Today I have been given a guided tour of a facility where they breed and keep animals that are being used for research purposes for medical problems.

It was a most interesting tour and I was so glad to see first hand on how well the animals are being kept and what they are being used for to help many diseases and conditions.

It certain has strengthened my belief that is is a good thing to do if it can save lives :)

Lucy

Lucy
this will be one for the padlock definitely, me suspects ;)

I'm against it :(
Especially for stupid testing of cosmetics/shampoos/dog food and a million other things that are tested

Pharmaceuticals etc ? My heart says no but my head isnt sure :(
I think of myself as an animal lover but dont see how I can be if I agree with it.

Im sitting half way on this one.  Yes for medicines BIG NO for cosmetics!

Humans want cosmetics then they should have it tested on themselves!  Medication will save lives (though sometimes I don't even agree with that!)

Rox

Animal testing ...... ?  No, let's go for a quiet life and go back to hunting ;) :D

M.

Animal testing........in 'liberty land' there would be an alternative............
However if these drugs etc save 1000's of lives, maybe my own one day........
Testing for cosmetics etc is however totally unacceptable in any way shape or form :(

*sure I can hear the padlock approaching* ;)

liberty

Good for you Lucy! It's important to realise that the best and most valid results come from animals kept in the best conditions. It's only ever the bad examples that are (rightly) drawn to our attention. The good ones never get a mention. I for one have been very glad in the past that my family's (and my dogs') medication had been thoroughly tested, and that we weren't being experimented upon.

Cosmetic testing, though, is IMO unnecessary - there are plenty on the shelves - why do we need more?

<<<that we weren't being experimented upon>>>

what about all the poor faceless unknowns though :(

what about using all the worst sickos who will never be released from prison ? Kill two birds with one stone. Human testing for more accurate results and cut the prison numbers ( and costs) ;)

Yep, I know. There's my hypocrisy showing.

I do hope it doesn't get locked :)

I wanted to share an experience with people to allay the myths that are often surrounding this subject :)

The lovely people who showed me around wished that they could open their doors to show people what they are doing so that the misunderstanding of alot of the bad press is put right :)

I am against testing on animals for non medical purposes ie a commercial gain by cosmetic companies but do think it is vital for medical research and wonder how many people who have children that are anti animal testing for any reason would say no to any treatment that has been made possible by a place like the one I was lucky enough to visit today :) I doubt it somehow :)

Lucy

Lucy
as you say when its a choice between an animal and your child ......
But it does make me sick to think about it - even if the conditions are clean

I was very nervous when I first went in but it is not at all like you imagine. Forget the pictures that you often see of the cats with probes coming out of there heads and parts of the body and malformed or sick looking animals. If at any stage an animal shows any sign of ill health, they are immediately looked at and treated or humanly put to sleep.

I know what you are saying as I had an image and an conception of what it was like, I have had those totally changed today :)

There may well be in places in this country that do not look after their animals but where I have been today that is 100% the opposite:) There are more pets and farm animals kept on worse conditons than the animals I have seen today :)

<<There are more pets and farm animals kept on worse conditions than the animals I have seen today>>

I can quite believe it, Lucy.

Sorry to be cynical here, but do you really think that if they had animals in cages with 'probes' coming out of them, that they would let you see them?
Lets not forget here, that if penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs, then we would not have it. Also the thalidomide drug that was used in the 60's WAS tested on animals, look how safe that is.
There is a mediical charity who do not use animal testing to do their research, they are called Dr Hadwens Trust.
http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/

Snoopy, did you see the recent TV programmes where Thalidomide is proving to be a wonderful treatment for both leprosy and cancer? One man who was given months to live was prescribed it experimentally and is well and active several years later. Provided the recipient does not get pregnant it is perfectly safe.

Girl I work with, her mother has cancer, not leukaemia, but something similar. She is being screened to see if Thalidomide might help . Hopefully it will.

Daisy

I strongly disagree for anything except for medical.
Even for medical purposes I thought that often the results obtained on animal testing were in fact misleading when the product was then trialed on humans?

