tagged w/ Animal Testing
-
Project Nim is one of the best documentary feature films of 2011. Have you seen it, what did you think?Project Nim is one of the best documentary feature films of 2011. Have you seen it,... more
-
-
.
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government Announces Plan to Replace Animals in Toxicity Testing
December 20, 2011
.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration just announced a joint effort to use high-throughput robotics—instead of animals—to test 10,000 chemicals and drugs for potential toxicity. I’ve asked PCRM’s Chad Sandusky, Ph.D., to provide details:
Current testing is largely based on experiments on animals—rodents, rabbits, dogs—and uses methods that are cruel, time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases use thousands of animals in a single test. For example, a reproductive toxicity study uses 2,600 animals and requires a minimum of two years at a cost of $380,000. PCRM toxicologists and government affairs staff have pushed government and industry scientists to implement nonanimal methods.
The new method was developed after the National Research Council issued a mandate (often referred to as Tox21) several years ago to replace antiquated animal-based (in vivo) toxicity testing with testing using mostly human cells and tissues. At PCRM’s toxicology department, we are convinced this will offer not only a dramatic reduction in animal use, but also a faster and cheaper approach to safety testing.
While Congress has been drafting revisions to the law that regulates chemicals (known as the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA), we’ve met with congressional offices to make sure that new nonanimal methods are required as they become more widely available. We’ve successfully gained support for these important changes, so animal testing will be greatly reduced—and eventually eliminated—when the bill is passed.
To learn more about how replacing animals in toxicity testing with this technology will make the world a safer place for people—and for the millions of animals now used in these cruel tests—visit www.ReformToxicityTesting.org
.
.
..
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government... more
-
-
It's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use, but it’s estimated that 90% of lab animals are mice and rats.
The animals that scientists do have to report using in experiments include dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates. Of the animals that the USDA collects numbers on, 1,438,553 were used in research in 2002.
Since more than 1.4 million mammals other than rats and mice were used in research, and since mice and rats probably make up 90% of the animals in labs, we can guess that about 14 million rats and mice were used in research in 2002.
In labs, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box.
Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments.
Living in cages can be a big problem for intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates who become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise.
More than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA that are used in research were not involved in experiments that caused pain. There is no way of knowing how many rats and mice were involved in studies that were not designed to cause pain.
489,262 animals that were used in research in 2002 (not including mice, rats, and birds—no one knows how many of these animals are used in research) were used in research that was either painful, distressful, or both. Most of these animals were given something that either helped take the pain away or helped them get over the pain quickly.
103,764 of the animals made to feel pain were not given anything to reduce their pain and suffering. Although some of this pain was slight—like getting an injection with a needle—some of it was extremely severe.
Most of these animals are only used in one experiment, but sometimes the same animal will be used in more than one experiment. Most are euthanized shortly after being used in an experiment.
Some lucky chimps will be able to retire from being used in research to the Chimp Haven sanctuary, built in Shreveport, Louisiana, thanks to a law signed by President Clinton in 2000.
Source: ASPCAIt's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research... more
-
-
Los Angeles Times...
Poll: Scientists say animal research ethically complicated, but necessary
Scientists polled by the journal Nature reported mixed feelings about animal research. In April 2009, animal rights activist Graciela Iparraguirre, center, talked with UCLA student Martin Ducker,23, left, as pro-animal research supporters walked behind her on UCLA campus. (Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times)
By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2011, 10:30 a.m.
Animal research has helped scientists understand human disease, and in some cases, develop cures. But it has also exposed them to an onslaught of attacks -- some violent -- from animal rights activists who question the ethics and necessity of animal experiments.
This week, the journal Nature takes a look at the complicated case of animal activism and its effects on scientific research, publishing the results of a poll of 980 biomedical scientists from around the world.
The vast majority -- 91.7% -- said they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "Animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science." About 70% of those polled said they conduct experiments on animals.
At the same time, almost 16% said they had experienced misgivings about the role of animals in their research -- and half of those said that the misgivings had led them to change the direction of their research. Thirty-three percent said they had ethical concerns about the role of animals in their current work.
