MySpace Layouts
The
Alternatives
Brought to you by Violence-Free Science
www.myspace.com/violencefreescience
[see original source]
The Failings of Animal Experiments
The British Medical Journal - a scienfitic journal publication aimed at doctors and scientists, have published independant reviews into the reliability of animal experiments and their relation to human medicine.
A recent 2006 document, which can be seen in full by clicking here , openly looks at the relevance of animal tests when compared to human clinical trials. Their conclusion was summed up as follows:
In the past, cigarettes, abstestos and Thalidomide were all released onto the market after 'safety' tests on animals, all of which proved to be totally safe. Beagle dogs were made to smoke cigarettes in experiments and never once developed cancer; in the same way Thalidomide experiments proved no problems in animals but later went on to deform over 12,000 babies and abstestos caused cancer.
Cancer has been cured literally thousands of times in the mouse, yet cancer rates are increasing - and no actual cure for cancer has been found. Scientists are, rightfully so, pointing out that this is because the data from animal studies cannot be applied to humans.More recently, the six people who became seriously ill in Northwick Park hospital in London after taking part in a trial for a new prototype anti-inflammatory drug known as TGN1412 are a good example of the failing of animal experiments. The drug was indeed tested on animals - furthermore, the animals that were tested on did not even carry the protein that the drug even affected.
So while the animals were given a dosage of the drug hundreds of times in strength, they still did not demonstrate any negative reaction to the drug. For more information about this case, click here .
If you were asked what the fourth biggest killer was in the UK - you may think of something like cancer, road accidents or disease. Yet it is, in fact, side effects from the very drugs that are meant to be saving people in the first place. Hundreds of drugs are released onto the market and are then withdrawn after causing unforseen effects in people - such as the recent examples of Opren and Seroxat. Click here for more information about drug disasters.
If animal testing is so unreliable, why are we still using it?
In a word: money. Researchers get grants to conduct research on animals - something seen here at Sussex University, where the experiments are funded by big businesses (such as GlaxoSmithKline), research charities (such as Wellcome Trust) and taxpayers.
Animal testing is a multi-billion pound industry that not only pays the wages of many people, but allows drug companies to remain competitive when bringing out new drugs onto the market before anyone else.
The animal model can pretty much allow results any way the researcher wants, allowing drugs to get onto the market with relative ease. Sadly, a result of this poor testing is the unforseen side effects - the British Medical Association announced that at least 250,000 people are hospitalised every year as a result of adverse drug reactions. An earlier survey announced that the death toll could be as high as 10,000. This is because, put simply, the results from animals cannot be transferred to humans - especially considering less than 2% of human illnesses are ever seen in animals in the first place. As stated by the former scientific executive of Europe's biggest animal testing facility, "animal tests and human results agree only 5%-25% of the time". Looking at this figure, technically flipping a coin would be more of a likely option.
The Alternatives
- Microdosing- DNA chips- Microfluidics chips- Human Tissue- Computer modelling- Epidemiology- Stem cell research- New imaging technologies- Post-Marketing Drug Surveillance- Clinical research[click here for a longer list with explanations]
If you think animal experiments are necessary consider the following:Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.As one researcher points out, "the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."
What is HLS?
Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world and the largest animal testing facility in all of Europe.
What is a CRO (Contract Research Organization)?
A CRO, or Contract Research Organization is a lab whose business comes from contractual work from other pharmaceutical and chemical companies. They do not develop products or research disease and treatment; they test products. As a CRO HLS will test any product on any animal for any company that has enough money to pay them to do so.
How long has HLS been in existence?
HLS has been open and killing animals since 1952. The lab will celebrate its 50th Birthday December 1, 2002.
Where is HLS located?
HLS has 3 facilities: two in England and one in America.
Its main site is Huntingdon Research Center:
Huntingdon Life Sciences
Woolley Road
Alconbury
Huntingdon
Cambridgeshire
PE28 4HS
Phone (from the U.S.): 011 44 1480 892 000
Fax (from the U.S.): 011 44 1480 892 205
Email: [email protected]
HLS also runs a Research Center in Eye, England:
Huntingdon Life Sciences' Eye Research
Barric Lane
Occold
Suffolk
IP23 7PX
Fax (from the U.S.): 011 44 1379 672291
HLS’s only U.S. site is in New Jersey. Called the “Princeton Research Center†in an effort to associate itself with the prestige of Princeton, this facility is actually located 30 minutes north of Princeton in East Millstone, near New Brunswick in Central New Jersey:
HLS Inc.
P.O. Box 2360
Mettlers Road
East Millstone, NJ 08875-2360
Phone: (732) 873-2550
Fax: (732) 873-8513)
How many animals does HLS use?
HLS kills approximately 180,000 animals every year, or 500 per day. Average numbers of specific animals are as follows (yearly):
Dogs (2600);
Cats (400);
Rodents (132,894);
Rabbits (5106);
Fish (10,300);
Birds (7800);
Primates (1700);
other animals (19200).
