Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

60 comments from readers

F.J.Lawrence
05 March 2008 at 10:15

Very well said, Mr. Currie. I too live optimism for a time in the future when people look back on our wide and varied abuse of animals today with the same repugnance with which we now consider oppression of human minority groups.

gnuneo
05 March 2008 at 15:24

absolutely liberal wishy-washy twaddle.

what we should be doing, is extraordinary rendition of Bushite and CIA officials, and use them in experiments.

after all, as *they* argue, the end justifies the means.

48 Crash
05 March 2008 at 15:42

Millions of animal experiments have given us the cures to the diseases that used to kill us; that there are some left is tribute to the tenacity of some diseases, not the sadistic tendencies of the experimenters. How many different diseases might have carried off Mr Currie before he got to write this article, if it hadn't been for the experimentation that produced the cures?

Animal experimentation, as practiced in this country, is an act of conscience: to prevent future suffering, even of Mr Currie.

I wonder if he avoids all western medicine because of its' tainted past?

guenady
06 March 2008 at 07:22

Talk about twaddle... Name one animal experiment that has led to a cure for a human disease... Animals are too different from humans, and what works for them with chemical drugs doesn't necessarily have the same effect in humans, as such drugs as thalidomide have proven. Animal experiments serve two purposes, to pretend that the drugs tested are safe (look at all the lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies today, which attest to the opposite reality) and also the drug companies claim in court when brought to book that they have done all the obligatory testing, so unforeseen results are not their fault!

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 09:13

'Animals are too different from humans, and what works for them with chemical drugs doesn't necessarily have the same effect in humans'

Twaddle indeed: the tests are usualy for toxicity, not for efficacy. You need to stop reading those leaflets and try finding some facts out. Which is what you say further down, so why you're using it as an argument is curious.

'Name one animal experiment that has led to a cure for a human disease'

Insulin? Anitbiotics? The current treatments for leukaemia?

If the experiments are all a big fraud, aren't they rather expensive? If the pharma.s were so committed to decieving us, wouldn't they pretend to carry out research, and save themselves a fortune?

And how about you - when you go to the dentist, do you decline the anaesthetic? It's been tested on animals, after all.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 09:54

And while I'm thinking about it

'The only sure outcomes of animal experiments are dead animals'

Experiments don't have sure outcomes; that's the point of experiments. So yes, the cost is high and should be taken seriously, but this isn't a meaningful criticism.

AlC
06 March 2008 at 10:53

This is Alistair. Of course experiments have unknown outcomes, 48 Crash. My point in making that comment was simply that conducting a cost-benefit analysis when you can't predict the benefit is pretty hard to do.

That was a minor part of my overall argument though, which you haven't really addressed. While I dispute your interpretation of the value of animal experiments, my overall point is that animals shouldn't be subjected to a utilitarian assessment in the first place. Firstly, because there's no defensible reason to discriminate between their suffering and ours and secondly because a true and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would compel us to do far less harmful things to help people first. We can't pick and choose when we apply moral rules on the basis of prejudice or convenience but that's what we do when we apply the utilitarian argument to using animals in experiments and not to our own choices about helping people. I'd be interested to read your considered response to that overall argument, thanks.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 11:37

Hello there – and good for you for returning to the responses to your article; many don’t, so good for you.

Your points

Surely an unpredictable cost-basis analysis would argue against doing experiments at all – and yet they do them. This can only either be because they’re mindless sadists or because there’s some perceived benefit. If there were no benefit, they’d avoid the cost.

As you write, a minor part of your argument; that animals should not be treated as a commodity. This is an interesting area, since it involves morality rather than mechanics and we’re in a place with few absolutes.

I would argue that as omnivores, animals have always been subject to utilitarian assessment. We needed the protein, and there it was galloping about so we ate it. We have alternatives now – I’m vegetarian myself – thanks to developments in our skills and knowledge that enable us to produce enough food to make those kinds of choices. I believe that as we develop our knowledge of science, ‘using’ animals (an awful but accurate phrase) for science will seem horrifying and primitive. But at this stage in our development, we are horrifying and primitive.

You are quite right that there are far too many things we could already cure, but don’t: but that’s a political argument, not a scientific one – and one that will hopefully join experimentation in the ‘horrifying and primitive’ dustbin one day, although there’s no sign of it yet.

We can pick and choose our moral rules, and how we apply them: it’s the consensus about those rules that help define a society. Experimentation on animals is not our finest hour, but it’s the best we have at present. Our real failing is in acknowledging our debt, the cost of what we do.

This is a form of Grace, introduced to me some time ago, and while it’s stretching the meaning somewhat I think it applies here too.

All life is one and everything that lives is holy.

Plants, animals and people all must eat to live and nourish one another.

We bless the life that has died to give us food.

Let us eat consciously, resolving by our labours to pay the debt of our existence.

- and that, finally, is my position.

Pat17
06 March 2008 at 11:44

Why is it that two very separate discussions get rolled into one, so adding to the confusion?

The first is whether we have the "right" to make use of animals for our own ends. If that is to be queried then we also need to ask why we should be the only specifies to take that view - given that other species make free use of each other. But it's a valid question to ask.

The second issue is where animal experimentation should come in our list of priorities if/when we do make use of animals. The total number used for experiments (about 3 million per year in the UK) and the total suffering caused are trivial in comparison to other uses - over 2 billion mammals and fish are used in the food industry each year, with a significant proportion of those experiencing a lot more discomfort than their cousins used in experiments.

Let's have some clarity on these issues please.

ICare
06 March 2008 at 12:01

Bravo Mr Currie!! You are right on there. Extremely well written.