Many said that discussing the issue of animal testing with the public was very difficult, but there were signs that communication efforts might be improving. More than half said that the institutions they work for encourage them to speak with the public about their work (less than a third reported this to be the case in a 2006 Nature poll.)Los Angeles Times...
Poll: Scientists say animal research ethically complicated,... more
-
-
Written and directed by Alex Weil from creative design studio CHRLX, One Rat Short is an amazing 3D animation featuring a common city rat which, because of his appetite, gets trapped in a high tech rat lab.Written and directed by Alex Weil from creative design studio CHRLX, One Rat Short is... more
-
-
-
-
-
02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says food dyes pose a number of risks to the American public and is calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban three of the most commonly used dyes: Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. A new CSPI report says those dyes contain known carcinogens and contaminants that unnecessarily increase the risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children and allergic reactions.
"These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behavior problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson, co-author of the report. "The Food and Drug Administration should ban dyes, which would force industry to color foods with real food ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals."
The FDA has not read the report yet an agency spokesperson said. "We appreciate the report from CSPI and look forward to reviewing it. We take our commitment to protecting children seriously".
According to the report, tests done on lab animals found contaminants that raised health concerns about several of the nine dyes currently approved for market. The approved dyes are Blue 1 & 2, Citrus Red 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3 & 40 and Yellow 5 & 6. And every year, about 15 million pounds of these dyes wind up in our food, with a lot of it ending up in things like candy, fruit drinks and cereals.
The report is based on the FDA's own studies, and studies done by Industry and turned over to the FDA. But a statement from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), who represents the industry says science shows food dyes are safe. "The safety of both artificial and natural colors has been affirmed through extensive review by the main global food safety bodies, including the US Food & Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority. Both the FDA and the food and beverage industry continually monitor any new research or data in this area to determine if a change in current policy is warranted. It is important for consumers and policymakers to know that food dyes are widely studied and that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence confirms the safety of artificial food colors."
The Food Standards Agency, an independent government agency in Great Britain, released research a few years ago that suggested a linked between hyperactivity in some children and certain food coloring. Starting July 20th in the European Union, food containing some of these dyes will carry additional warning labels indicating possible adverse effects on "activity and attention in children."
CSPI went to Britain in 2008 to check out the differences in dye use first hand. It says it found more concern about food dyes and more government oversight. For example, CSPI says McDonald's Strawberry Sundaes get their color from fresh strawberries. The group says in the United States the color comes from Red dye 40. CSPI say in the UK, Fanta orange soda coloring comes from pumpkins and carrot extract. Here, it says the color comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6 dye.
Rand Carpenter, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, who makes Fanta, says they stand by their products in the United States – and abroad. "Where colors are used in our products they have been reviewed for safety by numerous health authorities and agencies, are permitted in every country where we operate, and are considered safe."02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the... more
-
-
Got a sweet tooth? Think twice before picking up a Mars candy bar! You should know that candymaker Mars, Inc.—creator of M&M's, Snickers, Twix, Dove, Three Musketeers, Starburst, Skittles, and other candies—funds deadly animal tests, even though there are more reliable human studies and not one of the tests is required by law.
Mars recently funded a deadly experiment on rats to determine the effects of chocolate ingredients on their blood vessels. Experimenters force-fed the rats by shoving plastic tubes down their throats and then cut open the rats' legs to expose an artery, which was clamped shut to block blood flow. After the experiment, the animals were killed. Mars has also funded cruel experiments in which mice were fed a candy ingredient and forced to swim in a pool of a water mixed with white paint. The mice had to find a hidden platform to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on. In yet another experiment supported by Mars, rats were fed cocoa and anesthetized with carbon dioxide so that their blood could be collected by injecting a needle directly into their hearts, which can lead to internal bleeding and other deadly complications.
Click here to find out more about Mars' cruel experiments.