These figures were obtained by averaging out the number of animals listed in USDA reports and other published reports from other overseers and government regulatory agents, over the past few years.
It is estimated that, at any one time, there are 70,000 animals imprisoned at HLS waiting to die.
What kinds of animals do they use?
As a contract lab, HLS uses whatever animal(s) they are instructed to by the customer contracting the experiment. These include dogs, cats, rats, mice, rabbits, fish, birds, non-human primates, and “farm animals.â€
When using dogs, labs, including HLS, often use Beagles as they are very passive and unwilling to bite. Their docile nature decreases resistance to the process of shoving tubes down their throats, restraining them, etc. (We’d like them to use a Pit-Bull and see how far they get.)
What products does HLS test?
HLS tests whatever they are hired to test. They provide full development programs to get agrochemicals onto the market (such as pesticides, herbicides, weed-killers, fertilizers, etc.).
They also test household products such as detergents, tanning lotions, diet pills, food wrapping plastic, coffee sweeteners, some pharmaceuticals etc. Viagra was tested at HLS, as was Olestra, a fat-free “oil†that was found safe in animal tests at HLS but caused anal leakage in humans.
HLS also experiments with the controversial genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and has performed Xenotransplantation experiments. Check out the largest leak ever of documents about a confidential experiment here
What laws exist to protect laboratory animals?
Laws protecting “laboratory animals†are very limited in the U.S. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the most commonly cited legal protection given to animals in labs. However, the AWA is not an provision designed specifically for “lab animals.†It is designed to provide (minimal) protection for all animals, as defined by the Act as, â€â€¦any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes or as a pet; but such term excludes horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.â€
Additionally, the AWA merely regulates adequate food, water, housing, exercise, and veterinary care; it places no restrictions whatsoever on what can be done to animals during actual experiments. The following provision ensures this: “Nothing in these rules, regulations, or standards shall affect or interfere with the design, outline, or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility.â€
Furthermore, under the Animal Welfare Act rats, mice, birds, fish, and farm animals (which comprise 85-90% of the animals used in “research†are not considered animals and hence are not afforded even the minimal protection of the AWA.
Beyond the Animal Welfare Act, animals in laboratories are also afforded the “protection†of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, or IACUCs. Institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes are required by Federal law to establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to ‘oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program,‘ (www.IACUC.org). In actuality IACUCs are rubber stamp committees comprised of vivisectors from the institution conducting the research. In fact, Federal law requires that only one member of an institution’s IACUC must be an individual not officially affiliated with the institution; no laws exist requiring that any IACUC member not be an animal researcher her/himself. Hence, the “protection†afforded to animals via IACUC’s is merely a cycle of vivisectors rubberstamping vivisectors.
Who are HLS's customers?
HLS is a contract lab and, hence, will test any product on any animal for any reason for any company who has enough money to pay them. However, there are some companies known to be regular customers of HLS. Information on HLS's customers is known largely from documents released during the undercover investigations inside HLS. Click here for a listing.How can I be sure that I'm not supporting HLS? What products can I boycott?
Because HLS is a CRO, any company can hire HLS to test its products, and HLS's customers have included some of the largest pharmaceutical, chemical, and cosmetic companies in the world. The only way to ensure that you are not using products that were tested at HLS is to boycott all companies that test on animals. You can get a list of companies that do not test on animals by contacting:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) offers a regularly updated, wallet sized shopping guide to companies and products that are not tested on animals. Contact them at: PeTA, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA, 23510, 757.622.PETA. Click here for their webpage.
SHAC USA is not affiliated in any way with PeTA
By boycotting companies that test on animals, you not only ensure that your money is not going to HLS, but also that your dollars are not being used by *any* company to experiment on animals.
Where can I get a list of companies that don't test on animals?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) offers a regularly updated, wallet sized shopping guide to companies and products that are not tested on animals. Contact them at: PeTA, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA, 23510, 757.622.PETA
SHAC USA is not affiliated in any way with PeTA
Isn't animal testing necessary for scientific and medical progress?
In a word, no. In more words…while there seems to be general consensus among the public and the press that progress in human medicine is reliant upon animal testing, such consensus does not exist in the scientific community.
SHAC has teamed up with two doctor/researcher organizations who oppose animal research based on the belief that it is harmful to humans. These groups are Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).
Scientists and M.D.'s from these organizations - many of them former animal researchers - argue that the cellular differences between species (not only between humans and non-humans, but among different species of non-human animals) are too great to extrapolate experimental results from one species and apply it to another. They cite examples where the predictions of animal research have been devastatingly wrong, the differing behavior between species in reacting to chemicals and experimental procedures, and ask the question, 'how can we know in advance which animal will behave most like the human in a particular experiment.'
Examples include: Thalidomide, which was tested safely on animals but caused horrendous birth defects in humans. Olestra, which was tested safely on animals AT HLS but caused anal leakage in humans. Acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) kills cats - had Tylenol been tested on cats, we'd not have it today. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. This list goes on extensively, as 80% of all drugs that pass animal tests fail the first time humans are exposed to them. Find more examples listed here.