ICare

SuzieB
06 March 2008 at 12:47

Very well argued Alistair. Of course science should have ethics in its quest for knowledge. Without it the human race has gone down some very nasty roads - atom bombs, chemical and biological weapons and of course the "de-humanising" of various groups of people such as the ones the Nazis used, as well as the use of Native and Black Americans, the mentally ill, the disabled - just to name a few groups who have been devalued. Until we view life in a less cavalier fashion we will continue to perpetrate atrocities. And, for the record, Alexander Fleming said that animal experiments had held back the production of penicillin. Try telling the families of those who have died of adverse drug reactions and suicides that toxicity testing on other species is necessary for the safety of drugs.

Viva!
06 March 2008 at 12:52

If a pharmaceutical company produced a product that could reduce the risk of cancer by up to 40 per cent, heart disease by 25 per cent or more, slash the rate of high blood pressure and strokes and considerably reduce the impact of all the other degenerative diseases, it would have struck the jackpot. Truth is - such a product already exists and its called diet - avoiding animal products. What pharmaceutical companies have done (with the complicity of government) is destroy the whole concept of preventative medicine because there are no profits in it. We now have a plethora of pills and potions for every ill - currently more than 20,000 globally for diseases that could be controled by around 300, according to the WHO. thousands of animals have died for almost evevry one, most of which are copies of others for which animals have already died. These 20,000 pills cure almost nothing but control the symptoms ansd reduce the impact. The true advances in health come from prevention - the introduction of sewerage and better housing allied with better diet transformed disease rates in the UK, and saw a crash in infectious disease such as diphtheria, for which we are told a vaccination is essential. If the $600 billion value of big pharma was poured into prevention, the world would be transformed, not least the poorest who matter not one jot to these giants. There is no profit in poverty. Very well said, Alistair. Tony Wardle, Viva!

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 13:04

I doubt if suicides were taking the reccomended doseages - if it's drug overdoses you were referring to.

And indeed, people can have adverse reactions to drugs: this is the most effective method we currently have, which is not to say that it's infallible or even necessarily all that good.

There may well be researchers who are motivated more by personal gain than any common good, or who would behave in a 'cavalier fashion' if left to do so: that's why such research, in the UK at least, is thoroughly regulated (to the point that various scientists have left to do their work elsewhere). But the point is that the regulation gives some reassurance to the rest of us that whatever their motivation, the research is to some argeed-upon purpose and standard.

That there are many nasty roads I'm sure we'd agree, but surely medicine is something we should be reasonably proud of.

As for Fleming and penicillin, isn't it the case that he thought the animal experiments a waste of time because he thought the discovery only good as an antibacterial wipe and that experiments on it as an antibiotic were pointless? Surely it was Chain and Florey's work (invloving mice) that uncovered penicillin's better features .. and that's something that's gone on to save more lives than any of us could count.

http://www.path.ox.ac.uk/about/Penicillin - a reasonably academic account.

marcus
06 March 2008 at 13:10

Let's not forget about the importance of sanitation, clean water,diet and improved living conditions and the role of technology , such as microscopes, etc, which had nothing to do with vivisection , in achieving medical progress.

More funding should be directed towards prevention, health education and primary health care as well as into human-based non animal methods and their implementation.

It is easy to attribute medical progress to animal experiments since animals have been used in their billions for over a century, but this does not mean that the animal experiments themselves were the key to the discovery or that progress could not have been made without them.

Until recently, the role of animal experiments had never been assessed, but systematic reviews cast serious doubts on animal research.

A report in the BMJ in 2006 came to some damning conclusions about the scientific validity of of animal- based research. An analysis of experiments in 6 areas examined the clinical relevance of the animal work, showing that most of the research was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results.

The UK findings back up even more dramatic findings from a similar analysis in Germany. 51 series of animal experiments were investigated over a 10 year period to test their medical efficacy.

The results, announced in 2005, were startling. 99.7% of the information produced by the use of 5,000 animals was judged to be inapplicable to humans, while the other 0.3% was found to have no medical relevance.

This is a waste of resources and lives, and gives false hope to the sick and dying, who await cures on the back of 'breakthroughs' based on animal experiments.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 13:20

- and Viva! I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. You say that there's a terrible set of ailments that could be fought off with a change of diet. Splendid. You say that the drug companies could clean up if they came up with something that could do the same: true, but since they don't claim that and don't seem to be trying to do so ... so what? No-one makes people eat badly, they manage that all by themselves. When drug companies offer a solution, isn't it aimed at recognised diseases?

'If the $600 billion value of big pharma was poured into prevention, the world would be transformed, not least the poorest who matter not one jot to these giants.'

Well, yes - but again, what's the point here? $600 billion of anything would be a good solution. The 'big pharma' never said they were going to aleviate the world's poor, so accusing them of not doing so is a bit off the mark. They don't profit from keeping these people poor, which you seem to be implying, any more than British Airways or Walkers crisps do.

And no amount of excercise, good diet and/or good drains would offer a cure for diabetes, leukaemia (still can't spell it), just about any infection from a wound, operations for cateracts, transplants, heart ops, chemotherapy ... or would you rather tell people 'you can eat that sheep while you're sick, but you can't harm it if it's to develop a cure for you'.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 13:58

'gives false hope to the sick and dying, who await cures on the back of 'breakthroughs' based on animal experiments.'

I don't think the sick and dying give a rat's fundament where their hoped-for drugs come from; they just want to live. I suspect that few would decline treatment because it had involved animals, so this argument isn't really getting us anywhere.

And since the Weatherall report covered the same ground you describe but came to different conclusions, this doesn't get us very far either.

