University experiments kill 200,000 lab animals

MORE than 200,000 animals have been killed by Oxford University after research, new figures show.

A total of 29 monkeys, 2,040 reptiles, 41 ferrets, 18 pigs and 75 guinea pigs were among the animals destroyed.

Rodents such as 192,793 mice and 3,074 rats were also killed as part of tests that the university said were vital to medical research.

Figures provided under the Freedom of Information Act show 202,160 were killed in 2012.

Student newspaper The Tab, which obtained the figures, said this put Oxford second to the University of Edinburgh, which was responsible for 226,341 animal deaths.

An animal rights group said the figures were “unacceptably high”. A university spokesman, however, said animals are “killed humanely” at the end of research projects licensed by the Home Office.

He said: “There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that animal research is still essential for medical progress.

“Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century. Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn’t exist.”

Most animals killed are genetically modified mice bred to mirror changes found in humans for researchers to study genes and other issues.

This had led to research into treatments for diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and muscular dystrophy, he said.

Procedures include using MRI scans on animals, training them to go through a maze, taking blood and receiving medication.

He said the university is a world-leading centre that had “been at the forefront of innovative and life-saving science”.

Research included putting ear plugs into young ferrets, which have similar hearing systems to humans, to research the hearing condition glue ear in children.

In June the university said this “could point to new therapies for glue ear and has implications for the design of hearing aid devices”.

But Ben Williamson, of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said: “These universities need to rethink their policies regarding animal use and align themselves with public opinion, social progress and 21st-century scientific pursuits if they are to stay ahead of the curve.

“Studying any species other than humans while investigating human diseases is studying the wrong species. More than 90 per cent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials.”

Michelle Thew, chief executive for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: “The use of animals in research in the UK, in particular within universities, is unacceptably high and it is disappointing to see that researchers at Oxford University contributed to this so heavily over the last year with their use of over 202,000 animals in experimentation, including non-human primates.

“Humane alternatives already exist so Oxford University should be leading the field in pioneering alternatives to animal experimentation, instead of causing more suffering and distress.”

The university has long attracted criticism from campaigners over the issue.

In 2010, Mel Broughton, 50, was jailed for 10 years for conspiracy to commit arson over two bomb attacks in protest at the building of the £20m animal testing laboratory in South Parks Road.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:20pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Kropotkin says...

The University has said "Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century." (This is the standard line they put out whenever this comes up).

But it is over-simplistic. Vivisection takes place in the context of pharmaceutical companies striving to produce drugs for profit. The motive is profit not healing.

Epidemiological studies consistently show that cancer (for example) is determined to a significant extent by lifestyle factors such as diet and, exercise. But the focus is not on this because reducing consumption will reduce profits. Whereas vivisection linked to producing drugs designed to control diseases will increase profits.

There may be cases where animal experimentation has really aided human health. (Personally I'm not sure that justifies it anyway). But if anyone really wanted to improve human health we need to shift attention to diet, lifestyle, consumption patterns etc.
The University has said "Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century." (This is the standard line they put out whenever this comes up). But it is over-simplistic. Vivisection takes place in the context of pharmaceutical companies striving to produce drugs for profit. The motive is profit not healing. Epidemiological studies consistently show that cancer (for example) is determined to a significant extent by lifestyle factors such as diet and, exercise. But the focus is not on this because reducing consumption will reduce profits. Whereas vivisection linked to producing drugs designed to control diseases will increase profits. There may be cases where animal experimentation has really aided human health. (Personally I'm not sure that justifies it anyway). But if anyone really wanted to improve human health we need to shift attention to diet, lifestyle, consumption patterns etc. Kropotkin
  • Score: 9

1:50pm Sat 16 Nov 13

CowleyBoy says...

Think about that when one of your loved ones needs cancer treatment.
Think about that when one of your loved ones needs cancer treatment. CowleyBoy
  • Score: -9

2:24pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Kropotkin says...

CowleyBoy wrote:
Think about that when one of your loved ones needs cancer treatment.
@ColweyBoy - "loved ones needs cancer treatment"

This is a familiar argument. However it is over-simplistic.

The University might be right that medical advances can be attributed to vivisection. PETA's argument is that now we have models which do not involve vivisection and we should be using those. It certainly sounds like something worth pursuing.

But my point is different. The disease-treatment-vi
visection model is undeniably linked in to a system of profits and medical manipulation. Drawing attention to that it doesn't follow that I would refuse any treatment for a loved one.

What really concerns me though about Oxford University is the spurious nature of some of the 'experiments'. For example; showing kittens' eyes up to 'discover' that this hinders the development of their eyesight. I think we could guess that. The 'experiment' mentioned in the article about stopping ferret's ears up sounds eerily similar.

In other words I suspect that the "loved one dying of cancer" argument which you present and which is just a more emotive form of the University's "advanced in medical science argument" is a cover. There may be a few cases where it applies but I suspect most vivisection is either spurious - academics have publishing quotas to meet, or driven by the profit motive, for example to produce a rival commercial drug.
[quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: Think about that when one of your loved ones needs cancer treatment.[/p][/quote]@ColweyBoy - "loved ones needs cancer treatment" This is a familiar argument. However it is over-simplistic. The University might be right that medical advances can be attributed to vivisection. PETA's argument is that now we have models which do not involve vivisection and we should be using those. It certainly sounds like something worth pursuing. But my point is different. The disease-treatment-vi visection model is undeniably linked in to a system of profits and medical manipulation. Drawing attention to that it doesn't follow that I would refuse any treatment for a loved one. What really concerns me though about Oxford University is the spurious nature of some of the 'experiments'. For example; showing kittens' eyes up to 'discover' that this hinders the development of their eyesight. I think we could guess that. The 'experiment' mentioned in the article about stopping ferret's ears up sounds eerily similar. In other words I suspect that the "loved one dying of cancer" argument which you present and which is just a more emotive form of the University's "advanced in medical science argument" is a cover. There may be a few cases where it applies but I suspect most vivisection is either spurious - academics have publishing quotas to meet, or driven by the profit motive, for example to produce a rival commercial drug. Kropotkin
  • Score: 15

2:31pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Isawyoucoming says...

In other news KFC kills chickens for consumption.
In other news KFC kills chickens for consumption. Isawyoucoming
  • Score: -105

2:46pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Kropotkin says...

Isawyoucoming wrote:
In other news KFC kills chickens for consumption.
This one-liner seems to be presenting the argument that "we kill animals for food so it is ok to kill them during medical vivisection experiments"

I would tactfully suggest that this is not the clinch-all end-of-discussion argument you appear to believe.

Philosophically the point revolves around whether it is necessary to kill an animal. And also around how much suffering is caused. We don't (and I am assuming you don't) believe that it is ok to wantonly kill animals for no reason. The question then can be analysed in terms of how rational vivisection is. Opponents of vivisection think that it is not rational. (PETA argues that there are alternatives. Other arguments are that the diseases which vivisection may lead to treatments for can in many cases be avoided by lifestyle changes). Secondly; as as society we are agreed (in law) that though we kills animals for food we do so as humanely as possible. Some of the animals who were slaughtered / gently put to sleep by Oxford University in 2012 will have suffered terribly during their lives with induced tumours etc. In this sense vivisection cannot be equated with killing animals for food.
[quote][p][bold]Isawyoucoming[/bold] wrote: In other news KFC kills chickens for consumption.[/p][/quote]This one-liner seems to be presenting the argument that "we kill animals for food so it is ok to kill them during medical vivisection experiments" I would tactfully suggest that this is not the clinch-all end-of-discussion argument you appear to believe. Philosophically the point revolves around whether it is necessary to kill an animal. And also around how much suffering is caused. We don't (and I am assuming you don't) believe that it is ok to wantonly kill animals for no reason. The question then can be analysed in terms of how rational vivisection is. Opponents of vivisection think that it is not rational. (PETA argues that there are alternatives. Other arguments are that the diseases which vivisection may lead to treatments for can in many cases be avoided by lifestyle changes). Secondly; as as society we are agreed (in law) that though we kills animals for food we do so as humanely as possible. Some of the animals who were slaughtered / gently put to sleep by Oxford University in 2012 will have suffered terribly during their lives with induced tumours etc. In this sense vivisection cannot be equated with killing animals for food. Kropotkin
  • Score: 12

4:52pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Kevin_E says...

I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life.

The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers.

There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction.

Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year.

Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals.
I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life. The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers. There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction. Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year. Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals. Kevin_E
  • Score: 8

6:54pm Sat 16 Nov 13

CowleyBoy says...

As for the "it's just for profit" argument - drug & pharma companies spend £ billions on medical research, developing new treatments & technologies to save & improve millions of lives. Is it not right that they be rewarded with profits?
As for the "it's just for profit" argument - drug & pharma companies spend £ billions on medical research, developing new treatments & technologies to save & improve millions of lives. Is it not right that they be rewarded with profits? CowleyBoy
  • Score: -13

8:07pm Sat 16 Nov 13

DoctorBob says...

29 Monkeys and 3000 rats. How come I never see posters of cuddly little rats on the protest placards outside the University buildings or, come to think of it, at any animal rights protest?
29 Monkeys and 3000 rats. How come I never see posters of cuddly little rats on the protest placards outside the University buildings or, come to think of it, at any animal rights protest? DoctorBob
  • Score: -12

11:56pm Sat 16 Nov 13

Peter WB says...

DoctorBob wrote:
29 Monkeys and 3000 rats. How come I never see posters of cuddly little rats on the protest placards outside the University buildings or, come to think of it, at any animal rights protest?
They do display placards with rats on them.
[quote][p][bold]DoctorBob[/bold] wrote: 29 Monkeys and 3000 rats. How come I never see posters of cuddly little rats on the protest placards outside the University buildings or, come to think of it, at any animal rights protest?[/p][/quote]They do display placards with rats on them. Peter WB
  • Score: 15

12:02am Sun 17 Nov 13

Peter WB says...

The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering.
What does that tell you about Oxford University?
The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering. What does that tell you about Oxford University? Peter WB
  • Score: 18

12:09am Sun 17 Nov 13

Peter WB says...

