See? This backs up what I had been saying before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first experiment is used to prevent people from becoming paralyzed after a spinal cord injury.

Now, I saw dozens of neck and spine injuries in cats, rabbits, dogs etc etc. These young precious pets were destroyed at the clinics where I worked.

Why couldn't we test this procedure on companions who will otherwise have to be put to sleep? It could count as an experiment so the owners would not have to pay an arm and a leg, and young, healthy pets can be saved.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 18, 2008 11:21 AM

ps These experiments are disgusting. All of them.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 18, 2008 11:28 AM

These deranged sadists are WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS, wasting money and time that could actually go toward helping people.

They just do the same useless, pointless things over and over again and CASH THEIR CHECKS

Useless people that could never succeeed in the real world. Well, the universities let them hide out there.

Posted by: kelly | March 18, 2008 11:32 AM

Arthur Weber is a piece of junk; all of these sickos are sadists and belong in jail. But what is even more horrifying are the idiot members of the public that defend these abominations as being necessary to help humans. How stupid is the average member of society that could possibly believe these atrocities benefit the health of anyone ? The vivisectors are the ones making $$$ money from inflicting agonizing pain on these helpless creatures. Wake up America, these experiments are cruel, violent, unnecessary and useless!!!

Posted by: Ana | March 18, 2008 12:07 PM

Ugh, how can I even choose? These are all disgusting.

Posted by: Canaduck | March 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Its never will end until these mother F_ _ K _ _ S begin to pay with their lives for these hideous crimes against animals. All must be equal in being total bastards.

Posted by: keith | March 18, 2008 01:58 PM

MY GOD THAT ARTHUR GUY IS PSYCHOTIC!!
Zombie Army? *tisk* *tisk* Scientist these days...
Sounds like a horror movie.

Posted by: Harley | March 18, 2008 02:23 PM

It's hard to choose just one face off!! Down with all the wastes' of society who call themselves "vivisectors"! How can they do this day in and day out and not feel some remorse and move on to better themselves and others at being more productive in life, ya know like doing something with meaning! You know how? It's called "SOULESS" and they walk the streets amoung us everyday. Putting on a brave face and doing nothing more for us "humans" then I would do spitting!! There are alternatives that benefit "us" if need be instead of using living, breathing, feeling beings! WHAT a waste in all aspects of the word!!

Posted by: Carla | March 18, 2008 03:45 PM

It's a "publish or perish" type of industry and rather than devising useful, but perhaps more time-consuming, human studies, they lazily take the easy way out and just torture animals. They publish their paper and then move on to the next batch of innocent animals, pocketing money all along the way.

Any one of us could easily invent some kind of cruel animal experiment in 5 minutes. If they weren't such lazy and sick sadists they would use their "brainpower" for humanity's good without the animal world having to pay the freight.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 18, 2008 03:47 PM

Maya, well, whilst your idea may be good for the animals it will not make animal testing anymore reliable.

We need to move to non-animal methods:

http://www.curedisease.net/

Posted by: Aran | March 18, 2008 03:56 PM

Hi Aran!

What an interesting site you pointed out - thank you for that!

I agree that there are many alternative methods that should be explored, however complimentary therapies like glocosamine, herbs etc are being largely ignored by the scientific community.

In addition, computer models and lab cells cannot tell us how they would recover as a whole being after surgery.

A dog or cat in the hands of a loving owner, recovering at home will give us an idea of pain management, mobility, etc. There are advantages to using companion animals.

I'm not saying they should be guinea pigs, just that it's already being done, why not use the info?

;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 18, 2008 04:20 PM

And they look so normal!! I gotta do me some thinking before I casts my vote.

Posted by: lynda downie | March 19, 2008 12:35 AM

I know that some people will do just about anything for money, but these people top the list. The NIH is just as bad, funding them for torture, which is all this is. At a time when local governments are scrounging to find money to pay for basic services like education, we spend tax dollars on this? Just goes to show the power of the pharmaceutical corporations.

Posted by: Patricia Panitz | March 19, 2008 12:35 AM

I cannot even read through all of the "entries", because these sick bastards are causing such horrific trauma to these animals. What a bunch of fucking psychopaths!

Posted by: Michele | March 19, 2008 10:34 AM

Thank you so much for the "Cheat Sheet". I learned a lot of things that I never wanted to, but NEEDED to know.

I think I will find it impossible to vote, though. How can I choose the greater evil? How can I choose between the life of a monkey or the life of a rat? The life of a rabbit or a rat? A monkey or a dog? You get the idea.

All animals are equal, and all of these animal-torturers are equally wrong!

Posted by: Jazz | March 19, 2008 11:00 AM

I agree!!!

Posted by: Ana | March 19, 2008 12:36 PM

These people are monsters.
The top ones that hurt the dogs and cats were my husband and my choice.
Although they all should die for the cruelty that these bastards are showing our youth of today. My husband and I say Patrick and Authur should go straigh to HELL.
You horrible bastards.
Thanks Jack, for not posting the other post, but my mind has not changed.
Judith
I can't believe our taxes are paying for these fuckers.
Judith
Peace!!!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | March 19, 2008 02:57 PM

They are taking our children and teaching them cruelty.
How many of these kids will have scars?
I am afraid of the young ones when at one huge time I absolutely loved these kids.
What kind of hope do we have?
Please tell me,Please tell me.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | March 19, 2008 04:30 PM

I have said it before..and will say it again..''Peta you really have to become more aggressive with your efforts towards these cretins and Universities., otherwise I can see your donations will begin to dry up ( mine included ) as people become more and more disafected with your inertia.''

Posted by: keith | March 19, 2008 06:31 PM

This is classic crazy from PeTA again. Any time I need a laugh I can count on you nutters. These laboratory animals (purpose bred for research) are our KIDS? Dogs & cats have more rights than rats? Every time I teach a college course that includes animal research I only have to show the crazy coming out of this website and they instantly shake their heads. Taking a large sample of junior/senior college students (it's over 800 now), I've only ever had 1 who was not convinced that the folks @ PeTA were not, at least, hypocrites, at most, lunatics. But ALL of them agree that if rats could use humans in some way to extend their lifespan & ability to reproduce, then they would do so without hesitation. If there can be no contract or reciprocity, there are no rights.

Someone posted that the researchers looked really normal. Thanks to them and their predecessors, you'll have about 25 years more lifespan to consider that tidbit. We humans are lucky to be able to consider the humanity and ethics of animal treatment -- thanks in large part to these 'barbarians'.