Your first two paragraphs are plain enough, and one can't argue with 'em: fair points all. But we come adrift at point three (no-one's claiming that animal experiments are the only way forward, only that they are a very important part of the vocabulary of discovery) and get bogged down thereafter. The role of animal experimentation was always under assesment, even before any regulation, because it cost money. The expenditure - when part of a commercial process, as Viva! so deplores - is the regulation, since it has to be justified against results. If 'big pharmas' are only in it for the money, why would they waste that money on animals?

marcus
06 March 2008 at 13:59

In 2007 a case taken against the UK government by the BUAV was scheduled for consderation by the High Court. The judicial review brings unprecedented legal scrutiny of animal protection laws, with the BUAV accusing the government of failing to protect animals in UK labs from substantial suffering due to its misinterpretation and ineffective enforcement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

The case is based on video and documentary evidence obtained during a 10 month undercover investigation in a top Cambridge University neuroscience lab in 2000. These reveal marmoset monkeys left unattended for 15 hours or more after undergoing highly invasive brain surgery - a blatant contravention of the Home Office requirement that labs must have 24 hour vet assistance on hand to ensure post-operative suffering is kept to a minimum.

The case also questioned the HO licence approval system. Under the Act, experiments are graded according to the amount of suffering involved. In this case, severe procedures(including the removal of the top of marmosets' heads to induce strokes) were categorised as 'moderate' rather than'substantial'. This makes nonsense of guidelines that state that any procedure which 'may lead to a major departure from the animals' usual state of health and wellbeing' must be categorised as 'substantial'.

This is no isolated case. The horrors of vivisection labs is well documented - from Hans Ruesch's "Slaughter of the Innocent" and Melody MacDonald's "Caught in the Act", to Uncaged Campaign's "Diaries of Despair"- probably just the tip of the iceberg.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 14:18

And the law exists to prevent such abuses, and presumably will do so if all the evidence is there. So one case of apparent cruelty eight years ago is a sign of endless neglect and psychotic behaviour? Ten months of undercover research came up with one incident?

If it's against the law - and I've no love of scientists or medical God-players - then give 'em legal hell. It's worth bearing in mind that any medical procedure is pretty disgusting to all but a few. I wouldn't watch a hip replacement for recreation - although if I need one I'll be grateful, and grateful for the anasthetic (developed through work on animals again) compared to biting on a leather strap and hoping for the best.

marcus
06 March 2008 at 14:20

Sluggish regulatory agencies, a mindset entrenched in the vivisection methodology, and vested interests are among the factors perpetuating animal experimentation.

Many scientists have expressed dissatisfaction with the 'tools' used for investigating human disease and big pharma also realises that improved medicine and treatments are needed , which is why companies like Asterand and Hurel are providing the industry with non animal tools, such as tissue and other services, like microdosing, for accurate prediction.

The abolition of vivisection would be the impetus required to create and implement new methods and paradigms directly applicable to humans. Otherwise progress will be slow and piecemeal, both animals and humans continuing to suffer.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 14:31

When non-animal tools are reliable and cheaper, they're adopted: that's what a commercial company does. If it doesn't, it dies. Entrenched mindsets and vested interests aren't sufficient to stand in the way of commercial need.

The abolition of vivisection would be admirable but at this stage in our learning it's beyond us: to impose it now would do a great deal more damage than good. I quite agree that replacement technology is needed, desperately - stem-cell research looks very hopeful, for instance - but without a suitable replacement, it would be tipping the patient out of her wheelchair and expecting her to walk.

See, Viva! ? I can use emotional images too!

marcus
06 March 2008 at 14:31

Medical history differs greatly depending on who is paying the piper.

Heart surgeon Moneim A. Fadali's "Animal Experimentation- A Harvest of Shame" is an enlightening 'alternative' to the 'official' history of medicine, covering the origins of surgical technique ,the discovery of insulin, CPR, blood transfusion,anaesthesia, sulpha drugs, etc etc. Most importantly Dr Fadali has absolutely no vested interests in promoting his version of events, unlike the vivisection lobby.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 14:58

'Most importantly Dr Fadali has absolutely no vested interests in promoting his version of events'

A quick google suggests that as president of 'DLRM'

(http://www.dlrm.org/aims.htm), he's not entirely without bias, since he's selling his books there - vested interests indeed. At least he's wearing his heart on his sleeve - and his beret on his head - as befits a 'modern renaissance man'.

Medical history doesn't vary all that much - it either worked or it didn't, and since the didn'ts generally die there's a certain Darwinian pressure brought to bear here. Historical revisionism is easy once a little time's passed. And much like our article at the top here, what we see is (I'm quoting a wise friend here, not me sadly) that:

it starts out with a fallacy - Hasty Generalization - then descends through the list: Appeal to Belief; Appeal to Consequences of a Belief; Appeal to Emotion; Appeal to Fear; Appeal to Pity; Petitio Principii ; Composition ; Division ; False Dilema; Misleading Vividness ; and of course The Subjectivist Fallacy.

marcus
06 March 2008 at 15:01

A final thought. Humans are always the real guinea pigs- graphically illustrated by the recent 'elephant man' clinical trials disaster ( many drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway they really are just flexible tools...which is why they are so invaluable for getting drugs to markets ). Clinical trials too clearly need a major overhaul.

Perhaps the researchers and their families should be the mandatory volunteers for clinical trials.

Our most safe and effective drugs and treatments are the ones which have been used over prolonged periods in populations and owe nothing to the animal experiments.

Telling antivivisectionists to refuse allopathic medical treatments is illogical. Firstly, because proof is needed that animal experiments were absolutely essential to the medicine's development.Second, because we have choice in the matter. I expect most people in the UK are against slavery, but we don't deliberately avoid cities like Liverpool and Bristol, built with slave trade wealth.

