What do you think about companies doing animal studies?

[M&M's Mommy]

I work for an ophthalmic pharmaceutical company, and just found out today that they do experiments on dogs ! I know they do it on rabbits & mice, but didn't know that they also do it on dogs! Every study takes about 30 dogs (Beagle is the breed of choice for some unknown reasons) , to which they inject a drug onto their eyes, keep them for 1 week then put them to sleep and disect their bodies to see how to drug affect the internal organs!!

I absolutely understand the importance of doing drug studies on animals, but I still feel so bad for those dogs. They won't tell me where those dogs come from, but I suspect puppymills - where else can you get 30 dogs every couple months??

Now I'm depressed. What do you think about this aspect of our advanced medical technologies?

[sumbirdy]

I think it's so stupid. I don't think there is a point in animal testing. Animals can vary greatly from humans and sometimes if the product doesn't have a side effect on animals it can have a huge one on humans and vice versa. And often they'll do the tests countless times "just to be sure" when they really don't need to and the animals suffer and die needlessly. It's so sad. If they really want to get accurate results do some human testing!

[smokey the elder]

OK. I work in pharma, in tox support as a matter of fact, here's the straight dope (pun intended) on the use of animals in ethical pharmaceuticals.

1. The FDA requires it. This cannot be stressed enough. Animal models are NOT perfect, but they are the best we have for now.
2. The business about "puppy mills" is patently false. ALL animals for ethical pharma , from rats and mice through dogs to monkeys, are purpose-bred and VERY expensive.
3. A minimum of two types of animals need to be used: a small animal (rodent) and a large animal (dog, mini-pig or monkey.) This combination gives the best shot at predicting human toxicity while not wasting animals. The beagle is selected because of very clean gene lines and good temperaments. They tolerate the handling required quite well, and the small size aids in husbandry.
4. Animal welfare is taken VERY seriously. A company can get cited and fined heavily if it is not in compliance with the International Animal Care and Use Convention (IUCAC.) Animals in distress are treated if possible and PTS if they can't be treated.
5. Unfortunately, and this is what sticks in a lot of activists' craws (I have trouble with it too) animals have to be "sacrificed" and fully dissected in order to look at very fine differences.

(Tx to Matt B. at my company who gave a lecture on this very issue a few weeks ago.)

[sumbirdy]

OK. I work in pharma, in tox support as a matter of fact, here's the straight dope (pun intended) on the use of animals in ethical pharmaceuticals.

1. The FDA requires it. This cannot be stressed enough. Animal models are NOT perfect, but they are the best we have for now.
2. The business about "puppy mills" is patently false. ALL animals for ethical pharma , from rats and mice through dogs to monkeys, are purpose-bred and VERY expensive.
3. A minimum of two types of animals need to be used: a small animal (rodent) and a large animal (dog, mini-pig or monkey.) This combination gives the best shot at predicting human toxicity while not wasting animals. The beagle is selected because of very clean gene lines and good temperaments. They tolerate the handling required quite well, and the small size aids in husbandry.
4. Animal welfare is taken VERY seriously. A company can get cited and fined heavily if it is not in compliance with the International Animal Care and Use Convention (IUCAC.) Animals in distress are treated if possible and PTS if they can't be treated.
5. Unfortunately, and this is what sticks in a lot of activists' craws (I have trouble with it too) animals have to be "sacrificed" and fully dissected in order to look at very fine differences.

(Tx to Matt B. at my company who gave a lecture on this very issue a few weeks ago.)

Hmmm....but it's still very sad.

[Cincy'sMom]

I too work in an area where I have first hand knowledge of animal testing. I am not directly involved in it myself, as I work for a chemistry depratment, where we are actaully looking to minimize animal testing. We encourage our clients to use chemistry to understand and predict the toxicology of their products before any animals are used. We also do as much testing as possible through in vitro (test tube) methods, again, to gather as much information ahead of time before any animals are exposed.

Our company tests strictly medical devices (no cosemetics) and as Smokey said, it is required and tightly control by the FDA. We may not like it, but the fact is every pharmcuetical and every medical device we use every day has to go through this testing.

Another way we are trying to reduce animal testing is through equivlency. A company may have a medical deivce approved, and then a supplier changes a material. The FDA requires this be retested, however if they can use chemistry to show there is no change in the toxilogical impact of the change, animal testing can be reduced, or avoiding all together.

[crow_noir]

I just wanted to add in addition to my reply that this is what I'd like to see done FIRST.

Once a product has been considered safe by the toxicity's reports, THEN before product release have a small group test it.

I'm sorry, but i don't want to be using a shampoo on my dog that hasn't been tested for safety. (as example)

Cincy'sMom's post ...I applaud companies like that.

I too work in an area where I have first hand knowledge of animal testing. I am not directly involved in it myself, as I work for a chemistry depratment, where we are actaully looking to minimize animal testing. We encourage our clients to use chemistry to understand and predict the toxicology of their products before any animals are used. We also do as much testing as possible through in vitro (test tube) methods, again, to gather as much information ahead of time before any animals are exposed.

Our company tests strictly medical devices (no cosemetics) and as Smokey said, it is required and tightly control by the FDA. We may not like it, but the fact is every pharmcuetical and every medical device we use every day has to go through this testing.

Another way we are trying to reduce animal testing is through equivlency. A company may have a medical deivce approved, and then a supplier changes a material. The FDA requires this be retested, however if they can use chemistry to show there is no change in the toxilogical impact of the change, animal testing can be reduced, or avoiding all together.