Kevin_E wrote:
I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life.

The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers.

There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction.

Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year.

Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals.
Hi,
That's very interesting I'd like to learn more about your treatment and the research carried out using animals to develop it.
Kindly direct me to your sources of information, web links etc?
Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin_E[/bold] wrote: I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life. The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers. There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction. Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year. Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals.[/p][/quote]Hi, That's very interesting I'd like to learn more about your treatment and the research carried out using animals to develop it. Kindly direct me to your sources of information, web links etc? Cheers. Peter WB
  • Score: 18

3:15am Sun 17 Nov 13

Ryan Liddler Headington says...

Peter WB wrote:
Kevin_E wrote:
I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life.

The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers.

There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction.

Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year.

Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals.
Hi,
That's very interesting I'd like to learn more about your treatment and the research carried out using animals to develop it.
Kindly direct me to your sources of information, web links etc?
Cheers.
Kevin, I also suffer with a very similar problem, and agree with you 100%, The animal rights brigade will never accept the benefit of testing on animals,so it is not worth arguing your point, however factually correct and reasonable you may be. In fact you would have more success in getting a lifelong Vegetarian to eat a Big Mac.
[quote][p][bold]Peter WB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin_E[/bold] wrote: I used to have excruciating spinal pain, caused by disc degeneration. Nothing to do with lifestyle, just a failure of nature. After a couple of operations I was largely relieved of the pain, and can get on with enjoying life. The operations used bone fusion techniques, learnt through research on sheep and goats. That's not something that can be duplicated with test tubes and computers. There are a set of medical advances that are only possible through animal research. Banning this sort of research would leave people requiring these advances in pain, suffering with avoidable disease, affected by life-threatening illnesses. Banning animal research would be doing harm by inaction. Fewer than a hundred sheep and goats were used in the research. Several thousands of humans benefit each year. Feel free to disagree with me, but please outline exactly what techniques you would have used to research a) a posterior decompression operation, and b) a cervical discectomy and fusion operation, without using animals.[/p][/quote]Hi, That's very interesting I'd like to learn more about your treatment and the research carried out using animals to develop it. Kindly direct me to your sources of information, web links etc? Cheers.[/p][/quote]Kevin, I also suffer with a very similar problem, and agree with you 100%, The animal rights brigade will never accept the benefit of testing on animals,so it is not worth arguing your point, however factually correct and reasonable you may be. In fact you would have more success in getting a lifelong Vegetarian to eat a Big Mac. Ryan Liddler Headington
  • Score: -332

7:52pm Sun 17 Nov 13

Ryan Liddler Headington says...

Peter WB wrote:
The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering.
What does that tell you about Oxford University?
And peter, as I am sure that you are aware more than several European countries allow torture of animals (and indeed people) in their experiments that Oxford University totally prohibits. So what does that say about the caring nature of our World Class University?
[quote][p][bold]Peter WB[/bold] wrote: The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering. What does that tell you about Oxford University?[/p][/quote]And peter, as I am sure that you are aware more than several European countries allow torture of animals (and indeed people) in their experiments that Oxford University totally prohibits. So what does that say about the caring nature of our World Class University? Ryan Liddler Headington
  • Score: -332

10:04pm Sun 17 Nov 13

dant40 says...

I understand why they test on animals.
But can't they take people like Keith Godfrey!! who as been found guilty of his crime on the oxford mail. There is no place for them, they ruin lives. Glad he left from the college years ago.
I understand why they test on animals. But can't they take people like Keith Godfrey!! who as been found guilty of his crime on the oxford mail. There is no place for them, they ruin lives. Glad he left from the college years ago. dant40
  • Score: -124

10:28am Mon 18 Nov 13

EMBOX2 says...

Much as you may dislike animal testing, consider that with the massive reduction in testing here in the UK, Europe and USA, most of the research is now done in China, where animal rights do not exist, the conditions are appaling and inhumane, and there is no legislative framework to control what experiments are done and by whom.

Any animal rights protestors are dealt with in the manner usual to the Chinese authorities. You will be arrested, put on a sham trial and sent to prison for a long, long time.

So, to those who protest about animal testing in the highly regulated UK, how about a trip to China to continue your protests there?

It'll be a one way trip, that I can promise you.
Much as you may dislike animal testing, consider that with the massive reduction in testing here in the UK, Europe and USA, most of the research is now done in China, where animal rights do not exist, the conditions are appaling and inhumane, and there is no legislative framework to control what experiments are done and by whom. Any animal rights protestors are dealt with in the manner usual to the Chinese authorities. You will be arrested, put on a sham trial and sent to prison for a long, long time. So, to those who protest about animal testing in the highly regulated UK, how about a trip to China to continue your protests there? It'll be a one way trip, that I can promise you. EMBOX2
  • Score: -119

2:45pm Mon 18 Nov 13

Hella7 says...

Interesting how Oxford Uni always maintains that 'animal research is essential for medical progress'(sic).We NEVER had an independent, transparent,scientif
ic evaluation of the utility of animal tests vis-a-vis human based biology tests,so the above statement is disingenous and highly misleading.Furthermo
re, the claim made by one of he University's spokespersons that 'Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century' is equally erroneous and has been debunked by the ASA..Check here:
http://www.asa.org.u
k/Complaints-and-ASA
-action/Adjudication
s/2005/10/Associatio
n-of-Medical-Researc
h-Charities/CS_40340
.aspx

The assumption that animal research is "necessary" rests on a logical absurdity because animal testing is not relevant to humans or predictive in any way.We differ on the cellular and molecular level and that is where disease manifests.Moreover, to artificially induce a disease in an animal(many animals don't get the same diseases as humans!)is not only illogical, but highly unscientific and its methodology based on guesswork.
.Despite using over 100 million animals worldwide, every year less than 1 in 10 drugs are patented to become prescription drugs simply because animal tests cannot predict fatalities/injuries.
Adverse reactions to animal tested drugs cost the NHS 2 billion yearly.
To continue with the status quo is not only unscientific , it is also morally repugnant and ethically indefensible.
Oxford Uni cannot pride itself on being an institution of excellence or 'world-leading centre' until it leaves its outdated, barbaric and immoral animal research behind.
Interesting how Oxford Uni always maintains that 'animal research is essential for medical progress'(sic).We NEVER had an independent, transparent,scientif ic evaluation of the utility of animal tests vis-a-vis human based biology tests,so the above statement is disingenous and highly misleading.Furthermo re, the claim made by one of he University's spokespersons that 'Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century' is equally erroneous and has been debunked by the ASA..Check here: http://www.asa.org.u k/Complaints-and-ASA -action/Adjudication s/2005/10/Associatio n-of-Medical-Researc h-Charities/CS_40340 .aspx The assumption that animal research is "necessary" rests on a logical absurdity because animal testing is not relevant to humans or predictive in any way.We differ on the cellular and molecular level and that is where disease manifests.Moreover, to artificially induce a disease in an animal(many animals don't get the same diseases as humans!)is not only illogical, but highly unscientific and its methodology based on guesswork. .Despite using over 100 million animals worldwide, every year less than 1 in 10 drugs are patented to become prescription drugs simply because animal tests cannot predict fatalities/injuries. Adverse reactions to animal tested drugs cost the NHS 2 billion yearly. To continue with the status quo is not only unscientific , it is also morally repugnant and ethically indefensible. Oxford Uni cannot pride itself on being an institution of excellence or 'world-leading centre' until it leaves its outdated, barbaric and immoral animal research behind. Hella7
  • Score: 32

4:18pm Mon 18 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach…

Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans.

Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies.

Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work.
The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach… Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans. Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies. Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work. grandconjuration
  • Score: 1

5:56pm Mon 18 Nov 13

Ryan Liddler Headington says...

Hella7 wrote:
Interesting how Oxford Uni always maintains that 'animal research is essential for medical progress'(sic).We NEVER had an independent, transparent,scientif

ic evaluation of the utility of animal tests vis-a-vis human based biology tests,so the above statement is disingenous and highly misleading.Furthermo

re, the claim made by one of he University's spokespersons that 'Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century' is equally erroneous and has been debunked by the ASA..Check here:
http://www.asa.org.u

k/Complaints-and-ASA

-action/Adjudication

s/2005/10/Associatio

n-of-Medical-Researc

h-Charities/CS_40340

.aspx

The assumption that animal research is "necessary" rests on a logical absurdity because animal testing is not relevant to humans or predictive in any way.We differ on the cellular and molecular level and that is where disease manifests.Moreover, to artificially induce a disease in an animal(many animals don't get the same diseases as humans!)is not only illogical, but highly unscientific and its methodology based on guesswork.
.Despite using over 100 million animals worldwide, every year less than 1 in 10 drugs are patented to become prescription drugs simply because animal tests cannot predict fatalities/injuries.

