Jun17
National Research Council: Animal Testing Is Deeply Flawed
Posted at 10:02 AM | Permalink
| 
Comments (19)
Of course, they could have just asked us. But this recent finding by the US National Research Council is very good news for animals suffering in laboratories. According to the study,
"Recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans. …The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinised, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing."
I guess research councils take longer than the rest of us to figure out that animals just don't work the same way as humans, but it's great to see that they've finally figured it out. You can read The Daily Telegraph's take on the study here, and for those of you with a more academic disposition—or just a whole lot of time on your hands—the full study is available here.
Sign the Pledge Against Animal Testing
TAGGED:
animal testing nrc
Comments
Wow! This is mind-boggling and almost unbelievable.. somebody bite me!
I cannot wait to see the implications for Europe's Chemical Testing Initiative (REACH) that deploys old and obsolete methods. Web Site:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach.htm
Over 40 million animals are set to be tortured to death despite the fact that more efficient, cheaper and faster testing methods are available today.
If you live in Europe - please email them and inform them about this paper! Email:
entr-reach@ec.europa.eu
My favorite quote from the Executive Summary is:
"Over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and
possibly even eliminated someday...
Resources are always limited, and current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. Thus, some resistance to the vision proposed by this committee is expected. However, the vision takes full advantage of current and expected scientific advances to enhance our understanding of how environmental agents can affect human health. It has the potential to greatly reduce the cost and time of testing and to lead to much broader coverage of the universe of environmental agents.
Moreover, the vision will lead to a marked reduction in animal use and focus on doses that are more relevant to those experienced by human populations . The vision for toxicity testing in the twenty-first century articulated here is a paradigm shift that will not only improve the current system but
transform it into one capable of overcoming current limitations and meeting
future challenges."
PS I: Let us not forget but forgive the past - as long as the WWF remains as flexible as the NRC? Remember: www.wickedwildlifefund.com
PS II: I love the mood and attitude of this blog - besides being informative! Good stuff - Jack!
Posted by: hugo pottisch | June 17, 2007 06:49 PM
This is off-topic, but I just saw an amazing presentation Ingrid gave against violence. You can find the video here:
http://www.peta.org/feat-nonviolence.asp
On the same page is a link to another video: Ingrid Newkirk Speaks Up for Animals.
Posted by: Michael | June 17, 2007 07:51 PM
finally, at least thats one less thing that causes animals suffering
Posted by: Scott | June 18, 2007 08:16 AM
please also check out the famous book 'the naked empress' a history of medical fraud by hans ruesch, one of the greatest anti-vivisectionists alive!
Posted by: animalfriend | June 18, 2007 01:27 PM
Please stop this horrendous cruelty towards animals.
Posted by: Kim Segal | June 18, 2007 08:21 PM
Stop the madness animals have rights too!!<3
Posted by: Mallory | June 19, 2007 06:26 PM
Ah well, rather the animals than me.
Posted by: Andrew | June 19, 2007 10:58 PM
It all revolves around "recent advances" and "potential to".
Up until recent years what choices have we had. Many owe their lives and well being to the contributions of animals(polio and other vaccines) as well as organ transplantation experiments. It's great animals won't relied upon in the future, but we can't denegrate their past usefulness with I told you so attitudes.
Posted by: rojo | June 20, 2007 10:49 AM
rojo - there are other methods than vivisection and animal experimentation; above all should more money be available for alternative methods! people spend sooooooo much money for nonsense - also big and international societies and governments! instead of funding war industry or space programs it should be urgently requested to spend the funds for alternative research programs! and there is enough literature existing regarding this subject but slowly i start to think that you are an illiterate or you want to make us believe that you don't get the thing - on every site you put a heavy shit!
Posted by: shadows | June 20, 2007 04:27 PM
The inventor of the polio vaccine, Dr. Sabin stated under oath before the US Congress, that the polio vaccine was long delayed because of misleading results in nonhuman primates: "...the work on prevention (of polio) was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."
More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. (GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985)
Methoxyflurane, Flosint, Zelmid, Momifensine, Amrinone, Clioquinol, Eralsin, Opren, Zomax, Methysergide, Isoproterenol, Suprofen, Surgam, Selacryn, Perhexiline, Domperidone, Mitoxantrone, Carbenoxalone, Clindamycin, Linomide, Eldepryl, Rezulin, and many other drugs tested successfully on animals but caused problems, sometimes lethal, with humans. Other drugs that may have greatly benefitted humans have been scrapped due to unfavorable animal results.
Posted by: Mike | June 20, 2007 04:44 PM
Andrew--that's just the point. Animal testing is flawed, therefore when people undergo whatever procedure/medication, etc, it makes THEM sick too.
Posted by: Canaduck | June 20, 2007 10:11 PM
this is just sad -- why had we become so dependent on animal tests in the first place? worse is how findings on animal tested products are usually thrown out (because they also hve to be tested humans too)
Posted by: stasya berber | June 21, 2007 02:21 PM
"Why had we become so dependent on animal tests in the first place?"
Responding to a public outcry regarding drug safety (after the Thalidomide tragedy), the U.S. Congress passed the previously unpopular Kefauver-Harris Act in October of 1962, which, among other things, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical testing to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. The FDA has interpreted these preclinical standards as a call for mandatory animal testing. This interpretation expressed the will of the bill's sponsor, Senator Estes Kefauver, but was based on a misunderstanding of the science behind drug testing. The politician mistakenly argued that thalidomide had never been tested on animals and that it was this lack of animal testing that had led to its disastrous clinical use.
In fact, extensive animal testing had failed to predict any hazards from thalidomide, and the drug was made available to doctors largely because of the existing animal data.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 08:10 PM
This is CRAZY!! Please Please Please STOP!! I wish they would use child abusers and prisioners that harm little children and murder people go thru these experiments!! HMMMM, now that is a great thought, isn't it??
Lynn, Baltimore
Posted by: Lynn | June 22, 2007 12:46 PM
Amen to Lynn from Baltimore!
Why don't they use some of these criminals that perform these terrible crimes? They deserve it and they are closer to our genetic make-up then these poor animals are (unfortunatly),but no they would rather be cruel to these defensless animals and give these criminals free health care and education!
Posted by: Tanya | June 25, 2007 06:01 PM
shadows , I don't put heavy crap on every site, just the one's that I don't feel are right. I'm sorry if it's too deep for you but we're talking about important grown up stuff. I presumed people visited this site for discussion and contemplation, not amusement.
Mike there is not doubt that many animal experiments failed to mirror human response, but what alternatives existed other than going straight to human testing, with exactly the same effects. Computer models were rudimentary at that time, if indeed they existed at all. I am no way saying animal experiments should continue if they don't have to. But they did have to in the past, at huge benefit to mankind.
Posted by: rojo | June 26, 2007 08:29 PM
STOP ANIMAL TESTING i'm doing a dabate on animal testing
Posted by: chriustian | October 22, 2007 08:21 AM
Oh how cruel why can't we leve them alone they aren't hurting anyone
Posted by: Maddison | October 22, 2007 09:55 PM
this is unbelivable... =[, sickining stuff
Posted by: Anonymous | November 28, 2007 03:12 PM