Posted by: Monkey Boy | March 20, 2008 10:01 AM

I commented the other day on this post, and there was nothing offensive in my comments, and they were not posted. In fact, this is about the 10th comment I have made on this blog that has never been posted.

Why do I bother to post if they are never approved?

I post every day on the PETA Forums, but obviously your blog doesn't seem to be interested in any of my comments.

Posted by: Glen Venezio | March 20, 2008 12:27 PM

Monkey boy,

I just have to ask, under what insane circumstances is it relevant to show the PETA site in a college classroom? Quite frankly it sounds unbecoming of college professor.

After I earn my graduate degree, and if I teach, I would not find it appropriate in any way to teach a science course and show a website that sways people politically or in any activist manner. It's biased.

Sure we may discuss ethics, but with the assumption that the professor is not pushing for one side or the other, which you are.

Do you not think that any scientist working to cure diseases and relieve suffering should do it for the right reasons, not for money or fame?

Then you would know as a scientist that non-human animals can suffer under laboratory circumstances and at the very least you should keep your opinion out of it, if you refues to acknowledge that some beings may deserve some sympathy for their sacrifice.

I'm not trying to come across as a bitch, it just seems like you're not in the least bit concerned about the real issue here: empathy for lab animals.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 20, 2008 02:21 PM

Monkey Boy,

Extending OUR lives by 25 years? A majority of current medical therapies (other than overused antibiotics) are aimed at treating the results of poor lifestyle decisions (smoking, unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, etc.), and of little use to those that care about their bodies and health.

Yes, there are familial traits that predispose people to such conditions as high cholesterol, certain types of cancers, Type I diabetes, cystic fibrosis, etc. that require medical intervention, but a substantial number of pharmaceutical therapies are aimed at covering up or providing a fix for a self-induced condition.

I have not looked extensively into research practices, including potentially viable non-animal based models to argue on this point specifically, but there is a need for humane practices (which are often lacking - when one of my friends was a research assistant, he used to "pop" a rat's eye out of its socket in order to draw blood!).

By the way, unless you are teaching an elective media class, there is a strong possibility that "polling" students in an obviously biased manner would represent a potential ehtical violation, or at the very least, abuse (who is going to disagree with the person giving out their grade?).

I guess I will just be brushed off as some "nutters" (is that a term they are teaching college professors to use these days?), but I am confident that my scientific and medical knowledge is sufficient to support my claims.

Posted by: Derek | March 20, 2008 05:11 PM

Just reading about and entering into the world of these people takes us to a kind of hell on earth. There is no horror book or film that compares to the unspeakable torture these animals are forced to endure. The complete lack of empathy for our fellow creatures shown by these people is shocking and in a better world they would never be allowed to get within one foot of any animal.

Posted by: Maureen | March 20, 2008 07:09 PM

Maya,
You are absolutely Brilliant!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | March 20, 2008 08:52 PM

Monkey Boy: Actually, thanks to these people and their predecessors, we have become a nation that depends on drugs we do not need but which make pharma companies a great deal of money. If you want to add 25 years to your life, EAT RIGHT AND EXERCISE. It disgusts me that we torment and kill these innocent animals to "save the lives" of lazy human beings that won't make even the most minimal of efforts to save their own. If you want to eat like a glutton and sit around and do nothing and subsequently develop heart disease, diabetes, whatever, that is YOUR fault. If you smoke and develop cancer, that is YOUR fault. If you die as a result, that is YOUR fault. No animal life should be taken to save a body you were too lazy to take proper care of in the first place.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 21, 2008 09:11 AM

Monkey Boy,

I doubt very much you've ever taught animal research—you don't seem to know much about it.

Have you ever heard of Vioxx? Most analysts have put worldwide deaths from Vioxx adverse drug reactions to be somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 200,000. This is a drug that passed animal tests, but doesn't appear to be much of a boon to mankind.

"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADR) are not very serious, others cause the death, hospitalization, or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year, including more than 100,000 fatalities. In fact, adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States." (Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association Apr 15, 1998; 279: 1200 - 1205.)"

Once again, all the drugs above that caused such carnage and human suffering passed animal tests with flying colors.

If you can't name at least 10 effective non-animal research modalities, then you've got a lot to learn.

If you don't want to use the PETA website to educate yourself, then go elsewhere.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 21, 2008 10:29 AM

U-C-O-N-N

UConn! UConn! UConn!!!

Posted by: Mike | March 21, 2008 11:01 AM

Thank you, Judith! ;)
Namaste!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 21, 2008 11:08 AM

First and foremost, scientists are NOT doing their research for the money. Anyone who gets a job working as a professor at a major research institution could be making 2-3x as much in industry or medicine. They are doing it to make human lives better (and often the treatments developed can also be used to treat sick animals).

Antigone, if eating right and exercising were all that was necessary to live a long life, why did our ancestors (who did not eat the high fat diets, and worked much harder physically) live 25, 30, 40 years less than we currently do?

Also, I find the fact that you blame the obese, smokers, etc. for the diseases that they later contract. This kind of attitude is NOT respect for life in any way. Try a little forgiveness for people who were unfortunate enough to get into these situations; not all of them knew the consequences of their actions.

Additionally, science has provided treatments and cures for a multitude of illnesses that have little to no relationship to "poor choices." Treatments for diabetes, polio, malaria, TB, heart disease, cancer and NUMEROUS others have been developed with the aid of animal models.

I do agree that it is important to give the animal the most comfortable home possible, and to use the least painful procedures when animal testing; in addition to being humane, it makes for better science, with more believable results. As scientists we should respect the lives lost in each study and always weigh the cost vs. benefit. That said, I believe almost all of you would personally kill an animal to save your life, whether it was a research subject to treat your cancer or a source of calories to nourish you during a time of starvation.

Furthermore, if you would NOT do such a thing, you are very lucky to live in a time where natural selection does not occur to the same extent as it did 300 years ago, and should appreciate the scientists that have made your animal-free lifestyle possible.

Posted by: pragmatist | March 21, 2008 12:18 PM

As a student at Purdue University, I think it is hilarious that you all do not realize that these experiments are used not for the main purpose of torturing animals, but in order to further benefit and lengthen human life. Have you ever used insulin as a diabetic?? Many of you do not realize that the drugs you keep in your medicine cabinets were founded using animal studies. Perhaps you should stick to your liberal arts majors and keep watching the E channel. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Thomas | March 21, 2008 12:23 PM

Pragmatist and Thomas,

Because of the thalidomide tragedy, the U.S. Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Act in October of 1962, which, among other things, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical animal testing to ostensibly guarantee their safety and effectiveness for humans—this Act created the basis for animal testing in the USA. How much the animal tests actually "aided" the research is questionable, particularly since drugs like penicillin would have been shelved if animal-tested today. Obviously, in light of the Vioxx tragedy (150,000-200,000 human deaths), animal drug testing has been not only of minimal value, but actually detrimental to humans.