Adverse reactions to animal tested drugs cost the NHS 2 billion yearly.
To continue with the status quo is not only unscientific , it is also morally repugnant and ethically indefensible.
Oxford Uni cannot pride itself on being an institution of excellence or 'world-leading centre' until it leaves its outdated, barbaric and immoral animal research behind.
Sorry you are wrong, and you know that you are. The experts at one of the greatest universities in the world also say you are wrong, and the experts at the rest of the greatest universities in the world, also say that you are wrong. In fact the only people that agree with you are PETA, Mel Broughton, and the people that stand outside McDonalds shouting at the top of their voices that "meat is murder" Hardly a convincing bunch to argue for humane treatment as all three currently have members in prison for terrorist acts against Humans.
[quote][p][bold]Hella7[/bold] wrote: Interesting how Oxford Uni always maintains that 'animal research is essential for medical progress'(sic).We NEVER had an independent, transparent,scientif ic evaluation of the utility of animal tests vis-a-vis human based biology tests,so the above statement is disingenous and highly misleading.Furthermo re, the claim made by one of he University's spokespersons that 'Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century' is equally erroneous and has been debunked by the ASA..Check here: http://www.asa.org.u k/Complaints-and-ASA -action/Adjudication s/2005/10/Associatio n-of-Medical-Researc h-Charities/CS_40340 .aspx The assumption that animal research is "necessary" rests on a logical absurdity because animal testing is not relevant to humans or predictive in any way.We differ on the cellular and molecular level and that is where disease manifests.Moreover, to artificially induce a disease in an animal(many animals don't get the same diseases as humans!)is not only illogical, but highly unscientific and its methodology based on guesswork. .Despite using over 100 million animals worldwide, every year less than 1 in 10 drugs are patented to become prescription drugs simply because animal tests cannot predict fatalities/injuries. Adverse reactions to animal tested drugs cost the NHS 2 billion yearly. To continue with the status quo is not only unscientific , it is also morally repugnant and ethically indefensible. Oxford Uni cannot pride itself on being an institution of excellence or 'world-leading centre' until it leaves its outdated, barbaric and immoral animal research behind.[/p][/quote]Sorry you are wrong, and you know that you are. The experts at one of the greatest universities in the world also say you are wrong, and the experts at the rest of the greatest universities in the world, also say that you are wrong. In fact the only people that agree with you are PETA, Mel Broughton, and the people that stand outside McDonalds shouting at the top of their voices that "meat is murder" Hardly a convincing bunch to argue for humane treatment as all three currently have members in prison for terrorist acts against Humans. Ryan Liddler Headington
  • Score: -351

8:33am Tue 19 Nov 13

Peter WB says...

Ryan Liddler Headington wrote:
Peter WB wrote:
The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering.
What does that tell you about Oxford University?
And peter, as I am sure that you are aware more than several European countries allow torture of animals (and indeed people) in their experiments that Oxford University totally prohibits. So what does that say about the caring nature of our World Class University?
Um, not heard that one before, examples please?
[quote][p][bold]Ryan Liddler Headington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter WB[/bold] wrote: The procedures the University carries out on monkeys have been banned by several European countries. Banned as they consider them to be too extreme and cause to much suffering. What does that tell you about Oxford University?[/p][/quote]And peter, as I am sure that you are aware more than several European countries allow torture of animals (and indeed people) in their experiments that Oxford University totally prohibits. So what does that say about the caring nature of our World Class University?[/p][/quote]Um, not heard that one before, examples please? Peter WB
  • Score: 3

8:52am Tue 19 Nov 13

Peter WB says...

grandconjuration wrote:
The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach…

Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans.

Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies.

Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work.
Grand Conjuration,
Getting back to the real world for a moment. Lets face it, if a herb was discovered in the rain forest and simply made into an infusion in ones kitchen. This infusion cured all forms of cancer within a couple of days. Then the whole gravy train would grind to a halt.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach… Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans. Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies. Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work.[/p][/quote]Grand Conjuration, Getting back to the real world for a moment. Lets face it, if a herb was discovered in the rain forest and simply made into an infusion in ones kitchen. This infusion cured all forms of cancer within a couple of days. Then the whole gravy train would grind to a halt. Peter WB
  • Score: 2

9:10am Tue 19 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

Peter WB wrote:
grandconjuration wrote: The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach… Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans. Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies. Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work.
Grand Conjuration, Getting back to the real world for a moment. Lets face it, if a herb was discovered in the rain forest and simply made into an infusion in ones kitchen. This infusion cured all forms of cancer within a couple of days. Then the whole gravy train would grind to a halt.
That's the real world? I'm sure if you found a magic herb and demonstrated its efficacy and safety in a series of animal studies and clinical trials that we would all be rejoicing! That would enable scientists to concentrate their efforts on all the other non-cancer diseases.

Good luck on your trip to the rain forest.

grandconjuration BSc PhD (oncology)
[quote][p][bold]Peter WB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: The debate for and against animal testing is likely to continue for many years to come. It is an emotive subject and there are many people who feel opposed to the use of animals in research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I would like to see those who strongly oppose the use of animals adopt this two pronged approach… Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans. Secondly, rather than campaigning against the use of animals, whether it be though peaceful demonstration or targeting scientists and their families with bombs, why don’t you actually do something constructive? Get an education; start off with something like a degree in biochemistry. Then move on to a PhD in a good lab and a succession of postdoctoral positions. During this time you can develop non-animal based methods for evaluating the efficacy and toxicology of drugs. Publish your research in peer reviewed journals and demonstrate to the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) that your methods are as, or more, predictive than animal-based tests. Then, give/sell your knowledge to universities and pharmaceutical companies. Animal research is incredibly expensive, time consuming and not always predictive. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry would welcome alternatives that reduce the attrition rate for new drugs and improve on animal models, which is why they invest a huge amount of money in developing alternatives. However, at the moment, the use of animals is a necessity, and the UK is one of the most highly controlled and ethically regulated countries to perform this kind of work.[/p][/quote]Grand Conjuration, Getting back to the real world for a moment. Lets face it, if a herb was discovered in the rain forest and simply made into an infusion in ones kitchen. This infusion cured all forms of cancer within a couple of days. Then the whole gravy train would grind to a halt.[/p][/quote]That's the real world? I'm sure if you found a magic herb and demonstrated its efficacy and safety in a series of animal studies and clinical trials that we would all be rejoicing! That would enable scientists to concentrate their efforts on all the other non-cancer diseases. Good luck on your trip to the rain forest. grandconjuration BSc PhD (oncology) grandconjuration
  • Score: -4

2:30pm Tue 19 Nov 13

Hella7 says...

Ryan L. Headington,
...'Calm down, dear' comes to mind after reading your vacuous diatribe in defense of Oxford Uni.
Errr...so what am I wrong about? Wrong about the FACT that we never had an independent enquiry to establish whether vivisection actually works or is useful to human health/advancement?
Wrong about the FACT that it is untrue to say that animal experimentation was and is essential to every medical development?
Wrong about the FACT that animal testing is not consistently predictive and adverse drug reactions are a major cause of death killing 197.000 people annually in the EU and injuring many more?
If you were a serious seeker of the truth, you would have checked out all the facts and figures which are readily available in scientific journals such as the BMJ, The Lancet,New Scientist et al..
Finally,if you don't share my opinion that inflicting deliberate pain,suffering,depri
vation and ultimate killing of another non-consensual sentient species isn't morally repugnant and degrades each and every one of us,then I am proud to say I am in good company alongside distinguished Oxford Alumni who equally abhorred vivisection, and a great proportion of the enlightened, forward-thinking public.
Ryan L. Headington, ...'Calm down, dear' comes to mind after reading your vacuous diatribe in defense of Oxford Uni. Errr...so what am I wrong about? Wrong about the FACT that we never had an independent enquiry to establish whether vivisection actually works or is useful to human health/advancement? Wrong about the FACT that it is untrue to say that animal experimentation was and is essential to every medical development? Wrong about the FACT that animal testing is not consistently predictive and adverse drug reactions are a major cause of death killing 197.000 people annually in the EU and injuring many more? If you were a serious seeker of the truth, you would have checked out all the facts and figures which are readily available in scientific journals such as the BMJ, The Lancet,New Scientist et al.. Finally,if you don't share my opinion that inflicting deliberate pain,suffering,depri vation and ultimate killing of another non-consensual sentient species isn't morally repugnant and degrades each and every one of us,then I am proud to say I am in good company alongside distinguished Oxford Alumni who equally abhorred vivisection, and a great proportion of the enlightened, forward-thinking public. Hella7
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 19 Nov 13

Kidlington Dave says...

grandconjuration: "Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans."

Except that isn't true. Take paracetamol, probably the most commonly used drug in the UK. If it had been developed through animal testing it would never have made the market as it is highly toxic to many animals. Unlike myriad drugs that passed the animal test but caused harm or death in humans.

I'm not by any stretch fanatically opposed to all animal research but the consensus, unquestioned by governments for decades, that animal testing is a. completely reliable, and b. the only way forward, is flawed. In the end, all drugs are tested on humans and experience has shown that animal testing can never really guarantee effectiveness and safety.
grandconjuration: "Firstly, introduce a card system similar to a donor card stating clearly that you do not want to be given any drugs or receive any medical treatment that has been tested using animals. This, of course, will include all approved drugs within the UK as all investigational therapeutics will have to be rigorously tested in animal-based efficacy and toxicology studies before regulatory authorities allow them to be administered to humans." Except that isn't true. Take paracetamol, probably the most commonly used drug in the UK. If it had been developed through animal testing it would never have made the market as it is highly toxic to many animals. Unlike myriad drugs that passed the animal test but caused harm or death in humans. I'm not by any stretch fanatically opposed to all animal research but the consensus, unquestioned by governments for decades, that animal testing is a. completely reliable, and b. the only way forward, is flawed. In the end, all drugs are tested on humans and experience has shown that animal testing can never really guarantee effectiveness and safety. Kidlington Dave
  • Score: -2

3:46pm Tue 19 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

Kidlington Dave. The old paracetamol story. A drug first discovered in 1887. Any more recent examples? Ever tried getting a current experimental drug into humans without first testing it in animals? Maybe a drug that treats something bit more serious than a headache and mild fever? And, if they didn't test it on animals, how do we know it's so toxic to them?

You'll note in my first post that I state animal models are "not always predictive", and so agree with you to some degree. However, "the myriad of drugs that passed the animal test but caused harm or death to humans"? Please (i) name these drugs (ii) tell me the number of approved drugs that do have an acceptable safety profile.

If you would like to have drugs that provide suitable efficacy with no side effects and no chance of adverse reactions then please do as I suggest in my first post. Do something about it and show us how clever you are compared to all the scientists of the last 100 years who you seem to believe have got is so wrong.