Mars' top competitor, Hershey's, has pledged not to fund or conduct experiments on animals. Other major food corporations—including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Ocean Spray, Welch's, and POM Wonderful—have also publicly ended animal tests after hearing from PETA.
Click here to read PETA's letters to Mars CEO Paul Michaels.
Tell Mars to Drop Deadly Animal Tests!Got a sweet tooth? Think twice before picking up a Mars candy bar! You should know... more
-
-
Although generally when referring to animal free cosmetics we mean they haven't been tested on animals but they can actually contain ingredients that have been derived from animalsAlthough generally when referring to animal free cosmetics we mean they haven't... more
-
-
Revision of Directive 86/609
More than 115 million animals a year are used in laboratories around the world[1], with around 12 million animals used annually in the European Union alone[2].
Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, is the European legislation that regulates animal experiments. It is more than 20 years old and urgently in need of updating in order to better protect animals in laboratories and to achieve the ultimate replacement of animals with more advanced, humane alternatives. A revised law has now been proposed.
Surveys and opinion polls clearly show that the public demands better protection for animals, with 79% of EU citizens believing there is insufficient public funding at European level for the development and validation of alternative methods to replace animal experiments[3]. The new EU law must reflect this high level of public concern and apply the requirement of the Amsterdam Protocol which obliges the EU to pay full regard to the welfare of animals in its research policy.
To benefit people and animals, replacing unsatisfactory animal experiments with more relevant and reliable non-animal methods must be the ultimate goal. Revision of Directive 86/609 provides Europe with an opportunity to lead the world in the development of non-animal methods. To achieve that the EU needs a targeted and properly funded strategy that places replacement at the heart of the new legislation.
1. Taylor K., Gordon N., Langley G., Higgins W. (2008) Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(3):327-342 .
2. Fifth Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union COM/2007/675 final.
3. European Commission 2006 survey
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/results_citizens.pdf
- Jane Goodall
http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/resources/gallery/Dr%20Jane%20Goodall_Medium1.mp4
http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/resources/campaign/vmarch2_gb.gifRevision of Directive 86/609
More than 115 million animals a year are used in... more
-
-
NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
New Chemical-Testing Bills are Big Step Forward for Consumer Safety and Animal Protection
But PCRM Toxicologists Say Reforms Should Require Nonanimal Tests
WASHINGTON—Senate and House bills introduced today to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt crucial reforms that protect human health and the environment and develop more nonanimal chemical tests. But the bill does not give the EPA much-needed authority to require the use of these tests, experts for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine say.
Both bills overhaul the 34-year-old TSCA by tightening regulations on chemicals used to produce industrial and consumer goods, including toys and cleaning products. But, says PCRM toxicologist Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., the bills do not go far enough to address a key safety issue: the limitations of animal-based toxicity tests now used to evaluate a chemical’s potential risks to public health and the environment. The bills also need to provide financial and logistical support to implement the approach outlined in the National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.” The NRC report endorsed tests based on human cells and cell components instead of animals.
The bills compel the EPA to develop more nonanimal methods and to adopt an integrated testing strategy approach. To ensure that the NRC report is fully implemented, companies should be required to use nonanimal tests as they become available.
“The application of animal-testing results to real-world human health issues can be extremely difficult,” Sullivan said. “Furthermore, using animal tests to evaluate every chemical on the market would be costly, inefficient, and virtually impossible given the huge number of chemicals involved. The best way to protect human health and the environment is to replace animal tests with more modern methods, and these bills are a good start at making that happen.”
Because evaluating every industrial chemical using animal tests could take decades, the bills’ provisions to streamline and modernize testing methods mean better protection for people and wildlife. “We hope that these important reforms remain intact as these bills move forward,” says Nancy Beck, Ph.D., PCRM scientific and policy adviser.
For more information or to interview a PCRM scientist, contact Vaishali Honawar at 202-527-7339 or vhonawar@pcrm.org.
Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible... more
-
-
Getting shocked with a Taser while riding high on methamphetamines probably beats any white-knuckled cocaine experience hands down. And that's exactly what happened to some lucky sheep in a new study that tested the effects of Tasers on meth-addled targets.