Human medical experimentation is well documented and still continues in many forms. Not only does big pharma do nothing to help developing countries , it uses them as cheap unregulated human test beds, as illustrated by the recent Pfizer/Nigeria case. Why shift R & D into poor people's diseases or improve their drinking water when there's mega profits to be made from baldness cures and Viagra.

Until all life is considered precious, we are all fair game.

48 Crash
06 March 2008 at 15:13

'Our most safe and effective drugs and treatments are the ones which have been used over prolonged periods in populations [true enough] and owe nothing to the animal experiments [simply false].'

Asking antivivisectionists if they'd use animal-tested drugs (not telling them to refuse them) is perfectly logical: they say they're unacceptable. Does that mean that they don't accept them personaly? And the comparison with the slave trade, while colourful, is misleading. That shameful episode happened a long time ago - and Bristol's hardly rich, come to that. No-one's offering you laudnum in the dentist's chair, but modern drugs developed within living memory.

Why would you expect a pharma company to improve anyone's drinking water? That's not what they do, any more than the local chippie should be expected to do so. The plight of the poor is a political problem, and therefore ours.

If life is so precious, why are you so dismissive of attempts to save it that don't agree with your choice of morality?

48 Crash
07 March 2008 at 08:19

The one thing here I've found curious is how much each response has been a pre-formed argument, with no sign of responding to what's been written. This style reminds me very much of time spent 'debating' with Islamic extremists who had quite a profile within Delphi's forums. Is this a symptom of extremism, or just a style?

marcus
07 March 2008 at 12:11

Maybe people would respond to your comments if you attempted to back up your assertions with examples and citations and demonstrated some knowledge of the vivisection issue.

It's easy to cherrypick your way through someone's post simply replying ' false' , for example, and presenting statements as facts as in, " Millions of animal experiments have given us the cures to the diseases that used to kill us" without any evidence. In addition, you exhibit clear misreadings, deliberate or otherwise, of several posts, and total illogicality. It would appear that you are a time waster who likes the sound of their own voice, and with time on their hands. It is not surprising that no-one will engage with you. We have bigger fish to fry.

48 Crash
07 March 2008 at 12:33

I seem to have provided links to sources - have you?

For example, the link I cited presents a history in which animal experimentation revealed the use of penicillin. It also contradicts the version of events you suggest. Have you some evidence to back up your version of this history?

'Clear misreadings' - perhaps, although I've attempted to address specific points. Perhaps you could direct me to where I've misread something?

Illogicality - again, an example would help here. Where do you feel I was illogical?

Time-waster: perhaps, but I'm interested in finding out why people believe things so firmly in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary. So it's not time-wasting for me.

Any research into the development of cures for diabetes, leukemia, current cancer treatments, transplants ... alll of these have animal experimentation so embedded in their histories I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise, and I'm not convinced that you wish to argue so either.

'We have bigger fish to fry' sounds familar, and a touch worrying in this context. Determined cut'n'pasting is no substitute for engagement, and what an observer would see here is a determination not to engage with the subject which you claim to be so close to your heart. It would seem more the delivery of a sermon than any intention to debate.

marcus
07 March 2008 at 13:15

The subject is so close to our hearts that many AVs have dedicated ( Hans Ruesch for example) their lives to researching it, and therefore know the pro and anti arguments chapter and verse and the status of the current debate. You, on the other hand do not seem to have read anything by scientists or doctors opposed to vivisection on medical and scientific grounds, so how can you add anything new to the debate or possibly come to an impartial conclusion. Your tired 'arguments' and sweeping statements are old hat. I haven't cut and pasted once. So easy to add links, but they do not always give a true picture. So, Dr Fadali is President of DLRM. No secret there. If you had dug a little deeper though and bothered to read his book you'd know that he's a longstanding AV- way before DLRM was formed, and that wealth and fame were clearly not on his mind when he wrote it. After all, books on vivisection are hardly in the JK Rowling stakes. l The lives of medical professionals who do not toe the party line can and have been made extremely difficult. Which is why many of them, who have bothered to research it, do not speak out. Fortunately this is changing as the evidence against this archaic, barbaric and unscientific methodology piles up.

48 Crash
07 March 2008 at 13:32

I appreciate that you're keeping your tone moderate - and that you're responding to a teeny-weeny fish here - so thank you for that.

I have read a fair amount by scientists on both sides of the divide. And I know some working in the field now. However, I'm not a scientist or anything like, and am sufficiently disgusted by the sheer horror of any of it to be a suitable candidate for conversion; and yet I'm not convinced by the 'counter' arguments, which is curious.

If you've not cut and pasted I apologise; the tone of yoru presentation is uneven, and I susoected more than one hand in the writing. Perhaps you've just absorbed more than one style.

I've no doubt Dr F. is heartfelt in his position; but he's not a disinterested third party. Anti-viv books are indeed not going to make him a rich man (certainly not compared to being a surgeon, for a start) but there is also the question of vanity here. If he can countenance his own website describing him as a Renaisance man it suggests a certain robustness in this area, so perhaps not wealth but certainly fame or a variation thereof must be in his mind.

'The lives of medical professionals who do not toe the party line can and have been made extremely difficult.' This is unexpected. I can see that it would be difficult to practice medicine if you refused to use animal-tested drugs, but that's a matter of personal choice rather than some sort of witch-hunt. Obviously the more extreme anti-viv behaviour is the one that gets the headlines; are there examples of anti-vivs being hounded from employment? I'm googling without much success here, so any signposts would be gratefuly received.

'archaic, barbaric and unscientific methodology'

Archaic - it will be (safe bet, since everything gets old) and hopefully soon

Barbaric - an emotive word. Pulling a tooth out of someone's head is barbarous in the extreme, but if it were me with the toothache ...