On a final note, one of the more hopeful alternatives to animal-based studies is the use of human stem cells to generate cells that represent various tissue types. These can be used to test drugs in vitro in a lab. However, labs that perform this kind of development are often picketed and demonstrated against by the anti-human stem cell lobby. There's just no pleasing some people, eh?
Kidlington Dave. The old paracetamol story. A drug first discovered in 1887. Any more recent examples? Ever tried getting a current experimental drug into humans without first testing it in animals? Maybe a drug that treats something bit more serious than a headache and mild fever? And, if they didn't test it on animals, how do we know it's so toxic to them? You'll note in my first post that I state animal models are "not always predictive", and so agree with you to some degree. However, "the myriad of drugs that passed the animal test but caused harm or death to humans"? Please (i) name these drugs (ii) tell me the number of approved drugs that do have an acceptable safety profile. If you would like to have drugs that provide suitable efficacy with no side effects and no chance of adverse reactions then please do as I suggest in my first post. Do something about it and show us how clever you are compared to all the scientists of the last 100 years who you seem to believe have got is so wrong. On a final note, one of the more hopeful alternatives to animal-based studies is the use of human stem cells to generate cells that represent various tissue types. These can be used to test drugs in vitro in a lab. However, labs that perform this kind of development are often picketed and demonstrated against by the anti-human stem cell lobby. There's just no pleasing some people, eh? grandconjuration
  • Score: -4

5:56pm Tue 19 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

grandconjuration, why do you think the animal experimenters are utterly opposed to a comparison? They are running scared that their fraudulent "work" will be revealed. And, if a new drug has, in the end, to be tested on humans, what is the point of first testing it on alien species? That only tells us how those species respond.
Think about this. If there was a feline disease killing off all the cats of the world, where would our eminent scientists look for a cure? Would they look at dogs or rabbits or humans or monkeys or sheep etc etc? Only the moronic and fraudulent ones would. The ethical scientists would, of course, look at everything CAT! I wonder how this is any different from looking at humans for cures to HUMAN diseases!!
You want recent examples of fatal or dangerous drugs which passed animal tests. The obvious one is Vioxx which killed around 130,000 people worldwide and maimed a similar number. It was supposed to be a wonder cure for arthritis! Trasylol, manufactured by Bayer, may have killed 22,000 people. Lamisil, linked to liver deaths. The FDA warned that epilepsy drugs may increase suicide risk. In 2008, 16 deaths reported to be linked to Botox. Pafuramidine causes high liver toxicity. Baxter anaesthetic linked to cardiac arrest in children. FDA probes cancer in children given arthritis drugs Remicade, Humira and Enbrel. Tamiflu causes neuropsychiatric events. ( I have a friend who suffered this from taking Tamiflu). |Pfizer drug, Sutent, linked to higher heart failure rate. FDA warned of life-threatening adverse events and death in patients, including children, who have received cough treatment Tussionex. Drug induced hepatitis has been reported in patients receiving combination therapy with Prezista/ritonavir. Betablockers have probably caused 8000,000 deaths (according to the Daily Telegraph).
I could go on and on; the catalogue of failed and dangerous drugs is brought up to date regularly. The scientists of the last 100 years have constantly been lying to us. Please look at the work of those scientists who don't have a vested interest in the continuation of this useless barbarism. The Dr Hadwen Trust is a good place to start!!
grandconjuration, why do you think the animal experimenters are utterly opposed to a comparison? They are running scared that their fraudulent "work" will be revealed. And, if a new drug has, in the end, to be tested on humans, what is the point of first testing it on alien species? That only tells us how those species respond. Think about this. If there was a feline disease killing off all the cats of the world, where would our eminent scientists look for a cure? Would they look at dogs or rabbits or humans or monkeys or sheep etc etc? Only the moronic and fraudulent ones would. The ethical scientists would, of course, look at everything CAT! I wonder how this is any different from looking at humans for cures to HUMAN diseases!! You want recent examples of fatal or dangerous drugs which passed animal tests. The obvious one is Vioxx which killed around 130,000 people worldwide and maimed a similar number. It was supposed to be a wonder cure for arthritis! Trasylol, manufactured by Bayer, may have killed 22,000 people. Lamisil, linked to liver deaths. The FDA warned that epilepsy drugs may increase suicide risk. In 2008, 16 deaths reported to be linked to Botox. Pafuramidine causes high liver toxicity. Baxter anaesthetic linked to cardiac arrest in children. FDA probes cancer in children given arthritis drugs Remicade, Humira and Enbrel. Tamiflu causes neuropsychiatric events. ( I have a friend who suffered this from taking Tamiflu). |Pfizer drug, Sutent, linked to higher heart failure rate. FDA warned of life-threatening adverse events and death in patients, including children, who have received cough treatment Tussionex. Drug induced hepatitis has been reported in patients receiving combination therapy with Prezista/ritonavir. Betablockers have probably caused 8000,000 deaths (according to the Daily Telegraph). I could go on and on; the catalogue of failed and dangerous drugs is brought up to date regularly. The scientists of the last 100 years have constantly been lying to us. Please look at the work of those scientists who don't have a vested interest in the continuation of this useless barbarism. The Dr Hadwen Trust is a good place to start!! rabbitman
  • Score: 13

7:03pm Tue 19 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

rabbitman. Feel free to do a better job then. I await your first fully efficacious, side-effect free, risk-free drug for a severe disease to enter the market.

I presume you already have a senior position in academia or the pharmaceutical industry? If not, you'd better get cracking!
rabbitman. Feel free to do a better job then. I await your first fully efficacious, side-effect free, risk-free drug for a severe disease to enter the market. I presume you already have a senior position in academia or the pharmaceutical industry? If not, you'd better get cracking! grandconjuration
  • Score: -4

8:02pm Tue 19 Nov 13

Kidlington Dave says...

Here you go grandconjuration: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_wit
hdrawn_drugs
And those are just the "significant" ones.

Anyway, you kind of missed my point with your somewhat OTT reply. I'm not an animal rights campaigner and believe that many animal experiments can produce useful cures, while many experiments are used to produce drugs of benefit in veterinary practice; I wouldn't argue with that. But the "it's this or nothing" argument, and the argument that animal experiments are a great, reliable test of drugs' safety is flawed, and the regularly-wheeled out kneejerk reaction that if you believe otherwise you are a human-hating animal rights nutter is insulting to everyone who believes in a more holistic and humane approach.

One thing you cannot argue with is that a huge number of animal experiments are simply unnecessary as they are merely duplicating procedures done previously or by rival pharmaceutical companies.
Here you go grandconjuration: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_wit hdrawn_drugs And those are just the "significant" ones. Anyway, you kind of missed my point with your somewhat OTT reply. I'm not an animal rights campaigner and believe that many animal experiments can produce useful cures, while many experiments are used to produce drugs of benefit in veterinary practice; I wouldn't argue with that. But the "it's this or nothing" argument, and the argument that animal experiments are a great, reliable test of drugs' safety is flawed, and the regularly-wheeled out kneejerk reaction that if you believe otherwise you are a human-hating animal rights nutter is insulting to everyone who believes in a more holistic and humane approach. One thing you cannot argue with is that a huge number of animal experiments are simply unnecessary as they are merely duplicating procedures done previously or by rival pharmaceutical companies. Kidlington Dave
  • Score: 4

8:19pm Tue 19 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

Kidlington Dave. I agree with you that animal studies are not always predictive. That's the third time I've stated this. However, all I hear are the negatives. Where's the list of approved drugs that are deemed safe? How many people owe their life to drugs and surgery? How many patients have had their life prolonged? How many patients have experienced a significant increase in their quality of life? The animal rights lobby never seem to mention this. Neither do they propose any viable alternatives.
Kidlington Dave. I agree with you that animal studies are not always predictive. That's the third time I've stated this. However, all I hear are the negatives. Where's the list of approved drugs that are deemed safe? How many people owe their life to drugs and surgery? How many patients have had their life prolonged? How many patients have experienced a significant increase in their quality of life? The animal rights lobby never seem to mention this. Neither do they propose any viable alternatives. grandconjuration
  • Score: -9

8:40pm Tue 19 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

Grandconjuration - you've said it. Where's the list of approved drugs that are deemed safe? They are all "deemed safe", which is why they are passed on to us! The point is, if they are not always predictive, as you say, what's the point of them? You don't know which are and which aren't predictive; that's why some scientists say "you might just as well toss a coin". And the fact that there are so many false negatives means that we lose out on many probably safe drugs. Ten years were wasted between Fleming finding that penicillin didn't work on rabbits and Florey finding that it did work on mice. Had Florey tried it on hamsters or guinea pigs, we might never had had penicillin - it doesn't work on those two species! Just go straight to human cells, tissue, chips etc instead of wasting time, money and lives, both human and animal. Why don't you read about all the wonderful alternatives that exist and how these ethical scientists are having to struggle with so little money; the government gives all the funds to the dinosaurs!
Grandconjuration - you've said it. Where's the list of approved drugs that are deemed safe? They are all "deemed safe", which is why they are passed on to us! The point is, if they are not always predictive, as you say, what's the point of them? You don't know which are and which aren't predictive; that's why some scientists say "you might just as well toss a coin". And the fact that there are so many false negatives means that we lose out on many probably safe drugs. Ten years were wasted between Fleming finding that penicillin didn't work on rabbits and Florey finding that it did work on mice. Had Florey tried it on hamsters or guinea pigs, we might never had had penicillin - it doesn't work on those two species! Just go straight to human cells, tissue, chips etc instead of wasting time, money and lives, both human and animal. Why don't you read about all the wonderful alternatives that exist and how these ethical scientists are having to struggle with so little money; the government gives all the funds to the dinosaurs! rabbitman
  • Score: 4

9:25pm Tue 19 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

Hindsight is wonderful thing isn't it. Going back to Fleming now, at least it's later than paracetamol.

"Just go straight to human cells, tissue, chips etc". You don't actually know what you're talking about do you.

The vast majority of studies to identify therapeutic targets and demonstrate efficacy are performed on human derived material, or animals (typically mice) engineered to be 'more human'. However, you do realise that animal toxicology studies are required by law? And you do understand that it typically takes a drug 10-15 years to take a drug from inception to the market? This means it takes a very long time for more progressive technologies to be tested and applied to investigational drugs.

