Alternatives to animal testing?!
For all of you out there concerned about animal welfare and suffering, what are some effective techniques for replacing animal testing!.
Some laboratories use animals for testing medical products, what could we use instead of them!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Some laboratories use animals for testing medical products, what could we use instead of them!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
Prisoners, I suppose!. I'd be fine with that!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The FDA (government) requires all drugs be tested on animals before they can be tested on people!. I don't see that law being changed even if all the vegans in the USA volunteered!. You would need to change the medical ethics laws too, since doctors would not agree to be involved in testing on humans, before animal tests have proven the drug reasonably safe!.
A lot of testing is done on lab grown tissue!. This is very expensive, so would drive the already high price of drugs through the roof!. Only the very rich could afford them!.
Computer analogs are not always reliable since they do not test for unknowns not written into their code!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
A lot of testing is done on lab grown tissue!. This is very expensive, so would drive the already high price of drugs through the roof!. Only the very rich could afford them!.
Computer analogs are not always reliable since they do not test for unknowns not written into their code!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
There are many alternatives to animal testing which have been proved to be better scientific methodology, such as:
Computer programs which very accurately predict chemical reactions!.
Cell cultures - any type of human tissue can be grown and tested on!. Not only is this the right species but it is non-sentient!.
These types of methods have been proven to be more effective than vivisection!. The law actually states that animal testing should not be used in the presence of an alternative, unfortunatley, this is not followed by word or spirit and never enforced!.
There are dozens of other tests being used, such as Eyetex, Skintex and many more, they're not hard to research yourself, start with these websites:
http://www!.drhadwentrust!.org!.uk/
http://www!.animalaid!.org!.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGN!.!.!.
I would be interested to know whether you actually research this yourself, or just enjoy trying to challenge people's beliefs while not having to think about your own or want other people to do your thinking for you!.
Animal testing is not only morally unacceptable, but very poor scientific methodology!. Here are just some of the reasons:
Many negative side-effects cannot be detected in non-human animal models: Symptoms such as depression, anxiety, headaches, nausea cannot be detected in non-human animal models!. Many SSRIs can actually make people feel more depressed or suicidal, but these drugs are out there on the market because they were approved in animal testing!.!.!.
There are species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, metabolism, chemical absorption, genetics, mechanism of DNA repair, behaviour, lifespan and the inherent sensitivity to toxicants!. E!.g!. small animals have proportionally larger organs, a shorter blood circulation time and a faster metabolism!.
A homogenous group of animals in a fully contrived laboratory setting cannot predict the varied responses of human animals living in natural conditions!. E!.g!. test subjects are often the same age, strain and sex (often, just male rats are used)!. They are not exposed to the things humans are exposed to day to day, it is not an ecologically valid sample!.
Artificially created diseases in lab animals don't reflect naturally occuring human conditions!. Responses to drug treatment cannot be extrapolated from non-humans to humans!. E!.g!. More than 4000 have been reported demonstrating the effectiveness of more than 700 drugs for stroke treatment in animal trials!. Just 150 of these drugs were used in human trials, none of which have shown benefit!.
Stress caused to animals in handling, blood collection, restraint, injections and gavage result in physiological variance, which skews results!. E!.g!. researchers at York's Central Science Laboratory found that different experimenters conducting the same test with the same equipment, rats from the same colony and even the same room produced significantly different results - the handler being familiar to the animals was the key variable!.
Kim N:
"I don't see that law being changed even if all the vegans in the USA volunteered!."
A demand creates a supply!. The majority and the powerful amoung us create the law!. If more people stood up against animal testing as poor ethics and poor science, things would start to change!. They already are!.
"You would need to change the medical ethics laws too, since doctors would not agree to be involved in testing on humans, before animal tests have proven the drug reasonably safe!."
Human trials are neccesary after animal trials anyway!. And because vivisection is such a poor scientific method, humans often get ill in the trials!. With non-vivisectional methods proven to be more effective, the humans in the trials would be better off!. Even more humans could be used as volunteers in the later trials perhaps, this would make the tests even safer!.
"A lot of testing is done on lab grown tissue!. This is very expensive, so would drive the already high price of drugs through the roof!. Only the very rich could afford them!."
The pharma companies are the richest in the world!. They can amply afford to switch to non-human animal testing methods!. Even if prices of drugs went up, is this any price to pay when animals' lives and human health is preserved!? Animal testing is an abomination, to the animals', to our health and to science!.