Unscientific - doubtful. For a start, the process of peer-review is not so hopelessly conservative that no-one would raise an objection to the methodology. It's where we are, and as is almost certainly not the best place to be, but this is as far as we've got. So far.

marcus
07 March 2008 at 13:55

Come back & debate when you've got a more comprehensive handle on the subject. It's so easy to be swayed by the proviv literature, especially as there's so much of it and the wealthy and powerful pro viv lobby is all encompassing with deliberate strategies.

Several times in the past throughout my research I've wavered and almost been sucked in. It's so much more than cutting up animals and finding cures.

"Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" and Dr Ray Greek's subsequent books help give a fuller picture, including the ostracisation of non believers andr the peer review process.

Also good to keep abreast of the medical journals, awash in recent years with articles re scientific fraud, ghost writing, bias, etc, etc.

If everyone were simply resigned to 'this is where we are' we'd never have made any social progress. Thank god for the reformers.

48 Crash
07 March 2008 at 14:38

Err .. as I wrote, I've read a fair amount of this. And I have a handle as comprehensive as a non-scientist is likely to have, and I've read a fair amount of literature (Peter Singer is the most persuasive for me). Dr Greel is too often guilty of false dilema and emotional appeal, whcih undermines scientific credibility.

I'm also curious as to what he proposes to replace peer-review with; he seems a bit vague on the subject. He also promotes his won credentials with the news that his work is published in peer-reviewed literature (http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_initiat... for instance) which suggests he doesn't mind it when it suits him.

I'm not resigned to 'this is where we are'; I'm honest about it. Being honest about one's position leads to doing something about it. Pretending to be somewhere you're not sets us all back by at least the number of years' advance that's being claimed.

Singer's arguments are persuasive, and it would be morally right to implement their implications; except the cost to progress is currently too high. When it's within our reach, we can proceed.

marcus
07 March 2008 at 15:11

"...false dilema and emotional appeal, whcih undermines scientific credibility." That's rich considering the main propaganda tool of every single pro vivi spokesperson researcher, director, whatever, is the emotional false dilemma of the dog or baby.And unlike Dr Fadali, these eminent people are not in the least bit biased, are they now, depending as they do on the perpetuation of vivisection for their careers and livelihood.

So exactly what are you doing about bringing about the inevitable demise of vivisection?

'Cost to progress' what progress? A proliferation of major drug disasters and not cure in sight. Not to mention an increasing number of diseases thanks to chemical pollution, food additives, pesticides, etc etc - marketed as 'safe' via animal tests.

As long as researchers are required to test on animals and stuck in the vivisection mind set, there will be no true progress.

Realistically, even if vivisection were to be officially abolished tomorrow, it's hardly likely to be the same as Sweden's overnight switch to driving on the left.There would bound to be period of grace given for its phasing out 'tooling up' for the new system, which could take ages. So I shouldn't worry about all the animal breeders , the cage makers, the stereotaxic device peddlers, and so on- they'll have time to find new employment and the researchers will simply have to come up with creative solutions -no doubt they're up to the challenge- just give em a chance.

48 Crash
07 March 2008 at 15:32

Thank you for engaging in specifics - admirable.

If the research is for medicine or medical procedure that would help said dog or baby, it's not a false dilemma, is it. If it were cosmetics or some similar bit of piffle then it would be, but treatment for heart op.s, care for premature babies or anything els eon the list is quite specific. Whereas for Dr Greek (sorry, not Dr Greel - poor typing) to write 'Experimenting on monkeys in the hope of unlocking the secrets of the human brain is an exercise in futility' is a false dilemma: speaking to someone who used to do such research, I'm told that the thrust of the work was to understand neural pathways within a complex cortex roughly analogous to our own; not to find direct comparitive solutions.

I'm not doing anything to bring about vivisection's end, except spending my money. I'm not a scientist, and am sufficiently ignorant that any action on my part would be about as effective as my trying to take over my granny's knitting - disasterous. All I can do as a taxpayer and consumer is spend wher I believe my money is targeted best, and complain about drug use when it's prescribed to me and I think it not the best available choice.

'A proliferation of major drug disasters' ... eh? The very reason there hasn't been a list of such disasters is the safety-checking of drugs and procedures, or so I'm told. A disease caused by a food additive? Any links here please? And pesticides are toxic by their very nature - tests are to decide just how toxic they are, surely.

Researchers are required to test; the commercial pressure to use animals is near-as-dammit zero compared to the commercial pressure to make drugs cheaper - it all comes off the bottom line, after all.

I'm not unduly worried about animal breeders, cage-makers and the like, and I wouldn't be particularly sorry to see their trade ended which is one reason I didn't mention them. But to enforce a restriction of pratice for abstract reasons - and however fervently one believes it, the rights of animals v. the rights of humans is an abstract choice, which varies from culture to culture - is to remove commercial pressure from the decision, which in turn encourages bad practice, such as all the research going overseas where the wellfare standards are much lower, and thus causing much more of the suffering one hopes to prevent.

tamtam1622
07 March 2008 at 20:26

I can give you one guaranteed outcome of animal experiments...the animals suffer excruciating pain.