Funded in part by Taser International, the study aimed to test whether Taser devices have caused heart-related problems or death in meth-addled suspects. So there's at least some scientific reasoning behind all the apparent madness. Growing abuse of methamphetamines has led to arrest-related deaths in situations where law enforcement officers used their Tasers on drug-intoxicated suspects. The latest study was designed to test whether electronic control devices (e.g. Tasers) can lead to dangerous cardiac responses in meth-intoxicated humans, with sheep standing in for people.
The less-lethal device of choice was the Taser X26, a standard law enforcement tool which can fire at suspects from a distance of 35 feet. Researchers shocked sixteen anesthetized sheep after dosing the animals with an IV drip of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Some of the smaller sheep weighing less than 70.5 pounds suffered exacerbated heart symptoms related to meth use. But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition, a highly abnormal heart rhythm that can become fatal.
The study that appears in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine openly lists a few caveats. Aside from being partially funded by Taser International, the study authors include two physicians who represent medical consultants and stockholders of the company. One of the two is also the medical director of Taser International.
Still, Taser has an understandable interest in assessing the safety of its less-lethal devices in these types of extreme conditions. Taser devices have evolved into a wide-ranging family that includes Taser shotgun cartridges that fire from a 12-gauge shotgun at up to 100 feet. The company has also teamed up with the Pentagon to develop shock cartridges for a grenade launcher.
Taser has even had its employees put themselves on the firing line to vouch for the safety of its products.
Certainly police would rather have less-lethal options for tricky situations involving meth. We can all probably agree that less Taser use is better, but that they are certainly preferable to more lethal methods of subduing criminals in certain situations. Outraged animal rights activists, however, can begin writing their letters of protest now.
http://io9.com/5516248/in-safety-study-sheep-on-meth-are-shocked-with-tasersGetting shocked with a Taser while riding high on methamphetamines probably beats any... more
-
-
The University of Konstanz and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have jointly established the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing—Europe (CAAT-EU) in an effort to promote better coordination in toxicity testing. The new Center, modeled after the Bloomberg School‘s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), will conduct scientific research to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in studies, reduce the number of animals needed for research, and to refine necessary tests to eliminate the pain and distress of animals in research. CAAT-EU will hold an inauguration ceremony in Konstanz, Germany, on March 30.
Marcel Leist, professor at the University or Konstanz, will lead CAAT-EU, along with Thomas Hartung, the Doerenkamp-Zbinden Professor and Chair for Evidence-based Toxicology, and director of CAAT at the Bloomberg School. Hartung also holds an appointment as professor at the University of Konstanz.
“As a transatlantic cooperation center, CAAT-EU will unite its activities in the field of alternatives and toxicology at the University of Konstanz and combine them strategically with the activities of the Bloomberg School’s CAAT in the U.S.,” said Leist.
“Sound science is the bridge, not only across the Atlantic, but also for a future with safer products using fewer animals,” added Hartung.
The CAAT-EU board of directors includes EuroGroup for Animals, an umbrella organization of more than 30 animal protection organizations, and ECOPA—the European consensus platform for alternative methods made up of representatives of universities, industry, animal protection organizations and governments.
CAAT was founded at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in 1981 as an academic, science-based center to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals. The University of Konstanz has more than 20 years of experience in studying alternatives to animal research. CAAT-EU will collaborate with CAAT to develop a worldwide standard for chemical testing.
“Konstanz is the ideal location for this enterprise,” said Ulrich Ruediger, rector of the University of Konstanz. “Here we have a tradition of intensive support for alternative methods.”
“The mission of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is to protect health and save lives through research and education,” said Michael J. Klag, dean of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We work with partners around the world and look forward to our collaboration with the University of Konstanz.”
###
Press contacts:
Dr. Mardas Daneshian
University Konstanz
Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing-Europe
Universitaetsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz
Tel.: +49 (0)7531-884685
Email
Tim Parsons
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street/E2132
Baltimore, MD 21205-2179
Tel.: +1 410-955-7619
EmailThe University of Konstanz and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health... more
-
-
Can you spare one week to be a voice for the millions of animals who suffer in laboratories?