... and rather than make a third post I'll just use this one.

I know of a dog food company where even though there is extensive research done before the food even came into being (and continues yet today,) even though EVERY batch is tested for everything imaginable under the sun , the animals (of the employees) who are fed the company's food are fondly called their test subjects. Yes, fondly. The founder is very proud of his company, and so are the employees. (Of course the pets are considered family members too and live at home.)

My point is that not all animal testing is shots, make-up, and vivisection.

P.S. And if it weren't for animal testing and greed we would never have had Elk Velvet Antler and King would have left this world sooner. The history of EVA in the U.S. is a dark and shadowy one. The only gain the company hiring the initial research expected to see was into their pockets. They expected it to be another trick to the American public. Little did they know that this Ancient Chinese medicine is one of the most real cures with next to zilch side effects (stomach upset in human females ...and King ) What's the lives of a few dogs eh? We'll test it on them first. Well, the results were surprisingly phenomenal! Great news for the dogs. Every now and then the animals win one back... and they deserve every win they can get.

[jackie]

I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetics, house hold products, or "superficial" things, but believe they are needed for medical advance.

TO those of you who are 100% against animal testing, how many clinical trials would you volunteer for?

[Alysser]

OK. I work in pharma, in tox support as a matter of fact, here's the straight dope (pun intended) on the use of animals in ethical pharmaceuticals.

1. The FDA requires it. This cannot be stressed enough. Animal models are NOT perfect, but they are the best we have for now.
2. The business about "puppy mills" is patently false. ALL animals for ethical pharma , from rats and mice through dogs to monkeys, are purpose-bred and VERY expensive.
3. A minimum of two types of animals need to be used: a small animal (rodent) and a large animal (dog, mini-pig or monkey.) This combination gives the best shot at predicting human toxicity while not wasting animals. The beagle is selected because of very clean gene lines and good temperaments. They tolerate the handling required quite well, and the small size aids in husbandry.
4. Animal welfare is taken VERY seriously. A company can get cited and fined heavily if it is not in compliance with the International Animal Care and Use Convention (IUCAC.) Animals in distress are treated if possible and PTS if they can't be treated.
5. Unfortunately, and this is what sticks in a lot of activists' craws (I have trouble with it too) animals have to be "sacrificed" and fully dissected in order to look at very fine differences.

(Tx to Matt B. at my company who gave a lecture on this very issue a few weeks ago.)

SmokeyTheElder, I want to thank-you for writing this post. You saved me a whole lot of typing. I am in a special animal and batonical sciences program at school and we learn alot of this stuff. My teacher pretty much told us all this. I would like to add though, that not all tested animals end up dying. My friend adopted a beagle or a beagle mix(mostly beagle though) from a rescue who typically takes in beagles from labs and such. Her mother told me that the dogs need to be foster because they are not used to the noises of stoves, doors, or people and animals(pets) in general. I don't know how true this is but there is a possibility it is.

[KittyGurl]

That is so sad. Poor animals. I feel so bad for them.

[lizbud]

This subject makes me furious every time I hear the same old excuses
why this practice still goes on. There is very little to no advantages to
using animals to test drugs or cosmetics or dishwashing soap, etc, etc.


This FDA some have mentioned, would that be the same agency that
missed the toxic toys, dog food, failed childrens cribs, etc, etc.?

[crow_noir]

That type of study I'm against. In general though i'm pro-animal testing.

Will mice, rabbits, dogs... will any of them ever benefit from that study that you just mentioned?! ...if the answer were yes... than as sad as it is... i wouldn't mind so much.

[Miss Z]

Ah, another subject I feel very strongly about.

I'm with lizbud on this; the same old excuses for this 'legalised cruelty' are recycled again and again. The anatomy and bodily reactions of rodents, swine, what have you, are in many ways as similar as a potato and a carrot.

Remember (or heard of) thalidomide?

The way I see it is that it's only acceptable if the drugs are intended for use of that particular species on which it is tested. I hate the fact that sacrifices have to be made for the benefit of another, but through thorough examination of veterinary sciences and discoveries, this is the best conclusion I could draw. In the long run, it benefits the next generation of animals.

We need to test drugs intended for people on people. There could be some nasty findings. That's nothing new or shocking to those who have practiced the same procedure on critters.

It is disgusting to ask for the termination of a life that will not help generations of that species, but those of a 'superior' being. Just IMHO.

ETA: Forgot to mention that I am slightly confused about the breeding for experimentation thing. Whilst so many are against the activities of backyard breeders and the likes, it still seems OK for animals to be pumped out for definite slaughter? That just doesn't really click with me, I guess.

[pitc9]

IMO, I think testing should be done on death row inmates. I know it would never happen... but it'd be nice to see people that are going to be put to death do mankind some good.

[smokey the elder]

I could write a whole boring dissertation rebutting a lot of the con stuff, but why bother? People will believe what they will believe. I think animal testing s*x too, but you KNOW if someone did happen to go to Phase I too fast and people died, there would be an ENORMOUS row.

[lizbud]

I could write a whole boring dissertation rebutting a lot of the con stuff, but why bother? People will believe what they will believe. I think animal testing s*x too, but you KNOW if someone did happen to go to Phase I too fast and people died, there would be an ENORMOUS row.

Believe me, I could do it with the opposite viewpoin as well, but will keep
their same old habits & beliefs unless they take it upon themselves to seek
out the truths about vivisection.

Science has well passed the days when this practice had any relevance.


http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index