The perceived consensus supporting animal research comes largely from PR firms that work tirelessly to *create* this consensus. They manufacture and advertise support for animal research, but abandon critical debate and lack cogent scientific arguments. Additionally, they shy away from offers to debate scientists opposed to animal research. Americans for Medical Progress is one of the largest of these PR firms. But sometimes, the animal research community. A quote by the head of the National Cancer Institute demonstrates what is revealed when those who profit from animal research slip up. Dr. Richard Klausner stated in the Los Angeles Times, May 1998, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." This is just one in a long line of telling statements from the other side.
While SHAC agrees that animal research is unscientific and harmful to humans, we are not scientists and do not have the expertise or background to do the scientific arguments against animal research justice. We suggest you contact AFMA and/or PCRM and speak directly with M.D.'s and scientists to fully understand these arguments. They can also direct you to primary and secondary resources if you are interested in books that make this argument or further research.
What are the ethical arguments against animal testing?
Ethical arguments against animal testing are numerous and lengthy. Many of them rest on an argument against 'speciesism'. Speciesism is defined as 'a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species and against those of another.' Compared to other "-isms" such as racism and sexism, the argument follows that species, much like race or gender, is not a relevant characteristic when deciding whether it is morally right to violate the interests of one group for the benefit (or perceived benefit) of another.
Endless distinctions are drawn between humans and non-humans in an attempt to find a relevant characteristic that differentiates "us" from "them" and justifies using non-humans for human gain. However, each of them ultimately rests on speciesism.
Perhaps the most common reasoning put forth justifying the use of animals for human gain is that of superior intelligence: humans are more intelligent than non-humans and therefore humans are justified in using animals for human ends. However, imagine a mentally retarded human being with an intelligence level at or below that of a non-human animal-for example a chimpanzee. Based on intelligence these two individuals are equal. Why then is it permissible to use the chimpanzee to test oven cleaner and not the human? Our opponent will undoubtedly respond, "because the mentally retarded individual is human and the chimpanzee is not," revealing that it is in fact species and not intelligence that is the differentiating characteristic. We will respond, "why is species relevant? How is it more relevant/different than race or gender?" The answer is always, "because species is entirely different than race or gender." The critical thinker will see that this answer begs the question and merely repeats the assertion in order to justify it. Boiled down this argument merely says, "species is different than race or gender because species is completely different than race or gender."
Additionally, in suggesting that animals are somehow lesser than humans because they are less intelligent assumes that high intelligence is necessarily a good thing. "Mental intelligence alone is value-neutral. It can function for evil or good. Intelligent minds carefully planned the extermination of millions of people in the bloody excesses of the 20th Century-proving in the most extreme way that intellect alone can be horrifying cold ... The mind is a great tool, capable of astounding leaps of comprehension and calculation. But like any tool, the service to which it's put is determined by the intent of the user," (Jeff Cox, source unknown). It seems foolish to say that all humans are justified in causing great suffering to all animals simply because "humans are more intelligent than animals." A high level of intelligence does not necessarily make an individual morally superior to an individual with a lower level of intelligence.
Other criteria, such as the human ability to speak, to reason, use tools, create art, or to have meaningful relationships, can also be boiled down to speciesism and shown to be value-neutral (additionally, there are arguments that claim non-humans do have meaningful relationships, use tools, communicate in ways that parallel human speech, etc.) To claim it is acceptable to use a chimpanzee, but not a human for human gain because the chimp is an animal and the human is a human, is no different than saying that a white person is superior to a black person because he/she is white while the other is black. The characteristics considered are not relevant to the question at hand.
In order to justify using one group for the needs of another group, we must find and isolate a characteristic that, when all other characteristics are the same, the chosen characteristic (a) provides both a clear difference between the two groups and (b) that that difference justifies exploitation. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, writing in 1789 in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation wrote, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer," (147). As Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation, "If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration," (8). When determining the moral worth of animal lives versus human lives, we must ask that at the bear minimum that the characteristics considered are relevant to the question being asked.
Others waste no time searching for criteria that draws a discerning line between humans and non-humans but simply believe the gains animal testing affords (which are questionable to begin with. See question #24) justify the practice in and of themselves. Beyond being a "might makes right" philosophy, this belief is a slippery slope towards justifying exactly what it is trying to prevent - testing on humans. Playwright George Bernard Shaw sums up the moral dilemma with the following statement:
[O]nce you grant the ethics of the vivisectionists and you not only sanction the experiment on the human subject, but make it the first duty of the
vivisector. If a guinea pig may be sacrificed for the sake of the very little that can be learnt from it, shall not a man be sacrificed for the sake of the great deal that can learnt from him? - George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma (1950)
For a more in depth inquiry check out the following books: The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan and Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. Both are good starting places for an exploration of the ethical arguments against animal testing.
[email protected]