If thalidomide was tested on animals today, for its original purpose of alleviating morning sickness, it would pass, since originally, of all the animals tested, only New Zealand White rabbits shared the same tragic side-effects that humans suffered.

Cancers have actually been cured in mice, but the findings were ineffective in humans.

There are many non-animal methodologies (pharmacogenomics, epidemiology, clinical research, microdosing, DNA chips, computer modeling, autopsies and biopsies, microfluidic circuits, post-marketing surveillance, noninvasive imaging devices such as CAT, MRI, PET and SPECT scans, in vitro cell and tissue cultures, and more) that give much more accurate predictability for human use than out-dated animal tests.

Why do they do it?

(To plagiarize myself...) It's a "publish or perish" type of industry and rather than devising useful, but perhaps more time-consuming, human studies, they lazily take the easy way out and just torture animals. They publish their paper and then move on to the next batch of innocent animals, pocketing money all along the way.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 21, 2008 03:43 PM

Pragmatist. The one great factor that we live longer than our ancestors is the resource of clean drinking water., and good sanitation. Apology thats Two.

Posted by: keith | March 21, 2008 03:52 PM

Keith,
I'm in your corner.
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | March 21, 2008 04:28 PM

I think you are right about other procedures being available, but I think your last paragraph is a little bit of an oversimplification. I do not think the people who started this post were completely honest about the experiments either, using them to incite unneeded rage against researchers who are just trying to make things better for people, not "take the easy way out and just torture animals." We both know that's not true, they wouldn't work as hard for their PhD's if they always wanted the easy way out. It also makes me sick that people are wishing death upon them... come on. Michael Vick and experimental research are completely different... let the crazies stick to Michael Vick. No one should have anything like that wished upon them.

Posted by: Thomas | March 21, 2008 04:33 PM

Mike Quinoa:

You are right regarding the way in which animal testing was mandated in the US, as well as the Vioxx tragedy. However, I would to like to point out a very simple flaw in your thinking. You are trying to insinuate that animal testing needs to be 100% in order to provide value, and that if you can show where it has flaws, then it must go away completely. However, science is not like religion or the majority of politics these days. It is not an all or nothing endevour. Just because you can site times when it has not worked, does not mean that there aren't other times when it has proved to be invaluable. While the cures of cancer in mice did not directely translate to humans, it did provide a means to better understand the disease, and hopefully use that gained knowledge to find a cure for humans. Why didn't it work for us? Why did it work for them? Can we replicate the difference in mice that allowed it to work for them? I'm sure you get the picture.

There are many other alternatives to animal testing, and many of them are used extensively. However, there are times when animal testing can provide invaluable information to us. Animals should be treated as humanly as possible, but it simply comes down to which live to place more value on; that of a human or that of an animal. Without the tests on animals, we would not have insulin. High memembers of PETA would not be alive today if they did not have this medicine. Are there lives worth more than the animals that are used to provide them with the means to live? I'd say yes. I'm all for watch guarding these people to ensure they are not violating basic humane standards, but to throw it all out the window is an unjustifable position.

Posted by: Simpleton | March 21, 2008 05:01 PM

Quinoa,

The Vioxx tragedy is awful, but it is not the fault of animal researchers, but of greedy drug companies who push their drugs through clinical trials before all of the effects can be studied. Many of the effects of Vioxx were results of prolonged use (read: several years), time that the drug companies are unwilling to sacrifice (especially when they can make a profit).

Animal research is extremely useful in determining if a treatment has *any* effect; following animal testing, if a drug shows few negative side effects, and quite a benefit in animals, responsible scientists then put them to the test in humans.

Many of these effects are *impossible* to study via the other methods you have stated, as they are either correlational, or they are indirect measures of phenomenon. One of the best imaging techniques, functional MRI (fMRI) measures oxygenation, which indicates increased blood flow, which indicates higher activity in the general vicinity. Neither fMRI or PET are particularly clear images, so not much can be interpreted from those data.

I believe that these techniques will improve with time, and that we will develop more techniques to either use fewer animals, or in some cases eliminate animal testing altogether, and I do think it is a good goal to have. One of the beautiful things about science is that its very nature is self-correcting.

The fact of the matter is that these [animal-free] technologies are in their infancy, and it will take time for them to become viable alternatives.

So, PETA, if you really want to help eliminate animal research, you will stop the sensationalist BS and start pouring your money towards developing alternative techniques that are as scientifically sound as animal testing. You would actually become a USEFUL organization!

If you started doing things that ACTUALLY mattered rather than spending all of your time criticizing, I would join your group. I am not pro-cruelty, but I would like to live a long, healthy life with my family and friends (and some 40 year old dogs and cats, once the research moves toward veterinary care) around me.

Posted by: pragmatist | March 21, 2008 08:42 PM

Monkey boy
I'm the one who made the sarcastic comment about these vivisectors looking normal.
Even granting the benefits of animal experiments (which is contestable)I think anyone who can look in the eyes of an innocent animal, who is filled with heart pounding terror and yet intentionally inflict raw, undiluted pain on him/her is abnormal. Were this emotional detachment of vivisectors directed to humans, they'd be locked up in an insane asylum.
As to being thankful, all of humanity owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the victims of vivisection, and scientists dedicated to finding alternatives to animal experimentation.

Posted by: lynda downie | March 22, 2008 01:00 AM

The website www.curedisease.com is STILL not well-known by activists around the world. It is completely scientific without animal-ethics concerns. The info. on this cite will 100% disprove people who think animal-experimenting is helpfull, it should be required reading for ALL who are concerned about saving people and animals.

Posted by: Gerry | March 22, 2008 02:42 PM

I believe in the ethical treatment of animals.