'Nuff said??

rights4whole
08 March 2008 at 13:20

Animals and human are all the same. We should not harm anyone. Medical experimentation is just to show how hypocrite they are. Humans by right can be healed by plant-based drugs, why have to sacrifice lot of animals, in fact, mostly are failure projects (like stated). Thats what we call 'bull shit' experimental works. Why they do not try their own partner to see the reaction since all is similar one another?

dmhammersley
08 March 2008 at 19:22

if animal experiments worked there would be no more disease, we would have a cure/vaccine for everything by now. the truth is they dont produce viable results (need i remind people of those men who suffered horrendous side effects from those drug trials?those drugs had been considered safe after animal testing. need i mention thalidomide, also considered safe . . . .)

renewoods
09 March 2008 at 21:59

I cannot but wonder what the effect of participating in inflicting terrible pain on animals has on people. This is not hunting for survival, it is cold blooded vivisection of terrified, imprisoned warm blooded sensitive animals.

This is not a natural act for a so called compassionate species.

48 Crash
10 March 2008 at 08:45

'I can give you one guaranteed outcome of animal experiments...the animals suffer excruciating pain.

'Nuff said??'

Well, no. Do you think all experiments cause excrutiating pain? I assume you do, since you guarantee it. How do you know this?

And animal experiments work, and because of this we have the cures to many diseases, and surgery for conditions, and understanding of the nature of damage to the human body. By all means argue about the ethics of it, the morality, since this is an area that's free - and ripe - for debate. But to argue against teh science, where there's a proven track record, you're left having to make stuff up that leaves the only explanation a vast Sadist conspiracy in which every scientist is complicit. And that's just silly, and cheapens the worth of your moral argument, where you're strong.

'Terrified' animals give false readings in experiments, so it's against the interests of the experimenters to make it so. As humans we may not like the idea, but that's another argument.

Maya, CVT
10 March 2008 at 16:19

Excellent article - I wholeheartedly agree that the benefit does not outweigh the costs.

One minor point - I get a bit uncomfortable with the whole animals being compared to human babies. I am even more uncomfortable with the word "weak".

Primates, rodents, cats, rabbits, etc, are not at all weak. They have much more well developed senses than we do; their ancestors can survive wilderness that would destroy a human; they are much more intuitive than we are.

Cats are superb hunters; rodents can seek out food that a human would never know about. Rabbits can run much faster than any human!! These animals are not weak.

I think it is a mistake to assume the average person lacks compassion for these animals. What they lack is respect. Saying these animals are weak compounds that problem.

Maybe they are weaker than the cage bars, but they are much more strong and smart than a human baby, or even some adults!

Peace!

Maya, CVT
10 March 2008 at 17:40

Sorry, one more comment, now that I've read the other comments.... ;)

Yes, there may have been some animal experiments in the past that cured diseases. Maybe there are some similar ones being conducted right now.

Let's discuss the other experiments; like the sleep deprivation experiment on cats where the cats are forced to balance on a small stand in the middle of a huge vat of water. After several days of balancing, they begin to fall asleep from exhaustion; they are punished by falling in the water if they fall asleep.

This goes on for 5 or more days to see the cat's reaction. This experiment has no medical value and is nothing less than animal torture.

If we are convinced that some animal experiments are necessary, okay. But there is no human being on this forum who should assume that all such experiments are useful Some are simply excuses to put animals through hideous torture. We should all be outraged over this, especially since our tax dollars sometimes pay for it!

Let's start with banning useless experiments. That will give us plenty to do while we debate any useful experiments.

In vet clinics I also watched the use of glucosomine to help dogs with arthritis. Pretty soon it was being used on people. This is a slightly bad example because sharks are killed to make this drug, which is a shame.

However, many dogs went from being very painful to running and playing once again despite their arthritis. Drugs can be "tested" on dogs and cats who are actually sick or in pain, and it benefits them and then it benefits humans.

These solutions should please both sides.

48 Crash
11 March 2008 at 08:14

The sleep deprivation experiments with cats les to the development of electro-convulsive therapy as a treatment for epilepsy. It's horrifc to read as a description, but then so is the description of a hip-replacement.

It's worth bearing in mind that the regulation surrounding animal experimentation in much stricter in the UK than in tax-dollar'd countries; hence the departure of some high-profile scientists for the US, where they can experiment on higher primates. For instance.

gja
11 March 2008 at 15:26

48 Crash: When the telescope was invented many people STILL believed the Earth was flat, not round. Some glanced, some avoided looking, some refused to admit the round shape in front of their very eyes, etc. More importantly many were 'professionals" simply afraid of a new idea just like yourself. Have the courage to look long and hard before going on your next tirade of inaccurate statements.

48 Crash
11 March 2008 at 15:40

Dear Gia:

What inaccurate statements please?

And my argument, to attempt to use your analogy, is that we haven't invented a telescope yet. We suspect the world round, and we're trying to prove it. And the likes of PETA would have telescopes banned as immoral.

The argument about the morality of this work is difficult, and like most difficult things it's interesting, informative and might well be life-changing. But the arguments against the science are weak, self-serving and attempt to pevert history. This weakens what could be a very strong case, and I'm curious as to why you all cling to it.

I'm not a 'professional's cientist, or even an amateur one. Just a curious bystander.

AgelessAnnie
11 March 2008 at 17:52

This is my first time [at reading the NewStatesman] which, I must say, is really quite interesting! I am a raving lunatic who has been an advocate for animal welfare/rights since I was a child.. I am a member of PETA (living in the Colonies, lol) and about five other organizations having to do with animals.

I don't wish to overstay my welcome as a 'newbie' here, so today I just want to pass along a quote from my most favorite person in the universe.....Leonardo da Vinci. Whatta guy! What a genius!

".......The day will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals the way they now look upon the murder of men." ~~Leonardo da Vinci

Maya, CVT
11 March 2008 at 18:23

48 crash, thank you for that information. Interesting. I hope they got the information they needed so the cats are no longer needed.

The fact is, if all the animals suddenly ceased to exist, researchers would find innovative ways to cure diseases. Cloning of cells, computer models, volunteer trials, all are underused because animals are cheaper and don't argue with them.

