[Help] Petition to end laboratory testing on animals.

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You are correct there are indeed regulatory requirements to have animal testing, but that isn't the same thing as requiring animal testing to develop drugs. 95 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.

A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals.

Meanwhile many drugs that are widely used by people have failed animal trials. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses.

Despite this overwhelming failure rate of developing drugs for humans by testing them in non-humans, billions of dollars are spent on it, including 40 percent of all research funding from the US National Institutes of Health.

Its time for a change of thinking..

"The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits."

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

You have conflated two things - poor experimental design and analysis, and genuine biological differences between species, to reach a false conclusion. Most animal species respond the same way to most drugs. Most of the work that failed to translate was early stage work done badly on drugs that truly don't 'worl' in animal disease models or humans, but which were published owing to the general ignorance in the sector on what constitutes good desugn and analysis. The journal Nauture prioritises the punlication of work that would have massive impact if true. The problem is the l;ast bit and the journal has more retractions for false findings than any. And this is not just in drug research but in all research.

Most attempts on goal do not result in a goal. Therefore the best way to win more games would be to take fewer shots on goals. Right?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The laws on animal housing, room temperature, humidity, feed and handling and even means of death are not matched by laws for humans where children and adults living in disgusting conditions and circumstances is apparently quite acceptable (and legal).

That may well be true but is it a justifiable excuse to harm sentient animals? Attempting to devalue the suffering of animals in these situations doesn’t add anything to the conversation, it merely dilutes it.

 

[Uncle C]

Do you have a dog or cat? Would you define it as being “well cared for” if it was one of your pets?

Sorry, i'm not being drawn into your blinkered world.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Sorry, i'm not being drawn into your blinkered world.

A simple “no” would have sufficed

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That may well be true but is it a justifiable excuse to harm sentient animals? Attempting to devalue the suffering of animals in these situations doesn’t add anything to the conversation, it merely dilutes it.

I was backing up the point that [MENTION=2393]Uncle C[/MENTION] made that you dismissed. Now you accept it 'may well be true but'.

Well everything I have written on this thread may well be true (it is) but you won't like it.

I have had countless conversations about this issue over the decades. It is true that the average person on the street, with increasing horror particularly in certain groups, will react badly to seeing a experiment without consideration of the context. I had to persuade myself that my work is designed to discover a drug for a lethal human condition. Now, after thousands of experiments, I think I have found a new drug. The amount of work that has gone into this is mind boggling, and animal research has been the necessary lynchpin. Without it we would have nothing. That is the way it is.

So you either do some soul searching and make bloody sure your intentions are good, or get out of animal research. I do think there is a huge amount of wasteful research and I would like laws on design and analysis to stop this. However I am fighting a lonely battle. It is not helped when my sector is regularly attacked by people like you who want all animal research stopped even if it 'may well be' the only way to invent new drugs (which it is). You do you own cause a disservice, and indeed you undermine my cause to make research better (and consequently less likely to allow ill considered and unfounded ideas to be tested, and tested badly with underpowered nonblinded protocols, on animals).

 

[Uncle C]

A simple “no” would have sufficed

You are looking for a binary response, so if it saves a child's life then YES, YES YES

 

[Baldseagull]

You are correct there are indeed regulatory requirements to have animal testing, but that isn't the same thing as requiring animal testing to develop drugs. 95 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.

A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals.

Meanwhile many drugs that are widely used by people have failed animal trials. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses.

Despite this overwhelming failure rate of developing drugs for humans by testing them in non-humans, billions of dollars are spent on it, including 40 percent of all research funding from the US National Institutes of Health.

Its time for a change of thinking..

"The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits."

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

We may be reaching a point where animal testing is less useful than other means, I hope that happens, but I know many discoveries have been made that would not have been otherwise, and I doubt animal testing will be completely redundant in my lifetime.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I was backing up the point that [MENTION=2393]Uncle C[/MENTION] made that you dismissed. Now you accept it 'may well be true but'.

Well everything I have written on this thread may well be true (it is) but you won't like it.