That being said, I know from experience that animal testing IS a necessity in the medical industry. For example, behavioral tests cannot be performed on humans in every situation. If they were to be performed on humans, which humans would be volunteering? Should we go back to the days where prison inmates were the subjects of research - or perhaps to the Nazi days where they used an entire race of people? How can we advance as a society and continue to improve our lifestyles without the help of scientists? This cannot be done solely with diet and exercise. There are many genetic links to disease and you cannot diet away your genetics. Yes, some of the tests can be performed using other methods than animal studies, but they cannot all be done in this manner. If scientists use "genetically engineered" animal models, that means that previous experiments have proven that a particular disease or affliction is genetic. How do you think that was discovered? Do you think they can just randomly do experiments on people? Are you suggesting that this would be a better alternative than to breed mice or rats in order to test these theories? For example, why don't we all go back 30 years to the point where alcoholism was considered to be a matter of choice or a lack of willpower. By developing these genetically engineered models, the stigma has finally changed to reveal that alcoholism is actually genetic to a large degree. With this information, alcoholism has come to be known as a disease, and alcoholics are finally being treated the way they should be - with respect and concern - rather than as someone we should push under the rug or think of as a low life. If you can't understand this, then you must be one of the lucky people whose family is not touched by alcoholism or addiction. There aren't many of those families around unfortunately. With the aid of this research, hopefully this will not be the case for future generations, because people will be helped before they are allowed to drink or use drugs to the point where they can no longer be helped.

As far as all the money these researchers are making - you all should take a closer look at the facts. Research doctors stay in their fields because they feel they can make human life better in the years to come. It has nothing to do with the money - or any fame they could achieve by publishing. This is done despite being attacked by fanatics such as yourself, and for very little pay. If you rationally look at the amount of schooling, in addition to the hours spent working toward a positive outcome, the compare it to the salaries received, you would realize that the researchers are actually underpaid for their work. Research doctors are our life blood. If you think otherwise, I hope you never need medical help for a disease that is currently being researched.

Posted by: editor | March 22, 2008 06:34 PM

Pragmatist: People in this day and age in this country know full well the cause of their actions and I absolutely do blame the smokers and unhealthy people for the diseases they contract as a result of the smoking and unhealthy lifestyle. They should be blamed. We are a country where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore. If they are not willing to take responsibility for themselves, no animals should die for them and my insurance rates should not increase to provide their drugs and whatever else they suddenly "need." I'll agree to let insurance pay for their gym memberships, how is that? Although there ARE diseases that people do not cause, if we take the ones we cause ourselves out of the mix, we would be a much healthier nation. (Not that I would justify animal research for ANY reason, however.)

As for why we live longer these days--because our lives are easier!! Most people have modern conveniences that they didn't have years ago. We are making a huge mistake if we let ourselves believe that we need the vast amount of drugs being prescribed these days.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 22, 2008 06:43 PM

Simpleton,

Animal testing is no more accurate than the flip of a coin as regards predictability in humans. If animals always responded to drugs in a diametrically opposite fashion to humans, then you would have predictability, and something useful. But animal tests sometimes correlate with human results, and sometimes not, thus providing nothing of worthwhile value in the prediction of drug safety or efficacy for humans

The thrust of future research has to be in the field of personalized medicine, since, regardless of what animal tests "determine", we all vary in our genetic makeup, and thus in our individual reaction to a given drug.

I don't expect animal testing to be 100%, but when it's retrospectively 50%, or equal to the flip of a coin, and methodologies such as in vitro testing can provide 80% accuracy, it becomes a no-brainer.

As far as cancer and the mouse are concerned:

"Lab Animal magazine admits: Mice are actually poor models of the
majority of human cancers."

"Leading cancer researcher Robert
Weinberg has commented: The preclinical [animal] models of
human cancer, in large part, stink."

You said, "It simply comes down to which life to place more value on; that of a human or that of an animal." If you truly believe human life has more value, then you should be promoting the use and development of non-animal, human-based tests, which will provide the maximum benefit to our species, with the minimum of risk.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 24, 2008 11:03 AM

I have been to an experimental lab, it was part of my rotation as a vet tech. I know that experimentors are not monsters. However, it was clear to me that, especially if they were kindhearted, they ***had*** to put themselves in at least a minor state of denial in order to treat the animals the way they did.

Again, they are not monsters. But the animals were put through painful procedures, and were not allowed to have a humane enclosure and were not allowed to have toys. As vet techs, we knew that this setup was inhumane.

When we asked why they could not have a better enclosure or toys, we were told that it would bias the experiments.

Do I beleive it? Yes, I beleive it may be the truth. However, the sacrifice these animals make is enormous, bordering on unacceptable even if a human's life is saved.

The underpaid workers have little say over the matter; however, anyone making a profit on this has an undeniable obligation to help PETA end all unnecessary testing.

Testing of cosmetics, pet food, cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, etc is unacceptable. It needs to end today.

We all know that animal testing for diseases like leukemia, heart disease etc could take a long time to stop.

So in the meantime, every single one of us has an obligation to end the UNNECESSARY torture testing that is out there and being paid for by taxpayer's money.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 24, 2008 11:24 AM

Pragmatist,

Yes, one could argue it's not the "fault" of animal researchers for the Vioxx tragedy—it is, though, the inherent fault of the defective animal testing paradigm itself. As proven countless times, the animal model is just not predictive for humans. Vioxx actually indicated a heart benefit in animal models.

You said, "Animal research is extremely useful in determining if a treatment has *any* effect; following animal testing, if a drug shows few negative side effects, and quite a benefit in animals, responsible scientists then put them to the test in humans."

Why then did the Food and Drug Administration report in 2004 that 92 percent of drugs that test safe and effective in animals are found to be either unsafe or ineffective in humans?

Why then In London in March 2006, did a new anti-inflammatory drug called TGN1412 cause devastating reactions including multiple
organ failure in all six volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials, despite "proof of safety" established by tests on monkeys who were given 500 times the human dose?

The really sad part is a lot of drugs that may have proven useful to humans have been thrown away on the basis of negative animal tests.

We don't need an "alternative" to something that doesn't work in the first place. We need, and have, technologies that directly relate to the human species, and, by definition, those are non-animal ones.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 24, 2008 11:40 AM

Pragmatist. Perhaps you should consider becoming a donor to the Dr.Hadwen Trust ( Replacing Animals in Medical Research.) May I also conclude Peta., does contribute substantial sums of money into this research facility.

Judith (Freedom Fighter for Animals ) '' thank you for your kind endorsement.''