As you said, it may be an ethical argument instead of a scientific one, but science without ethics is a science that does not truly care about curing diseases for the right reasons. That can get expensive.

No one has ever been able to give me a reason why a cat's life is more valuable than a human's. And as a scientist, if I beleived for one second that epilepsy could not be treated without some horrific cat experiment, then I would think it was a moral dilemma.

However, treatment options are limited only by our imaginations. Torturing cats because we're too lazy to use technology and innovation is unacceptable.

;) No disrespect intended.

Maya, CVT
11 March 2008 at 18:24

I meant "less valuable". Sorry, haven't had enough coffee today. ;)

48 Crash
12 March 2008 at 07:36

Maya - no disrespect given! And you've addressed some points directly, which is a lot more than most; so good for you.

ECT is now a fairly 'developed' therapy, so I'm guessing that those experiments aren't done any more. There may well be others, I don't know.

It's interesting that the argument tends to centre around either animals roughly like us - primates - or animals we know and like, such as cats & dogs. They're a very small percentage of the animal experiments done, at least in the UK if not the world. An awful lot of experiments are on mice. Even more are on earthworms. I know people like PETA want the public's imagination and therefore concentrate on 'popular' animals - but what's the position on earthworms. Do they suffer? Are they acceptable as subjects? If not, how about a little further down the tree. Hydra? Sea anenomes? These are both used in experiments a fair bit. I just wonder if there's a line drawn, and if so where it is.

Anyway. Some of this I do have some knowledge of. Cloning of cells is promising, but at present is very expensive and fairly unreliable. Stem-cell research would be more successful, but is currently opposed with gret vigour by the Catholic church and therefore by a number of MPs and would struggle to get through as a full bill. Computer models are way, way off yet. We can't get a computer to draw the outside of a mouse convincingly yet, let alone the inside! The good news is that it's very much desired by the industry - it's cheaper, more reliable, can't catch mouse illnesses or get lost, doesn't need feeding and looking after - and commercial pressure is heavy on the developers to make it happen.

I don't believe they've carried out these experiments because they're lazy; they want results, whether it's because they want to save people or because they think it'll make 'em rich or because they want to be famous. They want results. The technology just isn't there. Yet.

The moral dilemma is the interesting bit here, I think. The science is easily enough proved, and arguing against it (as I wrote before) just weakens the moral argument by making it look silly. 'Hurting an animal is wrong, unless it's a threat' would I think be most people's position. If by hurting the animal they could save a person's suffering, would they do that? This is the choice, the point where we decide what sort of people we wish to be.

gja
13 March 2008 at 14:55

The science against animal testing is 100% conclusive, www.curedisease.com will map it out for you and show what a FRAUD it is in TODAY'S world. It had benefits in other centuries up to the 1920's ONLY because we were researching disease on the gross medical levels. Today we are NOT asking these questions anymore. You are wrong about insulin; just because dogs were used does NOT mean they were VITAL in learning new ideas that led to a discovery. I assume that you understand basic arithmetic. Get out your calculator and see how many tens of millions of people who died due to misplaced faith in the animal-model.

48 Crash
13 March 2008 at 15:13

Gia: thank you for responding.

To quote Curedisease's front page

'Animal-modeled biomedical research yields results that cannot be safely applied to humans'

No-one says that it does; this is a canard [sic] that should be avoided. That's why drugs are tested on humans, once they've got to that stage. The suggestion on the front page of Curedisease is, to use yoru phrase, a FRAUD.

Experiments on dogs were central, vital,key in insulin's development as a therapy - even in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#History, let alone any science journal. To claim otherwise is pretty bold, and would require more backup than the use of capitals.

I'd need some numbers to put into that calculator - but given that most drugs used today work - and that we're alive to prove it - not to mention the surgeries, therapies, treatments - I see no evidence that faith was even required.

I appreciate entirely that you're heartfelt in this, but you need to seperate the history of this from your feelings about it.

Maya, CVT
13 March 2008 at 23:11

48 Crash,

Hello again. I do wonder how we know that the SAFE drugs turned out to be safe because we tested them on animals, or if they were safe to begin with. Drugs are, after all, studied before they ever go to trial.

Some drugs are studied by their chemical composition and it's understood how they work; thus the effort of trials.

Again, if we could try these drugs on pets or shelter animals who have these illnesses (as long as they're safe for the pet - cats often cannot handle such medications), then we won't have to cage and breed animals and keep them in wreched conditions.

I'm sure some pet owners would be thrilled to have their sick pets treated for free. Again, laziness and a cheap attitude keeps drug companies from finding alternatives.

48 Crash
14 March 2008 at 07:56

Hi Maya

Well, from what I know (I have to add the caveat that I'm just some idiot, not a scientist or anything like): modern tests on animals fall into two rough categories. One is research - does this do anything at all, and if so how does it spread through a living system? and the second is basic toxicology - does this stuff have adverse effects on a living system? If it gets through that, it moves to human trials. The recent case where those guys got so sick was an example of a substance that worked too well rather than too badly (altough the end result was quite nasty enough), that and they got the dosage for humans wrong. But it wasn't toxic in itself, which is what it was tested for before.

Testing on strays/pets is an idea, but for the tests to have meaning you need to know the test animals inside-out, to know all their genetic quirks (or to have bred them out) and to know they're free from any disease or whatever. Otherwise your test results might be skewed by something the animal already had, and you'd either get a false result or you'd have to do it again.

