What do you think about companies doing animal studies?

[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?

[CathyBogart]

How in the world can people say that animals don't benefit from these tests as well?! We can now put false joints or false eyes into our pets, we have millions more medications available to them than we did just a decade ago, and procedures that were unheard of in HUMANS not long ago are now being performed to save our beloved pets.

I have a LOT more to say on this subject since I hope to work in an animal research lab once I graduate, but I have to go to work.

[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.?

[Edwina's Secretary]

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

No Liz, it isn't the same agency. The FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. The agency you refer to is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

VERY different agencies.

[Marigold2]

This is a very sad subject indeed. Do I believe in animal testing? Depends. If a young Dr is practicing open heart surgery, I think most people would want him to practice on 500 dogs instead of 500 infants. If a new medicine is being tested for kidney disease do we want it tested on our children or husband or a monkey? What I would really like to see is that these instances are done on death row inmates or people who are lifers. I value an animals life above theirs. But that is me. I don't think there is ANY good answer.

[Catlady711]

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

I believe the USDA is in charge of the pet food regulations, they just worked with the FDA after the recalls started, the FDA wasn't the main agency from what I understand.