Since you appear to have all the facts at hand. How many more adverse reactions and serious side effects do you think we would see if we didn't test drugs on animals?
Hindsight is wonderful thing isn't it. Going back to Fleming now, at least it's later than paracetamol. "Just go straight to human cells, tissue, chips etc". You don't actually know what you're talking about do you. The vast majority of studies to identify therapeutic targets and demonstrate efficacy are performed on human derived material, or animals (typically mice) engineered to be 'more human'. However, you do realise that animal toxicology studies are required by law? And you do understand that it typically takes a drug 10-15 years to take a drug from inception to the market? This means it takes a very long time for more progressive technologies to be tested and applied to investigational drugs. Since you appear to have all the facts at hand. How many more adverse reactions and serious side effects do you think we would see if we didn't test drugs on animals? grandconjuration
  • Score: -6

10:36am Wed 20 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

How about you try to begin to let a little bit of caring and compassion into your cold blood instead of sarcastic ignorance! Actually they are not "required by law" and even if they were, who makes these self-seeking laws? And the modern technologies, using human cells etc, actually produce results much more quickly than your antiquated animal-torturing techniques which haven't produced ANY cures for our major diseases after, what, 150 years? What harm have these poor, innocent animals ever done to you that you are happy to use them as "things" to be abused and discarded at will. How dare you take innocent, feeling beings, who have NOTHING to do with our ills, and torture them at will just because you have the power to do so? You know, even if torturing animals DID help us humans (and actually, it doesn't) what right do we have to resort to this medieval, wicked torture in order to repair the damage our lousy species does to itself. You are a perfect example of the nasty, uncaring, selfish, self-centred human species which unfortunately evolved on this planet. We kill each other, kill our animal cousins and kill our planet. What a disaster we are. We do not deserve to survive!
"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for 'Peace on Earth'."
How about you try to begin to let a little bit of caring and compassion into your cold blood instead of sarcastic ignorance! Actually they are not "required by law" and even if they were, who makes these self-seeking laws? And the modern technologies, using human cells etc, actually produce results much more quickly than your antiquated animal-torturing techniques which haven't produced ANY cures for our major diseases after, what, 150 years? What harm have these poor, innocent animals ever done to you that you are happy to use them as "things" to be abused and discarded at will. How dare you take innocent, feeling beings, who have NOTHING to do with our ills, and torture them at will just because you have the power to do so? You know, even if torturing animals DID help us humans (and actually, it doesn't) what right do we have to resort to this medieval, wicked torture in order to repair the damage our lousy species does to itself. You are a perfect example of the nasty, uncaring, selfish, self-centred human species which unfortunately evolved on this planet. We kill each other, kill our animal cousins and kill our planet. What a disaster we are. We do not deserve to survive! "Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for 'Peace on Earth'." rabbitman
  • Score: 6

11:51am Wed 20 Nov 13

Ryan Liddler Headington says...

To all of the anti-animal experiment posters above who have obviously spent much time scouring the internet for this story, and much thought on writing very long replies to local commenters one question. Why do you spend so much time commenting on local rag internet forums (followed by the inevitable letter to the editor) when all your time and effort is just either ignored, derided, or just plain refuted?. You would be far better off standing outside No 10 and getting Mr Cameron to outlaw animal experimentation. If you did that, and our University carried on experimenting on animals, then you would have my full support, and I would stand in Parks Road with you shouting the loudest. But whilst animal experimentation is still legal, and our University stays inside the law, then I cannot support anybody campaigning against any establishment going about their lawful business.
To all of the anti-animal experiment posters above who have obviously spent much time scouring the internet for this story, and much thought on writing very long replies to local commenters one question. Why do you spend so much time commenting on local rag internet forums (followed by the inevitable letter to the editor) when all your time and effort is just either ignored, derided, or just plain refuted?. You would be far better off standing outside No 10 and getting Mr Cameron to outlaw animal experimentation. If you did that, and our University carried on experimenting on animals, then you would have my full support, and I would stand in Parks Road with you shouting the loudest. But whilst animal experimentation is still legal, and our University stays inside the law, then I cannot support anybody campaigning against any establishment going about their lawful business. Ryan Liddler Headington
  • Score: -310

12:47pm Wed 20 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

rabbitman. You have demonstrated why animal rights campaigners tend to be ignored. You appear to be a complete loon.
rabbitman. You have demonstrated why animal rights campaigners tend to be ignored. You appear to be a complete loon. grandconjuration
  • Score: -4

1:49pm Wed 20 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

grandconjuration: "I abhor vivisection. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty." Charles W Mayo MD of the Mayo Clinic which is consistently ranked among the top three US hospitals.

Lord Robert Platt MSc, MD FRCP, former President of the Royal College of Physicians: "I think there's something more than pain in a lot of these experiments that I object to. I think there is misery. I think it's a wretched state to see an animal wasting away, perhaps with vomiting or diarrhoea, miserable in its cage. NO AMOUNT OF TESTING CAN MAKE A DRUG ABSOLUTELY SAFE, IF ONLY BECAUSE HUMANS RE-ACT DIFFERENTLY
FROM ANIMALS."

Rev William Jones, Anglican priest, contributor to the Oxford Movement: "Cruelty to dumb animals is one of the distinguishing vices of low and base minds. Wherever it is found, it is a certain mark of ignorance and meanness; a mark which all the external advantages of wealth, splendour and nobility cannot obliterate. It is consistent neither with learning nor with true civility."

Albert Schweitzer: Ethics in our Western World has hitherto been largely limited to the relations of man to man. but that is a limited ethics. We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also..."

Leonardo da Vinci: "The time will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of humans."

There's a few loons I'm so happy to be in the company of!!!!!!
grandconjuration: "I abhor vivisection. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty." Charles W Mayo MD of the Mayo Clinic which is consistently ranked among the top three US hospitals. Lord Robert Platt MSc, MD FRCP, former President of the Royal College of Physicians: "I think there's something more than pain in a lot of these experiments that I object to. I think there is misery. I think it's a wretched state to see an animal wasting away, perhaps with vomiting or diarrhoea, miserable in its cage. NO AMOUNT OF TESTING CAN MAKE A DRUG ABSOLUTELY SAFE, IF ONLY BECAUSE HUMANS RE-ACT DIFFERENTLY FROM ANIMALS." Rev William Jones, Anglican priest, contributor to the Oxford Movement: "Cruelty to dumb animals is one of the distinguishing vices of low and base minds. Wherever it is found, it is a certain mark of ignorance and meanness; a mark which all the external advantages of wealth, splendour and nobility cannot obliterate. It is consistent neither with learning nor with true civility." Albert Schweitzer: Ethics in our Western World has hitherto been largely limited to the relations of man to man. but that is a limited ethics. We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also..." Leonardo da Vinci: "The time will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of humans." There's a few loons I'm so happy to be in the company of!!!!!! rabbitman
  • Score: 4

3:49pm Wed 20 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

The Mayo Clinic performs and publishes many animal experiments.

The Royal College of Physicians is a collection of people that prescribe drugs that have been tested on animals. In addition, they support and fund research and have close ties with the pharmaceutical industry.

Leonardo da Vinci indeed, we're going even further back in time now. I imagine that 500 years ago Leonardo had little insight into modern drug discovery. You take his quote out of context; he was referring to the eating of meat. He also quoted as saying, "where there is SHOUTING, there is no true knowledge."
The Mayo Clinic performs and publishes many animal experiments. The Royal College of Physicians is a collection of people that prescribe drugs that have been tested on animals. In addition, they support and fund research and have close ties with the pharmaceutical industry. Leonardo da Vinci indeed, we're going even further back in time now. I imagine that 500 years ago Leonardo had little insight into modern drug discovery. You take his quote out of context; he was referring to the eating of meat. He also quoted as saying, "where there is SHOUTING, there is no true knowledge." grandconjuration
  • Score: -6

4:17pm Wed 20 Nov 13

Hella7 says...

grandjonjuration-
You appear to be rather pompous and vainglorious-it's fine if you don't embrace the anti-viv. stance,but one does not need to have a degree in science or a Phd. to enable us to look at the plethora of information supplied by many scientists who reject vivisection and thus form a valid point of view.Basically, what you are saying is that YOU and those of the same ilk are RIGHT and dismiss all the relevant data provided by the scientific community who challenge your opinion.This can never lead to a rational,objective debate.
Science aside, there are huge ethical, moral implications in respect of animal experimentation and they merit equal consideration.Societ
y as a whole needs to address those issues and challenge the notion that we can inflict pain and suffering on another species without considering that the lives of those animals are just as precious to them as your own life is to yourself.We do not have an 'intrinsic' right to do with/to them as we wish.Just reflect on that and perhaps display a bit more humility..
grandjonjuration- You appear to be rather pompous and vainglorious-it's fine if you don't embrace the anti-viv. stance,but one does not need to have a degree in science or a Phd. to enable us to look at the plethora of information supplied by many scientists who reject vivisection and thus form a valid point of view.Basically, what you are saying is that YOU and those of the same ilk are RIGHT and dismiss all the relevant data provided by the scientific community who challenge your opinion.This can never lead to a rational,objective debate. Science aside, there are huge ethical, moral implications in respect of animal experimentation and they merit equal consideration.Societ y as a whole needs to address those issues and challenge the notion that we can inflict pain and suffering on another species without considering that the lives of those animals are just as precious to them as your own life is to yourself.We do not have an 'intrinsic' right to do with/to them as we wish.Just reflect on that and perhaps display a bit more humility.. Hella7
  • Score: 6

5:45pm Wed 20 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

grandconjuration: Talk about deliberately ignoring what people say! Charles Mayo said what he said regardless of what the Mayo Clinic does or doesn't do. Similarly with Lord Robert Platt. I didn't quote the Royal College, I quoted him. And, as for Leonardo, does it matter how long ago he lived? He was talking about the murder of animals which includes - when I last looked - vivisection! You jolly well know that Leonardo would have abhorred vivisection; he believed that animal lives matter, whereas you clearly, don't. Therefore it's a waste of time talking further with you. You are totally unreasonable and callous.
grandconjuration: Talk about deliberately ignoring what people say! Charles Mayo said what he said regardless of what the Mayo Clinic does or doesn't do. Similarly with Lord Robert Platt. I didn't quote the Royal College, I quoted him. And, as for Leonardo, does it matter how long ago he lived? He was talking about the murder of animals which includes - when I last looked - vivisection! You jolly well know that Leonardo would have abhorred vivisection; he believed that animal lives matter, whereas you clearly, don't. Therefore it's a waste of time talking further with you. You are totally unreasonable and callous. rabbitman
  • Score: 5

8:23pm Wed 20 Nov 13

isabel.reinhards@gmail.com says...