It does bring up another interesting question for PETA, though - how do we develop medicines for animals, if we can't test them?

gja
14 March 2008 at 15:03

This discussion is VERY SIMPLE. All one has to do is cite basic arithmetic and see the scientific heresy of the animal-model. According to industry and government simple counting statistics :96% of drugs that work desirably well on animals inducing the targeted therepeutic effect for them DO NOT do the same for people. Of the remaining 4% we have the 4th leading cause of human deaths(105,000/year) these people DIE from non-error effects of thesedrugs! Factoring this in we climb up closer to 97%. Experience has shown me that for you to be THIS ignorant clearly means there is PROFIT or family involved for you. The website you accessed contained so MANY scientific facts by sheer volume that if you were concerned about truth(for science's sake) you would NOT have responded this soon, AGAIN you were caught just glancing in the telescope without focusing. You have been exposed as a FRAUD, go away.

Dr Nicholas Ashley
16 March 2008 at 11:17

What an utterly stupid article. Animal testing is for toxicity, a generalised reaction not for efficacy. Most drug testing as in phase II, phase III and post launch phase IV trials are performed on humans, healthy volunteers through to people with a target indication for the drug being tested.

48 Crash
17 March 2008 at 07:30

Dear Gja

No, no family involved and no profit for me.

Citing basic science - and checking one's facts - shows that 'inducing the targeted theraputing effect' is not, or NOT, what animal experiments are about. You've read your own propaganda but not done any checking on what you're on about. The website I accessed has a falacy on the front page, followed by a series of cheerleading papers amongst people who agree with each other. This is hardly a discussion or any way to develop thought. As I wrote before, it reminds me very much of my time dealing with a group of religious extremists - closed systems being mis-identified as developing thought.

I may well be a fraud, and I'm happy to aknowledge it but I think we have a way to go before you prove it, or indeed anything except your enthusiasm for animals and capitals.

gja
22 March 2008 at 20:02

KEEP refusing to look into the telescope, I see! Industry knows that rats and mice have shown the ability to tolerate lethal human doses up to 800 times its potency!! You are applying what is known as a STAW MAN'S fallacy, citing info. that I did not comment on yet to nullify the truth I cited in the first place while not yet getting to the first valid thing you have said yet, hurray you do have a brain cell operating. The fact remains that you within minutes responded without ANY scientific fact-checking that would have taken hours, thus showing the world your FRAUDULENT intentions. The website I cited had its own search engine for you to really explore truth but you saw a front page that conflicted with your emotional BELIEFS and ran away with fear due to facts that clearly would disprove you. EVOLVE

48 Crash
25 March 2008 at 14:20

Dear GJA

You seem to be struggling with the distinction between toxicity and actualy killing someone or something. The 'straw man' fallacy is when you raise objections to something that isn't really happening - like your understanding of why experiments use animals.

I have spent some time on this; more than the hours you suggest. My intentions, as I've set out above, may be many things but I don't belive they're fraudulent. They've certainly not been demonstrated so by yourself. The website you suggested is now familiar to me, but I don't see much in the way of discussion there. It's more in the manner of a Revivalist prayer meeting. I saw a front page that set the ball rolling with a clear lack of understanding - or a deliberate misinterpretation - of the very subject it claims to describe. Not a good start. Despite King Arthur's orders ringing in my ears, I didn't run away. Neither did I find anything in that self-congratulatory rats'-nest [sic] of Holier-than-thou posturing that disproved anything.

I rather doubt I will evolve personally - that's really not how it works. And yourself?

gja
27 March 2008 at 15:12

Sorry for the false statement.At least I can admit when I make a mistake, I am a little rusty from the conferences and symposiums I have attended from years ago. What I said was true but in a very small percentage of studies, that is, toxicity is PRIMARY when sending a drug into an animal trial. Are you big enough to admit ALL the false things that you have said? Keep in mind that these "lifesaving " researchers refuse 99.9% of the time to show the taxpayer the validity of their"work", this says volumes. They show no obligation to the consumer,patient,taxpayer, or science! I will give you another website to redeem yourself: www.curedisease.net, this site requires less navigation than www.curedisease.COM, good luck, I will be awaiting your apologies.

48 Crash
03 April 2008 at 11:17

Dear GJA

I'm happy to admit when wrong, or indeed when just full of cack. I'm not much of an example of anything except man's fallen nature, and I don't hold out much hope of improving; a little prehaps, but then hope is unreasonable, and thank Heavens for that.

This toxicity business: you're assuming that these tests are literal, that if it kills the animal then it's toxic? Tests of txicity are to see how drugs spread through cells, whether they do damage or harm in transition, and the animals are used as models, not simalcrums or whatever the word is.

They refuse to share their work, or decline to, because it's private work (although the NHS indirectly fund a great deal of it, by the drugs that they chose to buy). The researchers show an obligation to the consumer in tha they have to deliver: if they don't, we die and then we don't buy any more drugs.

I know curedisease well enough: again, it's a self-congratulatory site, for the born-again. It's not for those who are interested, any more than watching prey-per-view TV is for those interested in theology.

Nancy
13 May 2008 at 11:45

Alistair's article is well thought out and brilliantly executed. (I've only been directed to it today - May 13th but as it is still relevant I would like to comment.) I agree with every word and just wish I had his eloquence to convince the powers that be that billions should be invested in alternatives to animal testing. Why is it considered (by some) that the use of an aborted human embryo (which is only a clump of cells that feels no pain or fear and would otherwise be incinerated) be less ethical than the use of an animal who feels pain and fear?

48 Crash
15 May 2008 at 12:28

Alistair's article may be well thought out, but that wouldn't reflect very well on his honesty. A number of not-entirely-true arguments are advanced, and a lot else is avoided.

Who are these 'powers' tha should invest billions? Whos billions? And why do you think they're not being invested now?