It is welcome news that many airlines and ferry companies have made the compassionate decision to stop transporting animals to laboratories in the UK. Not only will this save some animals from being infected, poisoned, burned, genetically manipulated, surgically mutilated and killed in painful experiments, it could also help save human lives. That is, if scientists embrace this opportunity to use more creative and effective research methods that don't involve animals - and which will lead to real cures.
Most of those imported animals are genetically modified rodents. The media seems to always fall for the latest hype surrounding the use of animals who have been genetically modified to approximate human medical conditions. This PR always contains gee-whizz science, astonishing effects, and inflated claims about potential human benefits but ignores even a hint of the price paid by animals. Yet the outcome is always predictable: animals can never be "humanised," there will always be thousands of important differences between species, and the link to humans will remain assumed and unproven.
Like all animal tests, those performed with genetically modified animals aren't delivering. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions.
That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials.
Clinging to archaic animal experiments even seems to blind experimenters to the obvious. When PETA US experts reviewed more than 500 rodent cancer studies to assess their scientific validity according to current, internationally accepted criteria, they found that critical public-health and worker-protection measures related to cigarette smoke, asbestos, benzene and other cancer-causing substances were delayed for many years because of misplaced trust in animal tests, which could not replicate the health effects already well-documented in humans.
Medical research may now finally be able to progress into the 21st century because the British public is demanding human-relevant, modern research techniques instead of obsolete and unreliable animal tests. Sophisticated, cutting-edge techniques and technologies such as cell lines, tissue cultures, computer and mathematical modeling, clinical investigations, epidemiological research and autopsy studies are cheaper, faster and more reliable than animal tests - not to mention infinitely kinder.
Let's hope the refusal of transport companies to carry animal victims to UK laboratories causes the scientific community to rethink its psychological dependence on cruel and unreliable animal tests. Switching to advanced non-animal methods now would result in a future filled with less suffering for all species.
Peter G Tatchell: Medical Charities Are Funding Animal Experiments But They Don't Want You to Know
Animal testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing - Advocacy For Animals
Scientific Argument Against Animal Testing
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Quick guide: Animal testing
Scientist backs animal testing for cosmetics | Science | The Guardian
It's noteworthy that just today Malcolm Macleod announced a major trial of hypothermia in ischemic stroke, based on strong evidence from animal studies, see http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/03/19/hypothermia-in-stroke-eurohyp-moves-from-rats-to-man/
Of course animal research is vital to progress in many areas of 21st century medicine, from stem cells to tissue engineering, from gene therapy to monoclonal antibodies, and from brain machine interfaces to smart drugs, wherever you see new and exciting fields of medicine you will see scientists using animal research methods alongside a whole host of other techniques.
Alastair is simply wrong, and that's why the vast majority of scientists and doctors reject his agenda.
The UK public strongly supports animal research, for example a 2010 Ipsos-MORI poll found that 87% supported the use of animal in research http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/nhspublichealth/attitudestowardsanimalexperimentation.aspx
His claims about HIV vaccines are off the mark too, the vast majority of the 80 vaccines that "passed" animal tests actually showed a very weak ability to block the SIV virus and consequently were never evaluated for their ability to block HIV infection in humans. A few did block infection by the artificial SHIV virus, but that virus does not model HIV infection nearly as well as the SIV model. Research using non-human primates still has a vital role to play in the development of HIV vaccines, as the real experts in the field recognize.
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/1/aids-hiv/
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/09/29/mice-and-macaques-pave-the-way-for-effective-hiv-vaccines/
But the constant vilification of supposedly ghoulish researchers is both childish and tiresome. There are already stringent checks and limitations in place - it''s not the genocidal free for all so beloved of the more emotional campaigners, or anything like it.
I think there's another point worth making in this debate, which is that we already know how to save millions of lives but we're doing very little about it.
The people who are making money out of these experiments obviously make claims that their research could save lives, but prevention is better than cure.
Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from preventable illnesses caused by smoking and obesity.
If the money that was spent on trying to find a miracle cure was instead invested in educating people to eat a healthy diet and stop smoking, we could stop a vast amount of animal suffering and human suffering in its tracks.
It's so tempting to write off pharmaceutical companies as giant faceless corporations only interested in money, and things like animal testing as cruel and unnecessary, but the fact is that the current system generate affordable medical treatment for billions of people. That has to be worth something.
http://sumofus.org/campaigns/novartis-lawsuit/?akid=246.269143.VeH-Ut&rd=1&sub=fwd&t=2
A huge pharmaceutical company is effectively trying to prevent access to live-saving drugs for some of the most at-risk, needy people on the planet. The law they are trying to challenge does not prevent pharmaceutical companies from taking the share they earned through research and development, it is simply designed to make sure these drugs are cheap and available. The drug company in question objects to this, they clearly put profit before ethics.
But hers is an extreme case - there is clearly a huge amount of scope for people to take more responsibility for their own health, rather than expecting someone else to come up with cures for illnesses that could have been prevented. For example we all know eating 5 portions of fruit and veg a day can reduce our chances of getting cancer and heart disease, but loads of us don't bother.
If the government invested in a huge educational campaign that was also entertaining and interesting, it could drastically improve the nation's eating habits in just a few short weeks.
So healthcare becomes more expensive. Does that affect you or I that much? No, because we in our Western society are fairly well off and could adapt. The people this would affect are the worst-off - the poorest, those in the most deprived areas, those most in need of medical care and least able to pay for it.
There were an estimated 225 million cases of malaria worldwide in 2009. An estimated 655,000 people died from malaria in 2010, a decrease from the 781,000 who died in 2009 according to the World Health Organization's 2011 World Malaria Report, accounting for 2.23% of deaths worldwide. However, a 2012 meta-study from the University of Washington and University of Queensland estimates that malaria deaths are significantly higher. Published in The Lancet, the study estimates that 1,238,000 people died from malaria in 2010
"British public is demanding human-relevant, modern research techniques" - No mate, you have terrified many airlines and ferry companies so they have stopped transporting animals to laboratories in the UK, not out of compassion but out of fear.
Dont get me wrong. I dont want any animal to get hurt, but I wil say it plainly, if you have to kill a thousand rodents to save one human live, so be it.
http://www.animalscam.com/peta_7things.cfm
"PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”
Again, if a fishing fleet fishing in forbidden waters due to environmental regulations; I do condemn this activity, and hope they will be punished, but this looks more like a sect than anything else.
This propaganda method reminds me of the church of Scientology Alistair...
I'm calling shenanigans on your skin tag story, though. No doctor worth his/her medical license would treat a skin tag with any kind of pills. If he did... change your doctor.