After seeing the post on the possible side effects of Rimadyl I must admit this leads to me thinking that the importance of testing drugs on animals is so important?

If the drug companies did more extensive testing to really have a better picture on side effects then we would have safer drugs and even more effective drugs ?

The drugs companies are partly driven driven by profits as part of their strategy but that is not the only reason.

If there was not such a danger imposed on the safety of the employees etc by the extremist loby of the anti animal tesing front and more legistation/regulation on extending timescales for trials, then maybe in the longer term, more animals and humans would benefit ?

Please make this a civil discusssion as want some real feedback without getting nasty as I think it is a very important subject. I have seen recently a relative,a very good young friend and somebody at work die of cancer and feel that if anything can be done to help then surely it would be worth looking at the benefits ?

Lucy
xx

I still can't get my mind round the fact that some food companies brag that their food is not tested on animals!!!

I asked a rep from one of the firms today, to judge the long term effectiveness of the food on the mature dog, and she replied that they rely on feed back from customers for this, presumably not having done their own trials.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I have one word for people who support testing human drugs on animals-Thalidomide-this drug was extensively tested on animals & yet had horrific side affects on the babies born to the mothers who used it & also to the grandchildren as well(edited to add it was never used in the US becuase of one very stubborn scientist who would not agree to it being passed for use due to the research that had been done being severely flawed)

I am on a trial of drugs that are being developed for use in treating auto immune disease & organ rejection(apparently these can be possibly treated by the same drug) The drugs I take have never been tested on any animal except the human one,I take no drugs that have ever had any animals used in testing I don't eat animals so why should I take drugs that have cost innocent animals their lives

Being closely involved with the research I was surprised to learn that unless the anima that the drug is tested on is closely DNA linked to the species the drug is intended for most of the research is of no use. The drugs I take were developed though tissue/cell research with no testing on any animal except human volunteers like me, There are days when I feel c**p & in pain but nothing would be ever bad enough for me to take animal tested pain killers

When I was much younger I took a stand against doing animal disection in O & A level Biology I was one of the first students allowed to not have to dissect animals in order to pass the exams, now thank god no child has to do dissections against their wishes & I think they will(if they haven't already been)be withrawn & cyber technology put in its place

It is a personal choice whether or not one takes drugs, uses household products, wears dead animal skins or eats meat & I am not one for forcing my choices of lifestyle on anyone & neither am I a hypocrite I do NOT feed my dogs(& cats when I had them)vegetarian food as neither is a vegetarian  species, but I do feed tham Organic(soil Ass certified) meat so at least I know that the animals that provide their food have been humanely treated & not filled with chemicals & drugs that can be found in meat from other sources.

What happened with Thalidomide was a terrible thing that cause a lot of pain and suffering but it happened 40 years ago.  The BNF has hundreds of drugs in regular use saving or merely improving lives if nothing like that happens in 40 years I reckon the testing system is probably working OK :)

Thalidomide is not the only drug that produces bad sideaffects it is the one that hit the headlines because it caused defomations in babies, there are drugs that are still being used in cocktails of drugs that include other drugs to counteract the sideaffects. I was not aware of this until I started in the program of drug testing I am now involved with some of these are very frequently being perscribed  with the cocktail being the only way of countercating the,in some instances unbelieveable, side effects.

This was the reason the researchers, who oversee my drug treatment, started their own research using human guinea pigs(this included the death of one of the researchers relatives)& it is funded by the US government

Thalidomide is now being perscribed again but obviously NOT for pregnant women, sadly for the Children & Grandchildren  etc of the UK & European users the knowledge came far too late

Drugs like Diazapan, Valium, Librium, Prozac are all perscribed here in the UK yet they are all highly addictive(thats one of the sideaffects) yet all were tested on animals who could not express the effects of withdrawal symptoms

There are many treatments like antibiotics which have unseen side effect like killing all the good flora from the body

I could ramble on for ages be won't you are either pro testing on animals for the development of drugs for humans whom they have little biologically in common with or not there is little middle ground

I think its all about the balance of side effects against the good they do, clearly Thalidomide was a clear example of the very bad effects but as you say it is now being put to good use with a clearer understanding of it.  The other drugs you quoted are still routinely used with the side effects known as the benefits are regarded as outweighing them, true the addiction may not have been identified in animals trials, although it may have been, but other side effects would certainly have been identified, indeed what we can't name are all the drugs that are not in common use because they failed these tests. :)

The drugs will still be tested as there is a statutory requirement to do so before marketing but the more difficult it is to conduct those tests in the UK where trials are strickly regulated the more likely they are to go abroad where the welfare of the animals is likely to be much more compromised so therefore I believe the animal rights people are not doing anyone any favours, human or animal.
I agree Jo and this sort of testing doesn't have to involve a bit of metal stuck in a monkey's head as some web sites would have you believe just blood, stool and skin scrapings for instance.