I have had countless conversations about this issue over the decades. It is true that the average person on the street, with increasing horror particularly in certain groups, will react badly to seeing a experiment without consideration of the context. I had to persuade myself that my work is designed to discover a drug for a lethal human condition. Now, after thousands of experiments, I think I have found a new drug. The amount of work that has gone into this is mind boggling, and animal research has been the necessary lynchpin. Without it we would have nothing. That is the way it is.

So you either do some soul searching and make bloody sure your intentions are good, or get out of animal research. I do think there is a huge amount of wasteful research and I would like laws on design and analysis to stop this. However I am fighting a lonely battle. It is not helped when my sector is regularly attacked by people like you who want all animal research stopped even if it 'may well be' the only way to invent new drugs (which it is). You do you own cause a disservice, and indeed you undermine my cause to make research better (and consequently less likely to allow ill considered and unfounded ideas to be tested, and tested badly with underpowered nonblinded protocolas, on animals).

Of course I dismissed his point. If you’re causing pain to a sentient being they are not “better cared for” than their technician counterparts. Attempting to bring other human rights issues into the situation, again, is not a justifiable excuse to cause animals pain and suffering. It comes across as a way to attempt to dilute the main issue here which is animal rights and animal welfare.

I see your point in regards to it being “the only way”, and whilst I in no way pretend to be an expert, but a quick Google lead me to a research paper from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities titled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” that evaluated the claim that major medical advances are attributed to experiments on animals and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. It concluded that most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. I would be genuinely interested to know your thoughts on this.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

You are looking for a binary response, so if it saves a child's life then YES, YES YES

I’m looking for an open and honest discussion. I am trying to ascertain whether you value a pets life over another animal, whether you would consider your pet as being “well cared for” if it was on the receiving end of laboratory tests. I’m sorry if these questions make you uncomfortable.

 

[Baldseagull]

Of course I dismissed his point. If you’re causing pain to a sentient being they are not “better cared for” than their technician counterparts. Attempting to bring other human rights issues into the situation, again, is not a justifiable excuse to cause animals pain and suffering. It comes across as a way to attempt to dilute the main issue here which is animal rights and animal welfare.

I see your point in regards to it being “the only way”, and whilst I in no way pretend to be an expert, but a quick Google lead me to a research paper from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities titled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” that evaluated the claim that major medical advances are attributed to experiments on animals and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. It concluded that most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. I would be genuinely interested to know your thoughts on this.

The simple curiosity of understanding diseases you mean? It may be that no cure is being trialled, but if you find why a disease occurs, you can then find a treatment.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The simple curiosity of understanding diseases you mean? It may be that no cure is being trialled, but if you find why a disease occurs, you can then find a treatment.

That would fall under the ‘contributing meaningfully to medical advances’ no? Something that this particular paper disputes.

 

[Baldseagull]

I’m looking for an open and honest discussion. I am trying to ascertain whether you value a pets life over another animal, whether you would consider your pet as being “well cared for” if it was on the receiving end of laboratory tests. I’m sorry if these questions make you uncomfortable.

I would sooner break your legs than see MY dog suffer, he is part of my family. I do not have the same affection for other animals that are not, just as I have less consideration for your well being than I would my wife or kids. Not that I don't care at all about your well being, just less than my dog.

 

[Baldseagull]

That would fall under the ‘contributing meaningfully to medical advances’ no? Something that this particular paper disputes.

Which paper?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I would sooner break your legs than see MY dog suffer, he is part of my family. I do not have the same affection for other animals that are not, just as I have less consideration for your well being than I would my wife or kids. Not that I don't care at all about your well being, just less than my dog.

Thank you for your honesty. I don’t doubt you have more affection for your own pet than other animals, but would you consider your dog “well cared for” if someone experimented on it? The crux of my point is that we kid ourselves with the pretence of animal welfare where in actuality these animals are subject to pain and suffering. In my book, no matter how much room they have, that isn’t being well cared for.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Which paper?

A paper entitled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” that I referenced in the post you replied to. There was also an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that also evaluated the claim that every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals that drew similar conclusions.

 

[Baldseagull]

Thank you for your honesty. I don’t doubt you have more affection for your own pet than other animals, but would you consider your dog “well cared for” if someone experimented on it? The crux of my point is that we kid ourselves with the pretence of animal welfare where in actuality these animals are subject to pain and suffering. In my book, no matter how much room they have, that isn’t being well cared for.

Different standards of "well cared for" apply. I kept chickens for a while, they were well cared for, right up until I wrung their necks before eating them.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Different standards of "well cared for" apply. I kept chickens for a while, they were well cared for, right up until I wrung their necks before eating them.

So would you conclude that the animals are “well cared for” right up until the experiments begin? What if these experiments happened on a daily basis? Is the overall care adequate if you are causing pain and suffering on a regular basis?

 

[beorhthelm]

... It concluded that most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. I would be genuinely interested to know your thoughts on this.

so the scientists involved go through all the trouble, time and expense of these meaningless trials for nothing? i'd have thought they'd find other ways and means to conduct research if this is provably unproductive.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

so the scientists involved go through all the trouble, time and expense of these meaningless trials for nothing? i'd have thought they'd find other ways and means to conduct research if this is provably unproductive.

I may be wrong, I’m not an expert after all, but it could be in reference to the findings of the The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which noted that 95% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests, fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And, of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, a further half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

You have conflated two things - poor experimental design and analysis, and genuine biological differences between species, to reach a false conclusion. Most animal species respond the same way to most drugs. Most of the work that failed to translate was early stage work done badly on drugs that truly don't 'work' in animal disease models or humans, but which were published owing to the general ignorance in the sector on what constitutes good desugn and analysis. The journal Nauture prioritises the punlication of work that would have massive impact if true. The problem is the last bit and the journal has more retractions for false findings than any. And this is not just in drug research but in all research.

Most attempts on goal do not result in a goal. Therefore the best way to win more games would be to take fewer shots on goals. Right?

I'm afraid I'm going to reject the premise and the analogy. You can only score a goal by making an attempt on goal, there is no other way. But a medical student can train to become a surgeon without ever practising on animals. You can develop drugs without testing them on animals - or more to the point, testing them on animals appears to be unnecessary in the overwhelming number of cases. 95% of drugs proved safe and effective in animals are not safe or effective in humans. So what was the point of the animal tests? Moreover, considering how damaging aspirin is to a wide range of species, would it ever get to human trials if it was invented today?

" A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed." You can't just pass that off glibly as "early stage work done badly on drugs .... which were published owing to the general ignorance in the sector on what constitutes good design and analysis." Over 4,000 experimental cancer drugs studied with poor study design and general ignorance amongst researchers? Nature gets a vast number of retractions of studies testing drugs on animals? Wow! If this is the case then this sector needs a radical overhaul and a major review of how it is funded. We've all give money to cancer research charities - is this what happens to it, a repetitive cycle of badly-conducted research? This doesn't defend the argument to continue animal trials in any way shape or form.

So Nature gets retractions, but meanwhile BMJ published a review in 2014 demonstrating that animal research provides little benefit at great cost, concluding that "the conduct, reporting, and synthesis of much animal research continues to be inadequate; that the current situation is unethical since animals and humans participate in research that cannot produce reliable results; there is insufficient systematic evidence for the clinical benefits of animal research and greater rigour and accountability is needed to ensure best use of public funds."

I get that someone inventing a completely new drug would be loathe to stick it in a person without having any idea of what it might do to them. But if the researcher is that unclear about the effects, just sticking it in a stressed-out caged rabbit, at big doses and often with no pain relief, isn't exactly a 'good experimental design'. That just sounds like cutting corners. Given the large amount of animal research being undertaken, some findings will extrapolate to humans just by chance. Modern, human-relevant non-animal tests are the way forward, but is the problem that they are expensive? Has pharmaceutical research become more about the bottom-line? From the outside it looks like one of the few fields of scientific research driven by corporations rather than academics.

The football analogy is more along the lines of kicking the ball at your own goal, to prove the ball can indeed go in a net, before making an attempt on the oppositions goal. It doesn't help you win the match.