"Computer analogs are not always reliable since they do not test for unknowns not written into their code!."
You could say the same thing about animal testing!. In fact, you could say it a whole lot more about vivisection - there are so many symptoms we cannot detect in non-human animals and side-effects that will be different in humans!. Computers are far more accurate in predicting chemical reactions than vivisection!. Chemistry is mathematics and computers know more than anyone about maths! This can only improve as our understanding of chemistry and computer programming advances, while vivisection remains in the dark-ages!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Computer programs which very accurately predict chemical reactions!.
Cell cultures - any type of human tissue can be grown and tested on!. Not only is this the right species but it is non-sentient!.
These types of methods have been proven to be more effective than vivisection!. The law actually states that animal testing should not be used in the presence of an alternative, unfortunatley, this is not followed by word or spirit and never enforced!.
There are dozens of other tests being used, such as Eyetex, Skintex and many more, they're not hard to research yourself, start with these websites:
http://www!.drhadwentrust!.org!.uk/
http://www!.animalaid!.org!.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGN!.!.!.
I would be interested to know whether you actually research this yourself, or just enjoy trying to challenge people's beliefs while not having to think about your own or want other people to do your thinking for you!.
Animal testing is not only morally unacceptable, but very poor scientific methodology!. Here are just some of the reasons:
Many negative side-effects cannot be detected in non-human animal models: Symptoms such as depression, anxiety, headaches, nausea cannot be detected in non-human animal models!. Many SSRIs can actually make people feel more depressed or suicidal, but these drugs are out there on the market because they were approved in animal testing!.!.!.
There are species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, metabolism, chemical absorption, genetics, mechanism of DNA repair, behaviour, lifespan and the inherent sensitivity to toxicants!. E!.g!. small animals have proportionally larger organs, a shorter blood circulation time and a faster metabolism!.
A homogenous group of animals in a fully contrived laboratory setting cannot predict the varied responses of human animals living in natural conditions!. E!.g!. test subjects are often the same age, strain and sex (often, just male rats are used)!. They are not exposed to the things humans are exposed to day to day, it is not an ecologically valid sample!.
Artificially created diseases in lab animals don't reflect naturally occuring human conditions!. Responses to drug treatment cannot be extrapolated from non-humans to humans!. E!.g!. More than 4000 have been reported demonstrating the effectiveness of more than 700 drugs for stroke treatment in animal trials!. Just 150 of these drugs were used in human trials, none of which have shown benefit!.
Stress caused to animals in handling, blood collection, restraint, injections and gavage result in physiological variance, which skews results!. E!.g!. researchers at York's Central Science Laboratory found that different experimenters conducting the same test with the same equipment, rats from the same colony and even the same room produced significantly different results - the handler being familiar to the animals was the key variable!.
Kim N:
"I don't see that law being changed even if all the vegans in the USA volunteered!."
A demand creates a supply!. The majority and the powerful amoung us create the law!. If more people stood up against animal testing as poor ethics and poor science, things would start to change!. They already are!.
"You would need to change the medical ethics laws too, since doctors would not agree to be involved in testing on humans, before animal tests have proven the drug reasonably safe!."
Human trials are neccesary after animal trials anyway!. And because vivisection is such a poor scientific method, humans often get ill in the trials!. With non-vivisectional methods proven to be more effective, the humans in the trials would be better off!. Even more humans could be used as volunteers in the later trials perhaps, this would make the tests even safer!.
"A lot of testing is done on lab grown tissue!. This is very expensive, so would drive the already high price of drugs through the roof!. Only the very rich could afford them!."
The pharma companies are the richest in the world!. They can amply afford to switch to non-human animal testing methods!. Even if prices of drugs went up, is this any price to pay when animals' lives and human health is preserved!? Animal testing is an abomination, to the animals', to our health and to science!.
"Computer analogs are not always reliable since they do not test for unknowns not written into their code!."
You could say the same thing about animal testing!. In fact, you could say it a whole lot more about vivisection - there are so many symptoms we cannot detect in non-human animals and side-effects that will be different in humans!. Computers are far more accurate in predicting chemical reactions than vivisection!. Chemistry is mathematics and computers know more than anyone about maths! This can only improve as our understanding of chemistry and computer programming advances, while vivisection remains in the dark-ages!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
They could duplicate animal skim and body matter - almost like artificial animals!. The matter will be almost identical to animal matter however it will not be real animals!.Www@FoodAQ@Com