Yes but there is aneed to keep the research in the centres of excellence which are in the main the US and Europe.

I do think though that perhaps the statuatory requirements need reviewing to extend the research to get more realistic results ? There is definately the money out there for research and so where is the problem ?

Lucy
xx

I'm not sure about where the centres of excellence are I may get into trouble for saying this but I would trust the regulations in the UK to provide better welfare for the animals.  In what way do you think the regulations should be relaxed?

I dont think one animal should suffer to supplement another....
and also the same with a human :(

I think it would be wonderful if there wasn't any need to but I think everyones lives animal and human would be pretty primative if we did not have drugs and I can't see how you can develop drugs without testing.

>>>I can't see how you can develop drugs without testing. <<<

what about testing on human scum?

I'm not sure what you mean by scum but apart from volunteers I don't think so no, I can't think of any crime that justifies forced drug testing as a punishment.

Phaedophiles that are proven not to undergo behavioural changes?

Under UK regulations to avoid unnecessary suffering animals can only be used for one test and must be humanely destroyed afterwards as we do not have the death sentence in this country clearly this is not appropriate with any offenders.  The drug itself may cause them serious physical harm which is obviously not appropriate either.

>>>The drug itself may cause them serious physical harm which is obviously not appropriate either. <<<

Do you mean serious harm to animals or humans?

Humans that cannot then be euthanased.

well we will all have our own views on this :(

but i dont see why an INNOCENT animal should suffer when an EVIL human doesnt :(

Even if I agreed with you that paedophiles would be a good choice there simply aren't enough of them (never thought I would say that! :)) to provide a decent amount of data.

I think there would be unfortunately :(

i dont mean testing on *anyone* found gulity
I mean those who admit themselves they would never change :(

Well there would be even less of them then. Assuming it was remotely ethical which I don't :), you can only reasonably test each one with one drug otherwise the data would not be unusable, what would be the long-lasting effects of the first drug and what would be the effects of the second drug? So you would soon run through them all unless you set up a breeding programme :)
The other issue is life spans, you can test a rat with something for 18 months and you have studied him into old age, even if you found a 20 year old man to test could you wait 50 years to study him into old age?

but dont forget that man is the closest relation to man and will therefore give the clearest results

"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." -Mark Twain

I wonder if Mark Twain would have said that if he had lived to see what a difference childhood vaccinations would make to the world, or the treatment of diabetes or the extended lives of cardiac patients :)

I'm not forgetting :) and in that sense they would be best but that doesn't negate all the other issues I've mentioned.  Personally I pin my hopes on technology solving it perhaps by reliable computer simulation of the human body but I think we are a way off that so for now I think we have to be grateful for the help animals are giving us all and just try to ensure that testing remains tightly regulated to minimise any suffering.

>>>Personally I pin my hopes on technology solving it perhaps by reliable computer simulation of the human body <<<<

and man is so clever that you would think this is already possible :(

man will always retain his superiority above animalS unfortuntaely - whether we agree or not :(

>>>I wonder if Mark Twain would have said that if he had lived to see what a difference childhood vaccinations would make to the world, or the treatment of diabetes or the extended lives of cardiac patients  <<

or if he had lived to see the wonderful impact that waterproof mascara has on  us :(

Cosmetics are a completely different arguement Lel

>>>Cosmetics are a completely different arguement Lel <<<

To some ........................

I think we will always be superior to animals and I'm not sure it would be a kinder world if any other species was in charge do you :)

by *being in charge* do you not think we owe a duty of care to eliminate suffering ? Not just to humans but i think we owe it to anmials as well :(

Yes

but you can say that its ok to test on innocent animals!

Fair from relax them !  I would say make them even more indepth and also widen trials to a larger and longer timescales

Lucy
xx

Did anyone see the Channel 4 programme several years ago where a reporter got a job at a labratory where testing on Beagle puppies took place?    They went from typical happy go lucky puppies to quivering wrecks every time they were hauled through for testing as well as the abuse by the staff looking after them.    I would like to hope this was a one-off case but I doubt it is.

I think that animal testing for drugs is imperitive and vital.  Cosmetic testing is NOT.  
EVERY drug we take is tested on animals, i don't see people refusing life saving treatment because an animal may of suffered while perfecting it.
Dawn.

