe that's why they're using these monkeys: because until they have, they can't test it on humans with the condition, even if they are volunteers?

[Annpan]

But... it was just a few years ago that there was that really serious case of the human volunteer testing going incredibly wrong (the volunteers all ended up in comas, and with multiple organ damage- as far as I remember)

I personally have taken part in a test - but it was just a glue for a brace to be fitted to my teeth... I still had to sign a disclaimer and have a 'chat' about side effects

[Brij]

But the way I see it, is that humans are able to weigh up the decision to take part in these tests, whereas animals have these things thrust upon them.

[MKG]

Yes, those tests on people went horribly wrong (hence signing the disclaimer) and that's because animals aren't people. The closer you can get to "human" in a test the better the results will be, which is why we're now in this ridiculous controversial argument about "human/animal" embryonic combinations. But, regardless of the moral arguments, the fact remains that it is a statutory requirement to test on animals at the moment. And, even if we ever get over that (and to bring up a recent point again) we have the same chance as a snowflake in Hell that pregnant women will ever be allowed to participate in tests. Testing will never be perfectly exhaustive.

So at the moment, even if you could find human volunteers for untested drugs you wouldn't be allowed to use them and, even if you were, a human sample cannot possibly cover all human conditions. Bloody minefield, isn't it?

[Brij]

It's a wonder they don't try to make these things more simple, since they could find the answer to so many important problems.

[Sian]

At least we can be proud of the fact that the UK has the strictest legislation on animal testing in the world. The US use 17-20 million experimental animals each year, Japan 10, compared to our 2.8 (back in the 70's we were doing over 6 million, so we have improved significantly). And over 90% of those animals won't have been involved in an experiment involving significant pain-those number even include snakes in venom extraction units (which I've personally seen, and can vouch that it's a far easier task, and they're better treated, than say dairy cows).

Every single proposed experiment in an animal testing unit has to apply for a new Home Office License, proving it has looked at the three R's of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement amongst may other things. When I did work experience at a venom research unit I was told that the inspector comes every 8 weeks; one of his visits was when I was there and he went over the whole place with a fine toothcomb. So at least animal experimentation is taken really seriously here.

I don't know whether this particular experiment would be allowed here. And thankfully, since the human-animal embryo bill has passed through Parliament, hopefully soon even less animal experiments will have to take place. Since this experiment was in the US where human-animal embryos are banned, I wonder whether that was why they are taking this route? Which is pretty sick really, imo.

I personally think we have to do a certain amount of animal testing at the moment, and it balances out with the number of lives it eventually saves (both human and animal). But it does come at a cost, and I am at least glad that this country at least takes it seriously, and does not do these things lightly.

Sorry for waffling!