World Week for Animals in Labs is rapidly approaching, and PETA is calling on kindhearted and energetic people to get involved and speak up for animals who are used in experiments.
This April 17–24, tell everyone you know that "Animal Testing Breaks Hearts!" Despite the availability of superior and humane non-animal methods, everyday household products and cosmetics are still pumped into animals' stomachs, rubbed on their skin and in their eyes, and forced into their lungs with aerosol sprays.
Reject this cruel and archaic practice by purchasing products that are not tested on animals. You can do even more for animals who are used for experiments by getting active during World Week for Animals in Labs!
Fill out the form below, and we'll mail you a free booklet filled with 10 "Animal Testing Breaks Hearts" leaflets and a pack of stickers to pass out to your family, friends, classmates, and coworkers.
Sharing this information will show others how easy it is to be cruelty-free and is a great way for you to help countless animals who undergo excruciating experiments each and every week at the hands of vivisectors.
http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/AnimalsLabsWeek.aspCan you spare one week to be a voice for the millions of animals who suffer in... more
-
-
With animal experiments on the increase, we enter Britain’s secret labs to put the scientists’ rationale to the test
Wearing my own clothes, I am in a room stocked with 7,000 tiny fish. The clothes are a relief after a morning spent in paper underpants, pyjamas, zip-up boiler suit, overshoes, hairnet and mask. If animal laboratories are the “hellholes” depicted by rights activists, then this is a peculiarly sterile vision of hell. Heaven forbid that I should introduce an earthly bacterium to the unit’s transgenic mice. Even my spectacles had to be left at the door.
Unfortunately, I cannot say where I am. The risk of violence means I can identify the location only as “a large university in the Midlands”.
I have arrived via a primate-breeding establishment further south (location secret) and Satan’s own hellhole, Huntingdon Life Sciences (location known to all), whose staff — “monsters” in the language of protest — have been punished for their crimes with firebombs and baseball bats.
In the course of a month-long investigation, I have seen experiments on monkeys, dogs, pigs, rodents and fish. Many times over I have heard hopeful news for cancer, Parkinson’s and dementia sufferers. I have heard bad news for makers of salty snacks and fizzy drinks, and endless confirmation that the scientific and ethical dilemmas of medical research are seldom simple. World experts on neuroscience and pharmacology have patiently explained the breakthroughs they are working towards, but always on condition of anonymity. In one lab I had to surrender my watch in case it concealed a camera. At the Medical Research Council’s (MRC’s) breeding centre for macaques I was photographed, had my passport copied and was not allowed to move without an escort. At Huntingdon my car was searched.
But never mind. I was in, and face to face with the monsters of vivisection.
Monkeys are the poster boys of the anti-vivisection movement. Their resemblance to humans makes them, in a few particular circumstances, the best subjects for experiment, but at the same time it makes them the most controversial. All you need to get protesters onto the street is a photograph of a monkey gripping the bars of a cage or, better still, strapped to an apparatus with wires coming out of its head. The favoured species in the UK are macaques, which universities obtain from the MRC. It is dangerous to attribute human emotions — happy, sad, depressed — to other species, but at the breeding unit the temptation is impossible to resist. As far as I can see, these are happy monkeys, secure in their identities and comfortable with handlers who know them by name.
The building is modern, airy and light. Our arrival in the glass-topped service corridor is met by a cacophony of squeaks, like a race between rusty wheelbarrows. In fact, the source is a row of mirrors, one outside each glass-fronted room, which can be adjusted from within by turning a handle. The monkeys simply want to see who’s coming. Inside each “free-roaming room” is a colony of a dozen or so macaques, from alpha males to suckling infants. Instead of trees they have an aerial jungle of climbing frames, swings and play equipment.