I suppose if you're trialling life-saving drugs, they must be tested; although not a pleasent thought, animals are the next best thing, (even though I agree with the idea of using murderers child-molester etc; THAT is not P.C. :rolleyes:  ) and although some maybe mis-leading in their results, presumably the majority give accurate results, hence the continuation of animal testing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it should there be a viable alternative.

liberty :)

liberty I wanted to add child molesters and murderers instead of testing on animals but dare not write it, they are almost human and it's nothing less than deserve.  Sorry I'm going too far now so I'll be off before I'm slaughtered.

No i didn't see that programme JG. So at least SOME good has come out of the drug then. Doesn't help all those children though that were born back then. :(

This is a basic summary of the Horizon programme. I found it fascinating. Hard to watch at times, but worth it.
:)

Yes very interesting.

Well.....hmmm.. of course i totally disagree with cosmetics and so on being tested.

I may be in a unique position as my sister worked in a lab testing on guinea pigs (and now supervises testing and results ). We both used to have guinea pigs as children and i still have some. When she met mine this time around, instead of being relaxed with them, she pinned my boy Barnaby down and i knew straight away why :( 

I am afraid it just does not sit easily with me - i know, i know, thank god i don't have some sort of terrible illness that needs new medication..... :( :( :(

But i think of my beautiful dogs past and present, and to be honest (and this is only me personally,  don't expect anyone to agree with me!! ) i  would rather be dead myself than have drugs tested on them. That's honestly not meant to be dramatic, i do mean that.

I also feel that there will be some good laboratories (where my sister works is one i think) but the bad ones do exist and i was so sickened when i saw the one with the beagle pups subjected to what was basically short temper and cruelty from the assistants.
I think it also depends on what is being tested - some animal experiments are a lot worse than others, many apparently do not give pain relief etc. How bad is that? to not give pain relief?

AS i understand it, lots of deaths are still due to the side effects of drugs as much as to anything else. Drugs too are manufactured for profit.

I really don't know what the answer is. Perhaps a lot depends on our view of life and death. I believe in reincarnation so although i don't want to die horribly and in pain, i am not toooo frightened of the idea of actually passing away as i believe i will be back :D

JMHO
LIndsay
X

Craigles if its dogs versus child molesters and murderers, I don't think you'll find too many people on here who'd disagree with you ;)  :D

liberty :D

I'll throw a spanner in that one Liberty. If we could guarantee that we were right then maybe but we have seen a whole series of cases overturned in recent years where modern forensic science has proved "Indisputable" evidence was wrong. How many people are there in prison who are innocent? No one knows, but some that's for sure.

Best wishes, John

But John, they ALL say they're innocent! :D

Oh yes, but a small percentage really are. No judicial system is perfect although ours WAS as good as any before the PC people got at it. But the whole point is, what if the person who was given a drug which failed really was innocent? We have even had a mentally deficient person who pleaded guilty and served a term in prison who was later proved innocent.

Sorry but I cannot accept that any more than I could the death penalty

Regards, John

Thanks John ;) :D

A very valid point, I was thinking about the likes of Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper, for those too young to remember), The Moors Murderers, Ian Huntley, and those who've admitted their guilt. In our society I guess there will always be miscarriages of justice, it could be worse, you could live in Texas (Death Penalty)

liberty :)

Humans can volunteer to have drugs tested on them.  Our local hospital has a Unit where drugs are trialled and they advertise for participants, who get paid expenses for doing it.  OH did it whilst a student and the place had plenty of creature comforts; satellite TV, 3 square meals a day, lovely nurses tending to every whim etc :)  I believe that human "guinea pigs" should be doing it of their own free will though, my thoughts on enforced drug testing run along with John's :)

Lesley

I totally agree with using humans instead of animals. Like the ones that have been proven with out a doubt for murder, rape, molesting, ect those people took lives and innocents from others and do not deserve a life, but instead of rotting in prison or the death penalty use them to better our science and test on them. What better facts would you get then testing on your own kinds, I'm sure the science would come out far better then any animal ever would. I'm talking people like Paul bernardo, Jon Gasey, Piktin farm ect those people. Who better to inject with Aids, Hep A-B-C, throw some shampoo in their eye's. Sorry will stop there before I say any more :(

If it is something to better the animal science then yes there I do see the point with using the animals, but don't use them for the human side.