Isabel Reinhards says...

Vivisection is criminal. We have no right to kill animals. They have a life just like we have, they have children, just like we have, they have their happy moments and their sad moments just like we have, they communicate with each other although in different ways from us. In short, they have their own lives and we have no right to interfere with them. Eating animals, experimenting on animals or making them our slaves is wrong and indeed criminal. Vivisection isn't even a subject for discussion.
Isabel Reinhards says... Vivisection is criminal. We have no right to kill animals. They have a life just like we have, they have children, just like we have, they have their happy moments and their sad moments just like we have, they communicate with each other although in different ways from us. In short, they have their own lives and we have no right to interfere with them. Eating animals, experimenting on animals or making them our slaves is wrong and indeed criminal. Vivisection isn't even a subject for discussion. isabel.reinhards@gmail.com
  • Score: 13

11:18pm Wed 20 Nov 13

grandconjuration says...

rabbitman and Hella7. Let me to tell you a little story. I am a scientist and I once worked in a research institute that was funded by a pharmaceutical company. Because of this association we were targeted by animal rights activists. My colleagues and I were abused verbally, spat on, threatened and followed on our evening journey home. The premises were broken into and the security guard physically assaulted. Leaflets were spread in the surrounding area that contained lies. Some colleagues had their home phone number revealed and their families were intimidated in their own homes. Now, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, I think you're getting the gist of why I'm not too keen on animal rights people.

After a while the institute resembled a prison with a huge security operation put in place to keep the protestors out. In the end this became so expensive that the company stopped funding and the institute closed.

Ready for the irony? The institute was set up purely to develop non-animal based methods for therapeutic target identification, validation and drug discovery. I worked there because that's what I specialise in. That my job. That's what I actually do for a living.

I'm very aware of the limitations of using animals in research. One day I hope we will be able to replace the vast majority, if not all, animal studies with human cell/tissue-based methods. The holy grail would be the speedy development of drugs to treat patients with serious diseases that are effective and safe, using human-based models that are totally predictive. Are we there yet? No. This is why I still support the use of animals in research where alternatives are not available.

I must admit that I've been baiting you a little in this comments thread, and you have followed the typical pattern of animal rights protestors. You use selective, often old examples to suit your argument; ones that appear on every anti-vivisection website for you to copy verbatim. You never acknowledge the advances that have been made using animals in research. You tell lies like "animal studies have never produced drugs for serious diseases". Then you move onto the personal insults, where anyone who agrees with animal use is labelled a 'torturer' or 'barbarian' and scientists are 'liars' and 'ignore data'. You mention alternatives to animal studies, but rarely offer any detail or citations. This is because you don't understand these methods and therefore don't understand their limitations.

I understand that you have strong beliefs. However, people like you never use them for good; you hinder research and drive it to countries where controls and ethical standards are not as stringent as they are in the UK. You don't seek alternatives or invent new techniques. You don't do anything positive, you just seek to destroy.

Goodnight.
rabbitman and Hella7. Let me to tell you a little story. I am a scientist and I once worked in a research institute that was funded by a pharmaceutical company. Because of this association we were targeted by animal rights activists. My colleagues and I were abused verbally, spat on, threatened and followed on our evening journey home. The premises were broken into and the security guard physically assaulted. Leaflets were spread in the surrounding area that contained lies. Some colleagues had their home phone number revealed and their families were intimidated in their own homes. Now, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, I think you're getting the gist of why I'm not too keen on animal rights people. After a while the institute resembled a prison with a huge security operation put in place to keep the protestors out. In the end this became so expensive that the company stopped funding and the institute closed. Ready for the irony? The institute was set up purely to develop non-animal based methods for therapeutic target identification, validation and drug discovery. I worked there because that's what I specialise in. That my job. That's what I actually do for a living. I'm very aware of the limitations of using animals in research. One day I hope we will be able to replace the vast majority, if not all, animal studies with human cell/tissue-based methods. The holy grail would be the speedy development of drugs to treat patients with serious diseases that are effective and safe, using human-based models that are totally predictive. Are we there yet? No. This is why I still support the use of animals in research where alternatives are not available. I must admit that I've been baiting you a little in this comments thread, and you have followed the typical pattern of animal rights protestors. You use selective, often old examples to suit your argument; ones that appear on every anti-vivisection website for you to copy verbatim. You never acknowledge the advances that have been made using animals in research. You tell lies like "animal studies have never produced drugs for serious diseases". Then you move onto the personal insults, where anyone who agrees with animal use is labelled a 'torturer' or 'barbarian' and scientists are 'liars' and 'ignore data'. You mention alternatives to animal studies, but rarely offer any detail or citations. This is because you don't understand these methods and therefore don't understand their limitations. I understand that you have strong beliefs. However, people like you never use them for good; you hinder research and drive it to countries where controls and ethical standards are not as stringent as they are in the UK. You don't seek alternatives or invent new techniques. You don't do anything positive, you just seek to destroy. Goodnight. grandconjuration
  • Score: -7

8:18am Thu 21 Nov 13

Citizen Sunday says...

Ryan Liddler Headington wrote:
To all of the anti-animal experiment posters above who have obviously spent much time scouring the internet for this story, and much thought on writing very long replies to local commenters one question. Why do you spend so much time commenting on local rag internet forums (followed by the inevitable letter to the editor) when all your time and effort is just either ignored, derided, or just plain refuted?. You would be far better off standing outside No 10 and getting Mr Cameron to outlaw animal experimentation. If you did that, and our University carried on experimenting on animals, then you would have my full support, and I would stand in Parks Road with you shouting the loudest. But whilst animal experimentation is still legal, and our University stays inside the law, then I cannot support anybody campaigning against any establishment going about their lawful business.
Wow, Liddler! You actually gave constructive criticism through conclusive thought and deliberation...
[quote][p][bold]Ryan Liddler Headington[/bold] wrote: To all of the anti-animal experiment posters above who have obviously spent much time scouring the internet for this story, and much thought on writing very long replies to local commenters one question. Why do you spend so much time commenting on local rag internet forums (followed by the inevitable letter to the editor) when all your time and effort is just either ignored, derided, or just plain refuted?. You would be far better off standing outside No 10 and getting Mr Cameron to outlaw animal experimentation. If you did that, and our University carried on experimenting on animals, then you would have my full support, and I would stand in Parks Road with you shouting the loudest. But whilst animal experimentation is still legal, and our University stays inside the law, then I cannot support anybody campaigning against any establishment going about their lawful business.[/p][/quote]Wow, Liddler! You actually gave constructive criticism through conclusive thought and deliberation... Citizen Sunday
  • Score: -83

3:32pm Thu 21 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

Oh,, goodness, grandconjuration, where do I begin? Quite frankly, as you will accept, I don't approach this "issue" from the scientific angle; I approach it from a moral angle. And if we "animal rights" people always sing from the same hymn book, it's because there IS only one hymn book. If one is totally and utterly opposed to using helpless and innocent animals for selfish human wants, then one is totally and utterly opposed! Period. An abolitionist is an abolitionist and there are no mitigating circumstances! Nor are there any new arguments.

If you are being honest about that lab you worked for only doing non-animal research, why didn't it put out that message? Why didn't it invite people in to show what good, clean, work it was doing? AR people would have cheered you on. You can understand how I find it difficult to believe you. And the media would have had a field day had that security guard been physically assaulted. No-one would have got away with that, especially an animal rights person! If you work at Oxford, you will know that the SPEAK campaign has never harmed anyone. Standing on the pavement for four hours a week doesn't constitute threatening behaviour. However, what vivisectors do is far beyond threatening behaviour. They behave like barbarians (yes, barbarians) and it is inconceivable to me that anyone thinking of themselves as a decent human being can go into work day after day and torture - yes, torture - (simply taking an animal out of its natural environment and denying it is natural instincts and family, IS torture.. And, unlike human prisoners, these animals have done nothing to deserve it) those sweet beings - beings who think and feel, who can feel joy and love and fear and pain; who don't give their consent to be harmed to the supposed sake of another, cruel, bullying, species. Please read the ethologist, Marc Bekoff, who reveals the wonder of animals.

You talk of there not yet being "alternatives" so animal torture must continue. That is such illogical nonsense. What you're saying is, in essence, animal experiments don't work but because there's nothing to replace them we must keep on doing them! It's like saying my medication is not helping, and it's causing unwelcome side effects, but I shall go on taking it because there isn't an alternative. What fools we mortals be!!

You pro-vivisection people are so arrogant and so de-sensitized that you simply cannot understand that there are people out here who feel genuine love and compassion for our abused cousins. There might be the odd one or two young ones who like to make a lot of noise and show off, however, most of us are "older" and mature women and men who dedicate our lives to the noon-human animal species. We speak for those who cannot. Personally, I am tortured by their horrible plight and cannot sleep at night, while, if there was any justice in this world, it should be YOU who cannot sleep. I feel a deep and abiding hatred for powerful humans who harm gentle animals. And it is only gentle, harmless animals who they choose to hurt.

In the end it boils down to this - right versus wrong, cruelty versus compassion. I thank the lord that I'm on the right side. You should think about giving your conscience a boost, taking a droop in salary and crossing over to the light. You would be welcomed by us good guys.

The late Polish/Jewish writer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, who lost relatives in the holocaust, recognised a similarity in the two holocausts. He said, "every day is Treblinka for the animals" and "where animals are concerned, men become nazis." Imagine the Jew going, terrified, to his death in a cattle truck - then imagine the uncomprehending cow, pig etc packed into the cattle truck travelling to the slaughterhouse. Or the shivering, terrified animal cowering in the corner of a metal cage, awaiting his white-coated torturer, as described by Lord Robert Platt. Different species but all one in the face of death - death the leveller. Animals are incredibly sensitive to the fate that awaits them at abattoirs; they hear their friends and families screaming with fear and can smell their blood. It's similar but on a smaller scale in laboratory torture chambers. I had a friend who rescued a beagle who had had her vocal chords cut as the "scientists" and lab assistants couldn't bear the screaming. Oh, it's so great in British Labs! Let's pat ourselves on the back and thank the heavens we are not Chinese. The problem with that is that the animal cares not whether his abuser is British or Chinese. Cruelty doesn't have an ethnic face.