Ah! I thought you meant the regulations governing the animals welfare, one experiment, euthanisia etc, LJS :)

how can you come on to a dog forum and advocate such terrible cruelty to animals not only that but endorse the escalation of cruelty. Thats so callous!

There are researchers in the US using human volunteers in prison on 99 year life sentences with no parole These prisoners are there for life & if they volunteer they get some reward for volunteering in extras & of course putting something back for the crimes they committed

Lots of research can be done on cell & tissue basis

There is still research on animals being done on diabetes(I am a diabetic)that has already been done before & not necessary how they can justify that is a mystery to me

Colleystaff I would rather see the advancement of drug therapy to advance saving potential hundreds and thousands of lives of both animals and humans:)

It is not ideal but at least it is a way :)

Not all animal testing is cruel.Not all testing is like as portrayed on the literature distributed by animal cruelty campaigners.

I also think it is totally and utter cruel to see an animal or human die in a long and painful way from the likes of cancer.It not only affects the one that dies in such a horrible way but what about the families as well.

If we can do something then that to me is justification. If there was any other way of course we all would rather it be done but there isn't :) Until such time an alternative and as effective method is developed I will support the medical research :)

Lucy
xx

Hi guys,

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in this one, but I just can't help myself :)

Can I put forward a slightly different view. If you had a child who had a genetic disease/disorder for which ther is no cure how many of you could honestly say that you wouldn't try drug therapy that had been tested on animals?

Could you really tell your child that his disease could possibly be cured, he wouldn't pass it on to his children/grandchildren, but no-one was prepared to do the necessary test?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't and I won't.  I'm in that position now and any help that drugs can give, now or in the future is welcomed. I love my dogs, but I love my children more.... I'm sorry if that causes offense to some of you but that's just how I feel.

Sorry for the rant- i'm a nice person honestly!
Ali :)

Ali I'd be exactly the same

Anne

I agree with Ali.  I love all my animals and appalled as anyone when animals are experimented on for cigarettes and cosmetics but without animals being tested on for drugs many people with everyday ailments like asthma and so on would possibly die.  It is a very fine balance.  My husband actually tested some drugs to stop him being allergic to dogs.  I am always grateful he got the opportunity because before that he wouldnt have been able to live with one dog never mind 4.  Hopefully one day this will not be neccessary but until that time it is a very fine balance.

Sorry I for one would not especially as 90% of animal testing results in drugs that have bad side effects in humans Sorry but that is just MVVHO

BTW I have a genetically inherited disorder that can be life threatening but do not take any drugs tessted on animals other than human guinea pigs

Drugs have to be trialled on humans before being licenced for general use so side effects will become apparent then, of course if animals were not used first they would still need to be trialled on humans but at greater risk.  Even with side effects the drug can still be useful.
Is your diabetes diet controlled then, what will you do if it deteriorates to the need for drugs?

So you think that human life is less important than animal life Moonmaiden?

Ali have to say I totally agree.  If my dad wasn't on the drugs that he's on now he would have been dead 20 years ago !

So long as its for medical research then I have no problem with animals being used. I disagree with research for cosmetics etc.

I probably wouldn't be around now if it wasn't for animals being tested.  Can't say I don't think about it sometimes, but human life has to come before an animals, and I'm very grateful for the last 5 years.

The Channel 4 programme was mentioned above and i remember seeing this and being shocked. It was terrible. Beagle pups were punched and kicked by lab assistants who also simulated sex with them. Not only were the animals treated appalllingly but at least one of the lab assistants admitted to falsifying results.

I must admit i hate these discussions. My mother died from skin cancer but if the doctor had bothered to get up from his chair on the 3 times she had visited him she might still be alive today, due to early treatment. Animal testing wouldn't have saved her. My sister has for many years now been involved in animal testing and is now on theadmin side of that because doing the tests made her unwell. I will always disagree with her on what she does i am afraid. One of the things that saddens me is the fact that in some tests painkillers are not allowed because it would affect results. In other cases, tests are duplicated over and over (so more animals endure the tests) because pharmaceutical companies will not share their research results at a time when it could benefit the animals (or possibly i suppose, people?) and so on. .

Animals in laboratories are also denied basic rights as far as i can see - some of them are kept alone, some are not allowed to follow instincts etc. and the cages are far too small. I haven't the original question in front of me now but if it was re. whether aniimals should be used to make drugs safer for our own pets, my answer would have to be no.

Best wishes
Lindsay
X