h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well from what I've read of his postings he's put that


"people in drugs research don't actually *want* to do animal research. It is very expensive, and any cheaper and more reliable way to do it would be welcome"

and

"I don't particularly like the idea of animal experiments either"

Which I take as meaning that he would rather that they didn't take place.... ie. he thinks that they should be phased out.

I agree animal models should be phased out if possible, but I have no idea how possible that will be! There is great interest in alturnatives, for one thing (to be harsh about it) they are likely to prove to be cheaper, but I don't think that they are likely to replace animals models in the near future. I think that they can for some things ie. skin tests, but not for other things, ie the affect a new drug will have on the brain, we don't even know if how the brain works ourselves in total so what chance do we have of creating a model of it?

Also any non animals models that are developed are going to have to have to be tested to show that they are as reliable as animal models. This is going to have to involve a lot of animal testing to compare it to them.

Yes that is why scienfic community wants to phase out animal research as well. they would rather that there was a better alturnative too

What you've just posted is a very good argument for devolping alturnatives and for experiements that are designed by experts.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but suspose that it is true, that there is a better non harmful alturnative, why aren't the drug companies and scientists using it?

If it was more relibale then it would reduce the risk of them getting sued if a drug did turn out of to be harmful, which would save them money.

It would also save money as a computer model does not have to be fed, cleaned out, have a license applied for before you can experiment on it.

The reason they don't is because that the alturnatives don't work as well.

half the drugs released are harmful to humans
the drugs companies lobbied to perpetuate animal testing as this meant they could release more drugs.
If animal testing did not exist they would not be able to claim that so many of them were harmless.

Almost all experimental efforts to replicate lung cancer in animals failed. This led Clarence Little, a leading animal researcher to proclaim
"The failure of many investigators ... to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, despite 50 years of trying, casts serious doubt on the cigarette-lung cancer theory."
Thus, the reliance of animal data delayed health warnings on cigarettes for decades, while in the meantime thousands of people continued to suffer and die because of lung cancer

How about Linda McCartney, who in her dying days grudgingly acknowledged that there was a role for animal testing in developing new drugs?

And don't paint me as an extremist. I don't totally support animal testing. I just view it as a necessary evil in some cases, and completely unnecessary in others. The fact that I have a more granular and differentiated approach to the topic than you does not make me your diametric opposite.

This site encapsulates my view perfectly: http://www.frame.org.uk/

"half of drugs released are unsafe" where do you get this data from? I'm not being confrountational but if you are going to get into a scientfic disscussion you need to be able to back up your arguements with scientfic eveidence.

According to a study reported in the Journal of the Americal Medical Assocation, (which was widely reported in the press as finding that "20% of all drugs are unsafe) what they found was that 10.2% of new drugs that were released from 1975 to 1999 were found to have side effects that weren't known about at the time of relase, 2% were withdrawn (that's 16 drugs) not a large proportion. (the reference for this is volume

The drugs that were found to have side effects are still in use and are saving many lives out there. Usually the effects that are found are ones on people who are takign another drug at the same time, or who are pregnant, they are not effects on everyone who takes it.

Before a drug goes on the market then it is tested on humans as well as animals! If animal testing did not exist then they would not be able to test drugs on humans to see if they were safe.

A drug goes through 5 stages before it is proved to be safe

1. laboratry work, including animal testing

2 Phase 1 trails. Giveing the drug to a small number of healthy volenteers,

3 phase 2 giving the drug to a small number of people with an illness

4 phase 3 a double blind randomised controlled trial, this is where a drug is tested to see if it is better than the existing treatment,

5 post marketing survailance. (further reports of adverse effects)

If animal testing is so bad why is it people volenteer for phase 1 trials? people hardly ever die because by the time they get to that stage they have a good idea of how it works.

Would you volenteer to be the first person to take a drug that had never been tested on animals?

hey, everyone. For the third time lets end the debate and move it into the cww where we can make a nice unbiased entry which we all agree reflects everyones views. Right? Right. For anyone provided with extra stress due to this now I'm unsubcribing. If you want to continue this then go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F57152?thread=229367 Ok.... see ya there? ...