Regarding selective arguments, I suppose you never use them. "It is necessary to use animals etc etc". And don't YOU tell lies, mister? For example, I don't say animal studies have never produced DRUGS for serious diseases; I say CURES. Very different!! And I also say that these drugs are often the cause of death and illness.

Quote, "You mention alternatives....but rarely offer any detail or citations." Then comes the arrogant bit about us not understanding! But do you REALLY want me to type a list of anti-vivisection papers and quotes? OK, here are a few - and, believe me - I have lots more.

1. Immunologist, Mark Davis, at Stanford 2009. "We seem to be in a state of denial, where there is so much invested in the mouse model that it seems almost unthinkable to look elsewhere...mice are lousy models for clinical studies."
2. A research group headed by Prof Ian Roberts of the London School of Hygiene and Trop Med, has called for an end to animal experiments following an investigation. Their finding, published in the BMJ (2004) show that experiments are not justified and can't be applied to humans.
3. Dr Robert Mendelsohn 1986, "The reason I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
4. Prof Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, surgeon and prof of urology, "I agree that for the benefit of medical science, vivisection has to be stopped. There are lots of reasons: the most important is that it is simply misleading, and both the past and present testify to that."
5. Dr Claude Reiss, 2002. "The assumption that an animal species can stand as a reliable model for human biological reactions amounts to playing Russian Roulette with the patient's life.
6. Dr Moneim Fadali, 1987, "Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient. Vivisection should be abolished."
7. Dr Bjorn Ekwall, Chair of the cytotoxicology Lab, 1999, "Some findings in colon-cancer mice, which were very good models, actually led to clinical trials in humans which resulted in an increase in cancer."
8. Dr a Sabin, 1986, "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
9. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, "We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans."!!!!!!!

etc etc etc etc

Final quotes. Dr Irwin Bross, 1981, "while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance in either the prevention or treatment of human cancer. Instead, research has been led in the wrong direction, studying the wrong form of cancer in the wrong species."
And, "God knows we've cured mice of all sorts of tumours, "said Thomas Wagner, a long-serving cancer research specialist, "but that isn't medical research."
And - grand finale - Dr P Shubik was at a conference of cancer researchers who used animals. Many had openly criticised their work and stated how unscientific it was. He said, "The chief objective is to keep us all employed and to make sure we do interesting experiments so that we can come back to these nice places." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

So will you please stop telling us that we don't understand anything and that only you have the knowledge and the truth! No, WE don't invent new techniques but apparently you do and the very much under-funded ethical scientists DO! You claim your work is non-animal based, yet you still support the ridiculous, out-dated use of animals! You should be clamouring for funds to be switched to human-relevant, ethical science. That's positive campaigning and that's what WE do.

And to accuse US of destroying takes the metaphorical biscuit! Coming from a supporter of the greatest destroyers of precious life.......

The reason the world is in the appalling state it is, is because of the mentality that accepts it's OK to harm animals.

That's it. I'm done.

etc etc etc etc

Just one final quote
Oh,, goodness, grandconjuration, where do I begin? Quite frankly, as you will accept, I don't approach this "issue" from the scientific angle; I approach it from a moral angle. And if we "animal rights" people always sing from the same hymn book, it's because there IS only one hymn book. If one is totally and utterly opposed to using helpless and innocent animals for selfish human wants, then one is totally and utterly opposed! Period. An abolitionist is an abolitionist and there are no mitigating circumstances! Nor are there any new arguments. If you are being honest about that lab you worked for only doing non-animal research, why didn't it put out that message? Why didn't it invite people in to show what good, clean, work it was doing? AR people would have cheered you on. You can understand how I find it difficult to believe you. And the media would have had a field day had that security guard been physically assaulted. No-one would have got away with that, especially an animal rights person! If you work at Oxford, you will know that the SPEAK campaign has never harmed anyone. Standing on the pavement for four hours a week doesn't constitute threatening behaviour. However, what vivisectors do is far beyond threatening behaviour. They behave like barbarians (yes, barbarians) and it is inconceivable to me that anyone thinking of themselves as a decent human being can go into work day after day and torture - yes, torture - (simply taking an animal out of its natural environment and denying it is natural instincts and family, IS torture.. And, unlike human prisoners, these animals have done nothing to deserve it) those sweet beings - beings who think and feel, who can feel joy and love and fear and pain; who don't give their consent to be harmed to the supposed sake of another, cruel, bullying, species. Please read the ethologist, Marc Bekoff, who reveals the wonder of animals. You talk of there not yet being "alternatives" so animal torture must continue. That is such illogical nonsense. What you're saying is, in essence, animal experiments don't work but because there's nothing to replace them we must keep on doing them! It's like saying my medication is not helping, and it's causing unwelcome side effects, but I shall go on taking it because there isn't an alternative. What fools we mortals be!! You pro-vivisection people are so arrogant and so de-sensitized that you simply cannot understand that there are people out here who feel genuine love and compassion for our abused cousins. There might be the odd one or two young ones who like to make a lot of noise and show off, however, most of us are "older" and mature women and men who dedicate our lives to the noon-human animal species. We speak for those who cannot. Personally, I am tortured by their horrible plight and cannot sleep at night, while, if there was any justice in this world, it should be YOU who cannot sleep. I feel a deep and abiding hatred for powerful humans who harm gentle animals. And it is only gentle, harmless animals who they choose to hurt. In the end it boils down to this - right versus wrong, cruelty versus compassion. I thank the lord that I'm on the right side. You should think about giving your conscience a boost, taking a droop in salary and crossing over to the light. You would be welcomed by us good guys. The late Polish/Jewish writer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, who lost relatives in the holocaust, recognised a similarity in the two holocausts. He said, "every day is Treblinka for the animals" and "where animals are concerned, men become nazis." Imagine the Jew going, terrified, to his death in a cattle truck - then imagine the uncomprehending cow, pig etc packed into the cattle truck travelling to the slaughterhouse. Or the shivering, terrified animal cowering in the corner of a metal cage, awaiting his white-coated torturer, as described by Lord Robert Platt. Different species but all one in the face of death - death the leveller. Animals are incredibly sensitive to the fate that awaits them at abattoirs; they hear their friends and families screaming with fear and can smell their blood. It's similar but on a smaller scale in laboratory torture chambers. I had a friend who rescued a beagle who had had her vocal chords cut as the "scientists" and lab assistants couldn't bear the screaming. Oh, it's so great in British Labs! Let's pat ourselves on the back and thank the heavens we are not Chinese. The problem with that is that the animal cares not whether his abuser is British or Chinese. Cruelty doesn't have an ethnic face. Regarding selective arguments, I suppose you never use them. "It is necessary to use animals etc etc". And don't YOU tell lies, mister? For example, I don't say animal studies have never produced DRUGS for serious diseases; I say CURES. Very different!! And I also say that these drugs are often the cause of death and illness. Quote, "You mention alternatives....but rarely offer any detail or citations." Then comes the arrogant bit about us not understanding! But do you REALLY want me to type a list of anti-vivisection papers and quotes? OK, here are a few - and, believe me - I have lots more. 1. Immunologist, Mark Davis, at Stanford 2009. "We seem to be in a state of denial, where there is so much invested in the mouse model that it seems almost unthinkable to look elsewhere...mice are lousy models for clinical studies." 2. A research group headed by Prof Ian Roberts of the London School of Hygiene and Trop Med, has called for an end to animal experiments following an investigation. Their finding, published in the BMJ (2004) show that experiments are not justified and can't be applied to humans. 3. Dr Robert Mendelsohn 1986, "The reason I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that." 4. Prof Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, surgeon and prof of urology, "I agree that for the benefit of medical science, vivisection has to be stopped. There are lots of reasons: the most important is that it is simply misleading, and both the past and present testify to that." 5. Dr Claude Reiss, 2002. "The assumption that an animal species can stand as a reliable model for human biological reactions amounts to playing Russian Roulette with the patient's life. 6. Dr Moneim Fadali, 1987, "Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient. Vivisection should be abolished." 7. Dr Bjorn Ekwall, Chair of the cytotoxicology Lab, 1999, "Some findings in colon-cancer mice, which were very good models, actually led to clinical trials in humans which resulted in an increase in cancer." 8. Dr a Sabin, 1986, "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." 9. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, "We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans."!!!!!!! etc etc etc etc Final quotes. Dr Irwin Bross, 1981, "while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance in either the prevention or treatment of human cancer. Instead, research has been led in the wrong direction, studying the wrong form of cancer in the wrong species." And, "God knows we've cured mice of all sorts of tumours, "said Thomas Wagner, a long-serving cancer research specialist, "but that isn't medical research." And - grand finale - Dr P Shubik was at a conference of cancer researchers who used animals. Many had openly criticised their work and stated how unscientific it was. He said, "The chief objective is to keep us all employed and to make sure we do interesting experiments so that we can come back to these nice places." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! So will you please stop telling us that we don't understand anything and that only you have the knowledge and the truth! No, WE don't invent new techniques but apparently you do and the very much under-funded ethical scientists DO! You claim your work is non-animal based, yet you still support the ridiculous, out-dated use of animals! You should be clamouring for funds to be switched to human-relevant, ethical science. That's positive campaigning and that's what WE do. And to accuse US of destroying takes the metaphorical biscuit! Coming from a supporter of the greatest destroyers of precious life....... The reason the world is in the appalling state it is, is because of the mentality that accepts it's OK to harm animals. That's it. I'm done. etc etc etc etc Just one final quote rabbitman
  • Score: 6

3:40pm Thu 21 Nov 13

rabbitman says...