Posted by: Keith | March 24, 2008 12:11 PM

Actually, the increase in mean life expectancy can be attributed mostly to advances in the field of obstetrics and neonatology. Women in "developed" countries, for the most part, do not start having children at very young ages as was common practice in pre-modern medicine America, when approximately 1 in 4 women died during childbirth (usually from hemorrhage). Couple that with being able to resuccitate neonates as young as 23 weeks at advanced institutions with reasonable "success" (about 50% survive, many with complications) and improved nutrition/vaccinations/less exposure to inclement weather for children, and the mean life exptectancy rapidly rises.

I would argue that Primary Care physicans, not research physicians are "our life blood," given they ideally focus more on preventative medicine and disease education...of course many people who choose to live a certain lifestyle prefer to add another quick-fix pill to their medicine cabinet, so perhaps the research physician is their life blood.

Posted by: Derek | March 24, 2008 12:13 PM

Editor,

Why Animal Experimentation Persists:

If animal experimentation is so flawed, why does it persist?

There are several likely explanations.

1. For the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, animal experiments provide an important legal sanctuary. In cases of
death or disability caused by chemical products or adverse drug reactions, the responsible companies claim due diligence by pointing out that they performed the legally prescribed "safety tests" on animals and are therefore not accountable. As a result, the victims or their families most often come away empty-handed after suing for damages.

2. Animal experimentation is easily published. In the "publish or perish" world of academic science, it requires little originality or insight to take an already well-defined animal model,
change a variable or the species being used, and obtain "new" and interesting" findings within a short period of time. In contrast, clinical research, while directly applicable to humans, is more difficult, expensive and time-consuming. In addition, the
many species available and the nearly infinite possible manipulations offer researchers the opportunity to "prove" almost any theory that serves their economic, professional or political needs.

3. Animal experimentation is self-perpetuating. Scientists’ salaries and professional status are often tied to grants, and a critical element of success in grant applications is proof of prior experience and expertise. Researchers trained in animal experimentation techniques find it difficult or inconvenient to adopt new
methods such as tissue cultures.

4. Animal experimentation is lucrative. Its traditionally respected place in modern medicine results in secure financial support, which is often an integral component of a university’s budget. Many medical centers receive several hundred million dollars
annually in direct grants for animal research, and an average of over 40 % more for overhead costs that are supposedly related to that research. Since many medical centers faced with declining clinical revenues depend on this financial windfall for much
of their administrative costs, construction and building maintenance, they perpetuate animal experimentation by praising it in the media and to legislators.

5. Animal experimentation appears more "scientific" than clinical research. Researchers often assert that laboratory experiments are "controlled" because they can change one variable at a time. This control, however, is illusory. Any animal model differs in myriad ways from human physiology and pathology. In addition, the laboratory setting itself creates confounding variables—for example, stress and undesired or unrecognized pathology in the animals. Such variables can have system-wide effects, skew experimental results, and undermine extrapolation of findings to humans.

6. The morality of animal experimentation is rarely questioned by researchers, who generally choose to defend the practice dogmatically, rather than confront the obvious moral issues it raises. Animal experimenters’ language betrays their efforts to avoid morality. For example, they "sacrifice" animals rather than kill them, and they may note animal "distress", but they rarely acknowledge pain or other suffering. Young scientists quickly learn to adopt such a mindset from their superiors, as sociologist Arnold Arluke explains: "One message – almost a warning – that newcomers got was that it was controversial or risky to admit to having ethical concerns, because to do so was tantamount to admitting that there really was something morally wrong with animal experimentation, thereby giving 'ammunition to the enemy'." Physician E. J. Moore also observes: "Sadly, young doctors must say nothing, at least in public, about the abuse of laboratory animals, for fear of jeopardizing their career prospects."

(Above from Europeans For Medical Progress website)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 24, 2008 12:16 PM

Gerry: "The info. on this site will 100% disprove people who think animal-experimenting is helpful"
I would hope that in this day and age people would know a little bit more about science. No site or information will 100% disprove anything. I can direct you to a site, http://www.fbresearch.org/index.htm, which details the benefits of animal research. Does it prove it 100%, no. There is no 100% proof in a debate such as this.

Antigone1000: You seem to have a very distorted view of disease and people’s behavior. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles may be the cause of disease for rich people in the US, but it is no way the leading factor contributing to disease. What about malaria, tuberculosis, small pox, the flu, diphtheria, or childhood diabetes? Are you trying to suggest that the people in third worlds, or even the poor in this country should just shape up and start acting healthy and all these things will go away? Poor drinking water, lack of vaccines, and poor nutrition and medical care are the leading causes of disease in this world. Scientist aren’t concerned with curing the diseases of the rich and elite of this country, they are concerned about curing the diseases that most of this world has to live with on a daily basis. I assume by your lack of knowledge in this regard, that you are living a privileged life where you don’t have to worry about clean drinking water or a lack of medical care, so you can look around and blame people for these conditions. Widen your perspective to include the world, not just the people around you.
“As for why we live longer these days--because our lives are easier!!”
I don’t know which shows a greater lack of knowledge; this statement or your statement regarding why people get diseases. We live longer today because of two root causes; the understanding of the germ theory of disease and better access to medical care and healthy food. With the germ theory of disease, we understood that diseases came, primarily, from other living creatures that contaminated our food and drinking water. Once we understood that, we began to take steps to minimize their negative effect on our lives; such as cleaning our drinking water, showering with soap and other cleansers, cleaning our cooking utensils, properly preparing our food, washing our hands, etc… Additionally, we have been able to find cures for the diseases that we still get, despite our efforts to reduce the risks. Many of these advances in the way we live our lives, and develop cures, have been aided through the use of animal research. We have been able to understand that rats, mosquitoes, cockroaches and other animals are carriers of some of these diseases. That would not have been possible without animal research, nor would our understanding of how to vaccinate against these diseases. As for better access to medical care and healthy food, we can’t exactly wait around until the rest of the world has access to those things. While we are trying to help the rest of the world get these things, we also have to look at how to take care of people in the meantime. It is not their fault that they were not born into privilege.

Posted by: Simpleton | March 24, 2008 01:35 PM

Mike Quinoa: “Animal testing is no more accurate than the flip of a coin as regards predictability in humans.”
I can only say that the above statement is just wrong, simple as that. The accuracy of the animal testing depends on the testing being done, the animal it’s being tested on, and the similarities between the animal tested and humans. For instance, the stomach of a pig and the stomach of a human are amazingly similar; they share not only biological properties but also chemical properties. How do we know that? Well we’ve done animal testing on pigs and found that out. Therefore, animal testing that relates to the stomach are very accurate using pigs stomachs as a comparison to human stomachs. This has been supported by the data. When we test things on a pig’s stomach, and then on a human’s stomach, we tend to see the same results. I use words like “very accurate” and “tend to” because I’m a statistician by training. I could make up a stat, and say it’s 80% or 90% accurate, but that would just as inaccurate and made up as you saying it’s 50%. We can never know the predictability of animal testing as a whole, because we can never calculate all of the animal testing that would or has been done, nor an accurate picture of the similarities between us and other animals. Even with a vague understanding of the accuracy percentages, we can not dismiss all the animal testing out of hand. As we better understand ourselves, and better understand animals, and our similarities and differences from them, the more accuracy we can have in animal testing.
“"Lab Animal magazine admits: Mice are actually poor models of the majority of human cancers."”
Have they looked at why they are poor models? Have they tried to understand what it is that makes them poor models for humans, and then used that information to adjust the model to fit us? Have they just thought about using a different animal that would not be such a poor model? It is through failure and understanding why we failed, that true breakthroughs come. It should be seen as an opportunity, to not only better understand cancer, but to understand mice.
“If you truly believe human life has more value, then you should be promoting the use and development of non-animal, human-based tests, which will provide the maximum benefit to our species, with the minimum of risk.”
I do truly believe that human life has more value; maybe only because I happen to be one of them. As such, I promote the use and development of any legitimate and humane techniques that will aid in the better understanding of our world, and benefit the people in it. That means I can’t dismiss animal testing out of hand because of emotional reasons. If you feel that human life is not more valuable, then you have a defensible position. We can talk about the moral implications of either side. However, you can not say that I should not support animal testing because it has no benefit to humans, because that is just not the case. I agree it has flaws and it’s not perfect, but you can not deny that it has benefited people. To do so would be to ignore small pox, tuberculosis, and insulin; to name but a few.

Posted by: Simpleton | March 24, 2008 02:16 PM

Quinoa and Antigone1000 -

I don't understand how any of your quoted diatribe related to my posting?

You obviously are not well educated in the science community or its publications, thus necessitating the repetition of others' opinions.

I agree with Pragmatist's statement of 3/21/08. PETA should take some of their over abundance of time, money and fanatical zeal and try to apply it to an area where it can actually be of use. Threatening the lives of researchers is not the answer. If you all are so worried about the lives of animal research models, why don't you try to develop a realistic model yourselves? How about spending your money to support other research methods that can actually replace the use of animal models in all instances? By the way, in my experience, I have not seen that animal research is more often published, nor can it be said that making a small change to a previous paper automatically makes it acceptable. Scientists go through a vast amount of time and energy when applying for grants to do research. The ideas must be NEW in nature and must be shown to contribute something necessary to the field of science before they will even be considered. It has become increasingly more difficult to receive governmental grant money with all the cut backs which occurred with the last two presidential terms.

As far as the continued statements of treatment being replaced by diet and exercise, I know plenty of people (myself included) who diet and exercise on a regular basis, but cannot change the health that is dealt them by genetics. This is a moot and less than intelligent remark.

My suggestion is, as stated above, take some of your time and try to put it to a more productive use instead of spending so much time attacking people who are actively trying to help others.

As far as mice being poor models for cancer research - that may be true, but that does not mean that they are not good models for other types of scientific research. Unfortunately, mice and other animals are the closest models that can be used by law, since there are no races or groups of humans volunteering for these experiments - not because they are inflicted by sadistic scientists, but because the methods/drugs being used are not approved until they have been tested past the animal stage. Perhaps one or both of you - or other members of PETA - would like to volunteer as research subjects?

Posted by: editor | March 24, 2008 03:16 PM

Editor, I appreciate your moderate tone and open mindedness. I think there are a few unaddressed issues to consider.

* While it is unrealistic that humans will be allowed to be subjects, some veterinarians have used medicines on cats and dogs that later held promise for humans. One example is glucosomine. It was proven to help with arthritis in pet dogs and was soon used for humans - both species benefited.

* It is not the ethical obligation of PETA to fund alternative research. If there was a nursing home, funded by the federal government / taxpayer's dollars, and the nursing home had ethical violations, would it be the obligation of Amnesty International to fund better nursing staff? Of course not.

The USDA and those handing out grant money have the burden of providing alternative and humane methods. Animal advocate groups should not have to bear this burden as it should be the basic ethical obligation of those conducting and funding the experiments to constantly strive towards a more humane workplace.

The only good science is that which moves forward with the passage of time. In the year 2008 it is outdated to use the same models over and over.

If we want to defend or work for scientific experiments, it is our obligation to continually search for more humane solutions and to be forward-thinking in our approach. I would hope that it's not just PETA promoting this idea, but the scientific community as well. ;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 24, 2008 05:09 PM

I can't respond to everything in those long posts by Simpleton and Editor, but I can absolutely state that the majority of health issues in the US (where animal research is conducted for the benefit of the US primarily) are attributable to lifestyle choices. For instance--my grandmother had high blood pressure and diabetes. My Dad (who eats poorly and does not exercise enough) is currently on high blood pressure meds. When I told him to lose weight and exercise, he said it didn't matter--his condition was genetic. My mother (no health nut herself) then piped in and said that the doctor told him he would no longer need the meds if he lost 20 pounds. So--HE has the choice of getting his "genetically-mandated" diseases or not getting them. If you want to believe you cannot improve your own health, you have just made that belief your reality. That needs to stop.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 24, 2008 09:25 PM

Simpleton and editor,

The whole model of animal drug testing was predicated by the thalidomide tragedy. In the U. S., the Kefauver-Harris Act of 1962, and in the UK, the Medicines Act of 1968, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical animal testing to ostensibly guarantee their safety and effectiveness for humans.

Ironically, though thalidomide was the impetus for the passing of these Acts, if thalidomide was tested on animals today, for its original purpose of alleviating morning sickness, it would pass, since originally, of all the animals tested, only New Zealand White rabbits shared the same tragic side-effects that humans suffered. Try as they could, with many different animals, researchers were unable to duplicate the human response in animals (with the exception of the New Zealand White rabbit), and what should have been an immediate withdrawal was delayed with tragic consequences.

What assurance of safety did animal tests provide against the devastating reactions (including multiple 
organ failure) in ALL six of the volunteers in the TGN1412 clinical trials, despite "proof of safety" supposedly established by tests on monkeys, who were given 500 times the human dose?

More than 106,000 people die every year from adverse reactions to animal-tested drugs, and another 2.2 million have serious adverse reactions (as reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association). Such reactions make animal-tested drugs the fourth leading cause of death and cost the U.S. more than 136 billion in health-care dollars. This puts animal-tested-and-approved pharmaceuticals ahead of most other causes of death, including diseases that animal testing is supposed to be finding a cure for.

The role of animal tests in this carnage is highlighted by the fact that 92% of animal-tested drugs are rejected in clinical trials (as reported by the FDA), and more than 50 percent of those few drugs that do reach the market are removed or relabeled because of unforeseen harm to patients. Thus animal testing fails to catch more than 96% of the problems with drugs.

Even the president of Merck is aware of the inaccuracy of animal tests:

“Merck has always believed that prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials are the best way to evaluate the safety of medicines,” said Peter S. Kim, Ph.D., president of Merck Research Laboratories (from Merck's Sept 30/2004 press release when pulling Vioxx off the market). Nevertheless, the horrendous loss of life and human suffering still made Vioxx the worst drug disaster in history.

Even though it's been 46 years since animal testing was mandated to ensure drug safety for humans, animal testing has never provided that assurance, and the recent Vioxx fiasco proves it never will.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 24, 2008 10:25 PM

"As far as the continued statements of treatment being replaced by diet and exercise, I know plenty of people (myself included) who diet and exercise on a regular basis, but cannot change the health that is dealt them by genetics. This is a moot and less than intelligent remark."

I guess it's time to come out of the closet...I am a Family Doctor.

It is true that weight loss, diet and exercise are the cornerstone of any treatment plan regarding hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes (to name a few), but the sad reality is that most people will not adhere to correct guidelines (portion sizes, duration and types of exercise, etc.). Many prefer to instead "take a pill" and make excuses (yes, there are genetic predispositions to many diseases, but that does not mean that 100% of people with "big-boned" families are going to be the obese...except they often eat the same amount and types of food).

A healthy lifestyle takes hard work...it is rare to find someone truely willing to put in the effort, but it is very rewarding when someone actually does.

So, to make a "less than intelligent remark," I absolutely 100% KNOW that diet and exercise improves disease outcomes and leads to, in many cases, reduction or discontinuation of medications associated with certain diseases.

"My suggestion is, as stated above, take some of your time and try to put it to a more productive use instead of spending so much time attacking people who are actively trying to help others."

I do...it's my job to try and help others.

Posted by: Derek | March 25, 2008 09:42 AM

Well put, Derek. We all want a magic bullet to take care of our health indiscretions. With a little bit of effort, most of us can enjoy glowing health, which in itself is its own reward.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 26, 2008 11:12 AM

Derek and Antigone -

I am not arguing that diet and exercise will definitely improve a person's life. I have found this to be true myself and am a big proponent of that. What I am arguing is that there are times when medications are absolutely necessary (take diabetes, thyroid, psychiatric problems for example). Derek - if you are in fact a family doctor, then you know that there are diseases and afflictions that require medication and cannot be cured or even controlled by diet and exercise. If we did not have these medications, people would be dying young due to the fact that their systems could not be regulated. In order to gain approval of these medications, there must be some type of testing done. Since people cannot by law be used as guinea pigs, that unfortunately leaves animals. I have seen tests done on all kinds of animals - from mice and rats to worms and honey bees. Scientists do search for better models and are aware that they should treat the animals as humanely as possible. There is still going to be a need for animal testing though - at least for the time being.

The fact that there is a need for medications and testing of such medications, does not mean that PETA should be threatening the lives of scientists. I find it offensive that PETA posts the names of researchers and incites others to vote for who is the worst, leading them to post statements about how these people should DIE! This is extremely disturbing to me and quite frankly, illegal. It is not legal for people to make threats of bodily harm toward another person. The fact that you are posting the names and locations of these targeted researchers is scary. What if one of your less than stable members were to look these people up and carry out what you all are suggesting? That is just not acceptable!

Maya - I understand what you are saying - that all experiments on animals do not automatically translate to the same results in humans. Unfortunately, there is no method currently that will replace all animal testing/research. Perhaps with the induction of a new president, there may be more tax dollars to expand towards research using other means, ie stem cells, but that will not happen automatically. It will take some time to undo what's happened in the last 8 years. Maybe when this country recovers from the excessive war expenditures we will be able to see some change in scientific/medical research funding.

In the meantime, I would very much appreciate it if you all would consider what you are suggesting before threatening the lives of scientists. These are people who are not purposely torturing animals - but rather trying to improve the health and welfare of all of us.

Perhaps we should all concentrate on aquiring the passage of new laws allowing further research using other methods? This might be a more productive and less threatening use of your time. Just a thought...

Posted by: editor | March 26, 2008 05:39 PM

Derek: The problem is that these people are sentencing others to torture and death by not changing their lifestyles to SAVE THEMSELVES. Why should another die for you if you are not willing to make even the slightest effort to help yourself??? As someone who has lived a "healthy lifestyle" of proper diet and exercise for 15 years, needs NO medication, NEVER gains/loses weight, and is almost never sick, I can absolutely attest to the fact that a healthy lifestyle is NOT difficult and is worth the minimal amount of effort it takes. If these people want to eat poorly and be lazy, let THEM suffer the consequences, not the poor animals.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 26, 2008 05:49 PM

Editor: I disagree that animal testing is necessary. The scientific community should be pushing for the adoption of the better methods that already exist. It should not be up to AR people because, as pointed out by many people on this board, there are scientific reasons against animal research and in favor of those better methods. There is also the moral issue--it is simply wrong to torment animals to save human lives, even if does work.

I also believe that people need to take responsibility for themselves. Our bodies are pretty self-sufficient, as created. We should not be given the choice of taking care of our bodies or taking a pill. A GOOD doctor should simply say that his patient MUST exercise and lose weight or he/she will develop diabetes and maybe lose a limb as a result. I realize that doctors have to be wary of potential malpractice issues, but they still need to start focusing on medication as a SHORT TERM solution only. I work with docs and I know of only one who is actively working with his patients on a program of PREVENTION that includes diet and exercise. EVERY doctor should focus on prevention, not maintenance on drugs. The way that medicine is practiced in this country, with the pharma and insurance industries playing a much too major role, is a shame and it's one of the reasons we have become the fat, slovenly Americans that many nations find so disgusting.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 27, 2008 08:54 AM

Editor,

The problem is that animal testing is not reliably predictive for humans. I've posted many examples of the possible dire consequences for humans by relying on these tests.

The fact of the matter is that individual humans react differently to a given drug, due to their unique genetic makeup. Any pharmacist will tell you to never take someone else's prescription drugs.

Personalized human-based medicine is what researchers should be focussing on if they truly want to better the lot of the human species.

If you study the works of Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr. John McDougall and Dr. Joel Fuhrman, among others, you might be amazed at the cures these doctors have elicited solely through diet, exercise and stress reduction. The human body has a remarkable capacity to heal itself if given half the chance.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 27, 2008 11:42 AM

Antigone,

Perhaps I misread the tone of your response to me, but it seems as though you missed that I am NOT in favor of animal testing, and that I promote a healthy, vegetarian lifestyle.

In response to your following post to editor:

"A GOOD doctor should simply say that his patient MUST exercise and lose weight or he/she will develop diabetes and maybe lose a limb as a result. I realize that doctors have to be wary of potential malpractice issues, but they still need to start focusing on medication as a SHORT TERM solution only. I work with docs and I know of only one who is actively working with his patients on a program of PREVENTION that includes diet and exercise. EVERY doctor should focus on prevention, not maintenance on drugs. The way that medicine is practiced in this country, with the pharma and insurance industries playing a much too major role"

I don't want to argue with a fellow PETA member, but you obviously know very little about how medicine is really practiced if you think simply telling a person something is bad for them will get them to stop that behavior. As I said, prevention and education are the cornerstones of any treatment plan, but as a doctor, I cannot ignore the standards of care, which often require medication prescriptions.

In most cases, medications are not the first line in my treatment of patients, especially in those "borderline" patients that could help themselves and avoid medications for diabetes, hypertension, or high cholesterol, for example. Now, I, not the pharmaceutical companies, decide what I prescribe, although some insurance plans have restrictions on what medications are covered (thank goodness for generic medications).

I applaud you for living such a healthy lifestyle, but you are in the minority in regards to patients who seek out medical care, and you would be amazed at what some people find "difficult" in regards to behavior change.

By the way, if the doctors with whom you work are not focusing on prevention, then they are the ones who will be on the receiving end of a malpractice suit eventually.

Posted by: Derek | March 27, 2008 01:10 PM

Derek - thank you for your statement to Antigone who does not seem to realize that diet and exercise alone cannot help everyone. Even if all patients followed a strict diet and exercise program, it would not produce the same results in all people. Yes, we are an obese society, but that does not mean that there aren't people who actually need medicines. What about anorexics or people who exercise to the extreme? Do they not need treatment to help them get back on track mentally so they do not starve themselves? Do you think a doctor could tell them to diet and exercise and that would cure their problems?

What I can't seem to get across to you all is that I'm not just saying animal testing is necessary for medication development. I'm saying that animal testing is necessary to find genetic links and genetic mapping. All these studies cannot be performed on humans. Also - there are many studies that use animals to judge the behaviors that might be elicited in certain situations. I am most familiar with studies involving alcohol - so these are not generally studies aimed at developing medications - but rather at trying to discern who becomes alcoholic, how to prevent that from happening, what the genetic links are, what happens to a person's brain when they become alcoholic to the point where they cannot help themselves at all, etc.

There are human studies done in these areas, but the preliminary studies are usually required to be performed on animal models, in addition to some being done at the cellular level.

Posted by: editor | March 27, 2008 08:38 PM

Derek: The point I was making was in response to your comment about people not wanting to live a healthy lifestyle. I was trying to say that they should not have the option of a healthy lifestyle or taking a pill--their option should be a healthy lifestyle or the consequences (diabetes, high blood pressure, eventually death). Unfortunately, humans are becoming lazier and more apathetic and I think that all of society, not just the medical industry, allows them to be that way. That is why we need to stop letting people off with the excuse that it is "hard to live a good lifestyle." If they had no other choice, they would do it, trust me. If there were no insurance and someone knew they had to pay for their medications out of their own pocket, they would be much more likely to change their lifestyle. If not, quite frankly, I think they deserve the consequences. It is not fair that I spend as much on insurance as an unhealthy person because we are distributing the cost. I do NOT want to pay for their poor lifestyle choices and I certainly don't think the animals should have to.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 27, 2008 11:07 PM

"If they had no other choice, they would do it, trust me. If there were no insurance and someone knew they had to pay for their medications out of their own pocket, they would be much more likely to change their lifestyle."

I wish this were the case, but sadly, it is not. I won't fill this board with a discussion about Medicare and uninsured patients, as we are already far off topic.

Posted by: Derek | March 28, 2008 10:13 AM

Editor,

Humans share with the mouse the gene that produces a tail. Because of gene regulation the mouse produces a tail, and we don't.

Genetic mapping of animals produces no assurance that the resultant data will have any relevance or benefit (if not detriment) whatsoever for humans.

The human species itself varies genetically—research should be solely focussed on this aspect, if it's in fact human life we're trying to improve.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 28, 2008 10:49 AM

Derek: That's what I'm talking about, though. There should be no one to pay for it except themselves. If their choices were to pay out of pocket (NOT depend on Medicare or the rest of us paying extra to make up for the indigent discounts they get) or not have the medication, they would have to change their lifestyle or they would end up in poor health/death. THAT is what should happen.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 28, 2008 06:36 PM

Since so many of you are providing anecdotes as evidence, that tells me that there is a real lack of understanding of how science is actually done. Scientific method 101: you test a hypothesis by manipulating a variable and measuring the resulting change of interest. Perhaps you guys could explain to me how, exactly, you could do an experiment in humans that tells us the function of the thalamus, for instance. Sure, you could do correlations with human cadavers: these are confounded by that person's lifestyle history. You can do imaging, which will tell you something, but you cannot directly manipulate the variable of interest. How you answer that question is to manipulate the thalamus (excision, drug infusion, electrophysiology, etc.) and measure the change.
If you believe that there is no value in adding to human knowledge about physiology, then we really don't have anything to talk about. If you believe that animal life is equivalent to human life, then we don't have anything to talk about. If you are making the claim that animal research does not produce knowledge than cannot be gained any other way, then you are wrong.
Humane treatment of animals is good general practice, and ethical, but animal research is also necessary for advancement.
As another poster pointed out, it must be nice to live in a cushy, privileged, modern society such as ours and not be plagued by biological diseases (such as malaria) that claim millions of lives worldwide. It must be nice to not require insulin to live. It must be especially nice to not be 6 years old and diagnosed with leukemia. If you don't care about human life, fine, just say so.

Posted by: Mad Scientist | May 9, 2008 03:24 AM