Just my two cents :)

Just what led humankind to believe they have the right to subject animals to this kind of treatment?
Having close family who have died & are terminally ill with different diseases I can honestly say that the side effects I have seen them suffer from of these super dooper new supposedly life saving drugs can be more horrific than the disease itself. They also failed to save the life of my beloved ones.
Totally saddened by some of the remarks on this thread.

Christine, Spain.

Hi Christine

Can you expand on what you mean by 'this kind of treatment' ?

Unfortunately you may well be in the awful situation of having lost more loved ones without the work by the reputable ones have been able to do.
:) JMHO

I know that you and many others are into alternative ways of helping with conditions and do also believe that there is a benefit for them as well but I personally feel that this can only work in parallel  :)

I am sorry if this has touched an obviously raw subject as I know it is a very personal and difficult subject.

I know however that my Dad wouldn't have been with us for an extra ten years after he had his stroke if the advances in medical science had not been facilitated by the work of these reputable research centres :)

Lucy
xx

I'm of the same opinion. Do not agree with testing for non essential products like cosmetics etc. However, how far do any of you carry your convictions? Do you only buy cruelty free products?

Jesse

LJS, I cannot believe that someone can be so naive as to not be aware of what really goes on in animal experimentation and think that because you were shown animals that appeared healthy that all is fine behind closed doors. Do you really think they would show you really what happens, of course not that is why people have to work undercover, behind the scenes with covert cameras to witness first hand what goes on to expose the vivisection industry.
It was only last year that the Home Office sanctioned the gassing of 7 month old beagle puppies for a HCFC that was banned 15 years ago!  When questioned the Home Office said they had no particular welfare concerns for the beagle puppies. Yet they suffered hind leg tremors, semi consciousness, hind legs spayed, agitation, struggling, whole body tremors whilst lying in a sling, staggering in a sling, severe agitation, pawing of mask, head jerking. The Home Office said  afterwards the puppies had been rehomed but it is well documented that no animal ever leaves HLS alive. When questioned a Huntingdon spokesperson said that the dogs did not suffer any lasting effects and could be used in later experiments.
HCFC22 in most countries in Europe is banned, Germany banned it in 2000, so why in the UK is it being tested on 7 month old beagle puppies?
This happens to be just one example that was highlighted in the Observer in 2003. There are many more examples by looking at http://www.welcome.to/shac or on uncaged websites.  There are masses of examples of animal cruelty or the abuse of animals in the testing of not only drugs which is a complete waste but of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides and household products.       

I wish that somebody could come up with a cure for teething :rolleyes: :)

<<<<<Yawn....................>>>>>>>

A very grumpy * month old Indi sitting on my lap at 3am in the morning :D

Aren't alternatives merely adjuncts to animal experiments, rather than real replacements?
No. Alternatives have already saved the lives of millions of animals worldwide - experiments on animals have decreased by some 50 per cent in the past few decades, due mainly to the use of alternatives.

Cell cultures have replaced monkeys in polio vaccine production; batches of insulin are now analysed chemically, not in mice; pregnancy tests are conducted in test tubes instead of in rabbits; non-animal methods of producing monoclonal antibodies have saved thousands of mice, and test-tube techniques are replacing chemical burns tests in rabbits, to name but a few.

Taken from Dr Hadwens Trust for medical research website.

I'm glad Lucy, that medical science has prolonged your dads life.
But there are so many absolutely useless tests that they do. Chemical burns on rabbits? Testing pregnancy tests? Thousands if not millions of animals die unneccessarily every year.

Lab animals - rats, mice, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, all of these show different reactions to drugs than those experienced by humans.  Many of the things they can eat would poison us or cause serious harm, so how can their reactions to drugs be significant in determining ours?  In addition animals kept in these facilities can't be said to be free of stress if they are not living a normal life so this would affect results too.  I fail to see the continued relevance of testing drugs etc for human use on any animal other than human.  There are other ways of doing this now and they should be used in preference to animal testing. 

This is not to say that I am not grateful for the drugs we have which were tested on animals, but science has moved on and other methods are available now - they should be the first choice not the last :(

<<<There are other ways of doing this now and they should be used in preference to animal testing.  >>>

Unfortunately rats and mice amongst others are "cheap" and they arent going to throw compensation claims in if anything goes wrong or they die :(

Was it not revealed that that doyenne of vegetarianism Linda McCartney said that she would take anything, even if it had been tested on animals, if she could live in her last weeks...............................?

hi

its good that the ones you saw are being kept humanely but what you did'nt see was the part where their handled and prodded and pricked, i did some work experience somewhere where they did testing on animals for drugs and the noise the poor animals made as soon as the hands went in the cage was heart breaking i never knew rabbits could make such a loud noise then there were at least 4 tecnichians prodding and pulling at the terrified animal, a rabbit that was secured down on its back with a light bulb shining directly into its eyes to see how long it would be before it damaged its eyes 'horrible' i  was nearly sick and left that very same day i know there is a need for drug testing but don't think that its as humane as the clean cages made it look its a different case behind closed doors, i don't think i will ever get those pictures out of my mind!

j

Hi there

The animals were taken out of their living quarters, mice, rats and rabbits.I stroked them all and they were all very happy to be handled and were used to the company of their human keepers. The pigs I saw were extremely friendly and were very happy to have some fuss and attention. One even started palying by drinking his water and then blowing the water towards us !  I spoke to many of the people there and all were clearly very committed at keeping the animals in the best possible conditions. :) As I said this was medical research and not drugs testing.

Another question to ask as well , how would they do research and practice on new and pioneering surgical proceedures if there were not to use animals ?

I for one and probably millions of other people are grateful for the pioneering animal research done on conditions such diabetes, without which many people would not be alive today.........................................

'As I said this was medical research and not drugs testing'.
Sorry, is there a difference? Are drugs not medical?

'Another question to ask as well , how would they do research and practice on new and pioneering surgical proceedures if there were not to use animals?'
Surely our bodies are well enough researched by now that surgeons could go around them with their eyes closed. I don't understand why animals would be needed for this anyway.

Lucy, i can understand what you're saying, but you would really have to be naive to think that these places are nice. Yes they might be well looked after BEFORE they're used in experimentation, but how do you think they are treated during? Do you really think they anaesthetise them? Give then painkillers? Did you see any experiments take place?
I posted above a reply to your statement that you didn't think alternatives could replace animal experiments. Have a look at Dr Hadwens Trust website and read some facts.

There is no such thing as humane treatment in these places, cos thats why it's done on animals.

I don't agree with testing on animals for ANY reason, what makes us humans so superior that we think we have the right to do so? If I had a life threatening illness & a new drug came along I'd be willing to try it. Have a look @ this:     http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/lies.html

Hmmm, well no doubt if any of your loved ones are terminally ill and are offered a drug that has been tested on animals you would refuse on principle?

I think you will find that everyone believes in animal testing (and God) when faced with the even more unacceptable alternative!

Some people's beliefs and principles run quite deeply.  Isn't it Jehovas Witnesses who would rather die than receive a blood transfusion?  OK not quite the same as this thread being about animal testing but more to the point of challenging someone's strength of belief.

strength of belief would be right, and I have seen two JW who, when it came to the crunch, saved their children rather than put their faith in God!

 

Ah well - good for them!  :)

So you know of two Tohme? I couldn't believe that anybody would just let their child die, but people do.

I don't mind admitting that I would go to any lengths, legal or illegal, if it could save my child from some horrible fate, animal testing would probably pale into insignificance. :D

It is always easy to say what you would "never" do or are absolutely "against" from a position where it has never been an issue; once it does become critical one tends to move ones views somewhat.....................................

Ditto, tohme.
:)