Apologies for the typos. There are about three, including a "droop" in salary!
Apologies for the typos. There are about three, including a "droop" in salary! rabbitman
  • Score: 5

10:19am Fri 22 Nov 13

Madi50n says...

I think I'll believe the published scientists with years of research and history behind them, than the people who write essays in the comments sections of local newspaper websites.
I think I'll believe the published scientists with years of research and history behind them, than the people who write essays in the comments sections of local newspaper websites. Madi50n
  • Score: -2

11:51am Fri 22 Nov 13

Hella7 says...

grandconjuration,
I wasn't going to retort,, because ultimately 'the twain shall never meet'
and although posts on this kind of forum can provide a good platform for a reasoned debate ,they will inevitably fizzle out,BUT...!! I can't let you get away with some of your sweeping statements!.Firstly, your vitriol seems to be directed at animal rights protesters-I thought this discussion was about the validity of animal research, not about what some protesters may or may not have done or are doing.By the same token,why is it that you, and others for that matter, always assume that everyone who objects to vivisection is an 'animal rights protester'?In case it escaped your attention, a large proportion of the general public(and animal rights protesters are simply ordinary members of the public too)show a deep repulsion/distrust towards animal experiments,as the latest Mori Poll concluded:
http://www.theguardi
an.com/science/2012/
oct/19/public-opposi
tion-animal-testing.

If you are a scientist, as you claim to be-don't misconstrue, I am not casting any aspersions,but of course I have no way to ascertain its veracity-you will also know that there have been numerous undercover investigations into British labs showing blatant breaches of the Animal Welfare Act ,the most recent at the Imperial College in London:
http://licensedtokil
l.buav.org/?t1=licen
sedtokill.
.so please don't insult us with the old chestnut about labs in Britain being the 'creme de la creme'.
You would also be aware that there are only a handful of Home Office Inspectors overseeing all the labs or indeed making unannounced visits to check on the welfare of animals.Due to the 'secrecy clause',section 24 of the Animals(Scientific) Procedure Act 1986 we, the public,cannot gain access to all the info.in respect of 'experiments' carried out in labs.,but if this were permissible, the public outcry and objection would reach a very high score.

You ask for examples of 'alternative methods'.Surely, as a scientist, you don't need to ask anyone for such information. You will know that 'The Humane Research Trust,' the 'Dr. Hadwen Trust', the' Lord Dowding Fund' et al are and have been funding human -based,non-invasive research at various universities, including Aston Uni, using Magnetic Resonance Imagery to facilitate more understanding/develo
pment about neurodegenerative diseases such Alzheimer's and Parkinsons.,for instance.
Then we have the Organ on a chip' technology and the latest exciting 3-D printed human cells technology which can create micro-tissues and micro-organs that can be used to test drugs. I know the latter is in its infancy but the point is,valuable time and resources should be devoted to this area of research, not continuing with outdated and immoral animal research which you call 'constructive'!! Which reminds me, you remain astonishingly silent on the moral/ethical implications of animal experiments-no concern at all?
In truth ,it saddens me that people like you hold fast to this ingrained anthropocentric notion where non human-animals are trreated as pure commodities,a tool to be used and discarded ad lib,to serve a human purpose,without attributing any respect, significance,conside
ration to other living, feeling, complex beings with whom we should be proud to share this planet.
grandconjuration, I wasn't going to retort,, because ultimately 'the twain shall never meet' and although posts on this kind of forum can provide a good platform for a reasoned debate ,they will inevitably fizzle out,BUT...!! I can't let you get away with some of your sweeping statements!.Firstly, your vitriol seems to be directed at animal rights protesters-I thought this discussion was about the validity of animal research, not about what some protesters may or may not have done or are doing.By the same token,why is it that you, and others for that matter, always assume that everyone who objects to vivisection is an 'animal rights protester'?In case it escaped your attention, a large proportion of the general public(and animal rights protesters are simply ordinary members of the public too)show a deep repulsion/distrust towards animal experiments,as the latest Mori Poll concluded: http://www.theguardi an.com/science/2012/ oct/19/public-opposi tion-animal-testing. If you are a scientist, as you claim to be-don't misconstrue, I am not casting any aspersions,but of course I have no way to ascertain its veracity-you will also know that there have been numerous undercover investigations into British labs showing blatant breaches of the Animal Welfare Act ,the most recent at the Imperial College in London: http://licensedtokil l.buav.org/?t1=licen sedtokill. .so please don't insult us with the old chestnut about labs in Britain being the 'creme de la creme'. You would also be aware that there are only a handful of Home Office Inspectors overseeing all the labs or indeed making unannounced visits to check on the welfare of animals.Due to the 'secrecy clause',section 24 of the Animals(Scientific) Procedure Act 1986 we, the public,cannot gain access to all the info.in respect of 'experiments' carried out in labs.,but if this were permissible, the public outcry and objection would reach a very high score. You ask for examples of 'alternative methods'.Surely, as a scientist, you don't need to ask anyone for such information. You will know that 'The Humane Research Trust,' the 'Dr. Hadwen Trust', the' Lord Dowding Fund' et al are and have been funding human -based,non-invasive research at various universities, including Aston Uni, using Magnetic Resonance Imagery to facilitate more understanding/develo pment about neurodegenerative diseases such Alzheimer's and Parkinsons.,for instance. Then we have the Organ on a chip' technology and the latest exciting 3-D printed human cells technology which can create micro-tissues and micro-organs that can be used to test drugs. I know the latter is in its infancy but the point is,valuable time and resources should be devoted to this area of research, not continuing with outdated and immoral animal research which you call 'constructive'!! Which reminds me, you remain astonishingly silent on the moral/ethical implications of animal experiments-no concern at all? In truth ,it saddens me that people like you hold fast to this ingrained anthropocentric notion where non human-animals are trreated as pure commodities,a tool to be used and discarded ad lib,to serve a human purpose,without attributing any respect, significance,conside ration to other living, feeling, complex beings with whom we should be proud to share this planet. Hella7
  • Score: 7

1:11pm Fri 22 Nov 13

aiskay says...

Kropotkin wrote:
The University has said "Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century." (This is the standard line they put out whenever this comes up).

But it is over-simplistic. Vivisection takes place in the context of pharmaceutical companies striving to produce drugs for profit. The motive is profit not healing.

Epidemiological studies consistently show that cancer (for example) is determined to a significant extent by lifestyle factors such as diet and, exercise. But the focus is not on this because reducing consumption will reduce profits. Whereas vivisection linked to producing drugs designed to control diseases will increase profits.

There may be cases where animal experimentation has really aided human health. (Personally I'm not sure that justifies it anyway). But if anyone really wanted to improve human health we need to shift attention to diet, lifestyle, consumption patterns etc.
Prevention of cancer (good diet and exercise) is completely different from treatment of cancer (pharmaceuticals etc); you are mixing these up. If you have cancer and think you can cure it by going running and eating well you may be in for a shock.

It is really down to doctors providing holistic care to their patients (e.g. GPs educating people about the risks of diet/exercise/somkin
g etc), encouraging people to live healthier lifestyles (and governments, food companies etc too). Even with a big shift towards this and a slight drop in cancer rates as a result (this would take a long time), cancer incidence is going up anyway mainly because people are living longer. There's not much you can do about that. These treatments are still hugely necessary, and will only get more relevant in the future.

Of course pharma companies need to try and make a profit - we live in a capitalist world, and they have shareholders who are their main concern just like any other company with a capital structure. Diet and lifestyle are not really influencable by them.. it's not their realm.

I've seen animal testing myself - it is the sad reality of some necessities of medical research. It is probably used sometimes when other models might be suitable that would be more ethically sound. But when testing early stage pharmaceutical treatments, often it's what needs to be done first. Personally I'd rather know a drug had been tested on an animal first if I'd signed up for clinical trials.
[quote][p][bold]Kropotkin[/bold] wrote: The University has said "Research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century." (This is the standard line they put out whenever this comes up). But it is over-simplistic. Vivisection takes place in the context of pharmaceutical companies striving to produce drugs for profit. The motive is profit not healing. Epidemiological studies consistently show that cancer (for example) is determined to a significant extent by lifestyle factors such as diet and, exercise. But the focus is not on this because reducing consumption will reduce profits. Whereas vivisection linked to producing drugs designed to control diseases will increase profits. There may be cases where animal experimentation has really aided human health. (Personally I'm not sure that justifies it anyway). But if anyone really wanted to improve human health we need to shift attention to diet, lifestyle, consumption patterns etc.[/p][/quote]Prevention of cancer (good diet and exercise) is completely different from treatment of cancer (pharmaceuticals etc); you are mixing these up. If you have cancer and think you can cure it by going running and eating well you may be in for a shock. It is really down to doctors providing holistic care to their patients (e.g. GPs educating people about the risks of diet/exercise/somkin g etc), encouraging people to live healthier lifestyles (and governments, food companies etc too). Even with a big shift towards this and a slight drop in cancer rates as a result (this would take a long time), cancer incidence is going up anyway mainly because people are living longer. There's not much you can do about that. These treatments are still hugely necessary, and will only get more relevant in the future. Of course pharma companies need to try and make a profit - we live in a capitalist world, and they have shareholders who are their main concern just like any other company with a capital structure. Diet and lifestyle are not really influencable by them.. it's not their realm. I've seen animal testing myself - it is the sad reality of some necessities of medical research. It is probably used sometimes when other models might be suitable that would be more ethically sound. But when testing early stage pharmaceutical treatments, often it's what needs to be done first. Personally I'd rather know a drug had been tested on an animal first if I'd signed up for clinical trials. aiskay
  • Score: -6

9:09am Wed 27 Nov 13

malevich says...

"There will be no cats or dogs and no farm animals.'

from http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/health/772191
9.stm

yet pigs have been used as stated in the current FOI request. SO if they are prepared to lie about this what else are they prepared to lie about ?
"There will be no cats or dogs and no farm animals.' from http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/health/772191 9.stm yet pigs have been used as stated in the current FOI request. SO if they are prepared to lie about this what else are they prepared to lie about ? malevich
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree