Letters to the Editor
-
me
>>Neither myself nor the majority of people who write or read these posts have or will ever see the inside of a research lab>>
I have. Two siblings work in bio research and I've seen their labs,what they do. I've seen the animals and they've talked extensively on how the conditionas have improved, how lab workers are glad conditions have improved. That's why I respond so strongly, I do know facts and can see beyond the emotional "cute puppy dog" PR and have thought deeply about how much of my life has benefitted from medical research. Many loved ones would not be alive today if we hadn't discovered countless medications and techniques through medical research. I'm not willing to make that trade.
Why do y'all think the average lifespan has increased from 40-something to 70-something? People stopped dying from infection, cancer, polio, etc. Do you want to find a cure for AiDS? Cancer?
-
Excellent Point
It is only terrorism when you don't agree with the cause. I know that the writer meant that sardonically, but I mean it quite earnestly and thoughtfully.
Who wants to say that they agree with violence? But lets be honest, shall we? All of the letter writing and the marching are just not really working. And, from the tenor of the letters I have read here, it seems that very few of you actually care enough about ethical practices, be they focused on animals or humans, to actually take any sort of action. Acts of violence towards a goal are perpetrated by those who have no other option. That is not to say that it's okay, on it's head. It is not a judgement, just an observation. Why bother judging? Judging is just more talk. You don't like this action being taken by SHAC? Then meet it with some action of your own.
For those of you who think that animal testing is the only way that medicines and cures can be produced are sadly mistaken. Those of you who work for labs are simply repeating whatever the Marketing Director for your company wrote into your training materials. The fact is that the real reason why animal testing continues are multi-fold:
1. Toxicology is a very new science, having been "invented" in the late 19th century. Unless you count royal food tasters, of course.
2. The tests now mandated by our federal government were created when toxicology was still in it's infancy. Since the tests are mandated, they are not changed. That being said, it has long been recognized that toxicology tests and procedures on animals are not particularly useful. There are problems translating from the animal to a human, and this has mostly come to be understood as we've gained knowledge on the mode of inheritance within DNA. Those understandings have come, for the most part, after the mandates for tests on animals were put into place.
3. Comparitively speaking, animal testing is cheap. Stay with me here. Does it cost millions of dollars? Yes. But so does in vitro testing. And, most importantly, tests on animals are seen by the public, the Federal Government and by many in the science community as reliable. What does that mean? That means that it's easier to get a new drug approved when you present results gained from animal testing. In other words, even if it was legal for pharmaceutical companies to test solely via in vitro methods as opposed to testing on animalsm, as it stands right now they don't really want to.
4. Just as in other areas of medicine, we have a situation where medicine is protecting itself from the legal practice. If a company follows all commonly accepted protocols, this makes it more difficult for them to be sued if something goes wrong later. And we know it does, despite these animal tests that we believe in so strongly.
For more information about this, see the HSUS paper, and the NIH paper:
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/ARI/ARIS_An_Overview_Of_Animal_Testing_Issues.pdf
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/7723/7723.html
Another thing that should be noted is that the EU has decreed that animal testing in cosmetics must be strickent by 2009, in medicine by 2013. If their scientists can do it, why can't ours? j
And finally, the burden of proof is on us. You want new drugs? Cures for diseases? Then it is up to us as a society to create these things in ethical way, and that means we MUST think of biological, environmental, and ethical concerns with animals and humans. Why? Because if we do not, then we are superceding our gains with a massive cost. We should none of us be able to live with it, otherwise.
-
The nice thing about defending animals
They can't talk or sign legal contracts, so they never fire you because your actions make them appalled and ashamed.
It's just like defending fetuses. You can do anything you want and feel justified, because your client can never tell you to where to draw the line.
The ultimate moral power trip!!! No wonder people get so high on it.
-
check out the FDA website
>> it's easier to get a new drug approved when you present results gained from animal testing.>>
False. One can NOT get a new drug approved by the FDA without extensive HUMAN drug trials. There is no option: in vitro, computer modeling, animal testing, or human testing. The first 3 usually lead up to the last: statistically significant drug trials on people is required for any new drug or significant new combination.
-
Re: me
>>Neither myself nor the majority of people who write or read these posts have or will ever see the inside of a research lab>>
>>I have. Two siblings work in bio research and I've seen their labs,what they do. I've seen the animals and they've talked extensively on how the conditionas have improved, how lab workers are glad conditions have improved…>>
Right, glad you’ve seen the inside of a lab. My point is, whether or not I agree with you (which I do, I think), I am not going to take your word for it, and while your experiences with the practices and effects of animal testing may have specific relevance to you, I cannot identify with them.