It all looks believably natural. Mothers groom their babies. Youngsters race through the branches of the surrogate trees. Alpha males never let anyone forget who’s boss. They have an enviable diet. The fruit in the cold store looks as if it might have come straight from Waitrose. There are fresh eggs (they like them hard-boiled) and a muesli of grains and seeds. All this is scattered for them to forage among the straw and wood shavings on the floor. Sitting among them and feeding them party treats — digestive biscuits, popcorn and Ribena — was a joyful, life-affirming experience. And yet…
There are hints that this five-star mini-resort has a darker side, and that all this luxury will have to be paid for. Each animal has its name tattooed across its chest, with the initial letter indicating the year of its birth. This year (2009) it’s T, so here are Tim, Tallulah, Titan, Toots and Tigger. There are 237 monkeys in all. Some will be kept for breeding. The rest will be taken from here to institutions where their living brains and bodies will be used in research. Some will improve our knowledge of infection; some will help prevent blindness; many more will be used in neuroscience. Knowing this, it is hard to enjoy the party without a pang of guilt.
Typically they will be immobilised by a surgically implanted “head-post”. Electrodes will then be planted inside their skulls to monitor their brain activity while they perform a range of tasks involving memory, learning or physical dexterity. Drugs may be used to stimulate or inhibit particular kinds of behaviour, and parts of the brain may be removed. Some of them will suffer strokes. None of this is easy to think about, never mind look at.
For medical science, the aim is a better understanding of the brain, and especially of neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and dementia. That is the human benefit. It is hard to know how much the monkeys suffer. Controversy haunts the official grading system — mild, moderate, substantial — that the Home Office uses to categorise pain. Under this mechanism, removing part of a monkey’s skull and delving into its brain is merely “moderate”. Many experienced observers, not just animal-rights campaigners, think that “substantial” — a category requiring intense ethical scrutiny, and defined as likely to cause a “major departure from the animal’s usual state of health and wellbeing” — would be nearer the mark. A House of Lords committee spoke for many in 2002 when it described the system as “highly misleading”. Even so, scientists argue that British laboratories are the most tightly regulated in the world. Each one has to be licensed. So does every researcher, and every procedure the researcher performs. No experiment is (or should be) allowed if there is a non-animal alternative. Some people still think this is not enough. For them, experiments like this are too distressing ever to be justified. Others see a moral imperative in attacking human disease. Wet-lettuce liberals like me see agonising dilemmas.
After visiting the macaques I talked to Mark Davies, a 45-year-old former mechanical fitter who lives with his dog in Worcester. Mark has had Parkinson’s disease quite severely for 15 years, but can function near-normally thanks to a technique known as deep brain stimulation, which was pioneered in monkeys. Electrodes in the affected part of the brain are connected to a tiny generator under the skin near the collarbone. It is similar to a heart pacemaker, sending tiny electrical currents, which in some patients reduces physical tremor and restores control of the limbs. Before the operation Mark’s life was, to use his own word, “awful”. “I couldn’t walk or talk,” he says. “It felt as if I was getting worse every day. It is a horrible, horrible disease.” After deep brain stimulation his hands are mostly “as good as anyone else’s”. He can pour tea, trim his nails. “Parkinson’s has actually enhanced my life,” he says. “I do more now than I did before.” He has taken up kayaking and cycling, and climbed Mount Snowdon. “The only thing I’ve not been allowed to do is skydive.”
Page 1 of 4With animal experiments on the increase, we enter Britain’s secret labs to put... more
-
-
***Go to the link to send an email to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center***
For more than 20 years, Odessa Animal Control in Odessa, Texas, has been selling cats to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) for use in cruel medical training exercises. In the exercises, hard plastic tubes are repeatedly forced down cats' throats and needles are stabbed into their chests; the animals are then killed.***Go to the link to send an email to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center***... more
-
-
ajrmy
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
-
For six months, an undercover investigator worked in an Ohio lab where beagles were force-fed Oxycontin, a drug that had already been tested on animals and had been on the market in the U.S. for decades. The tests were conducted ostensibly to satisfy Japanese regulatory requirements.For six months, an undercover investigator worked in an Ohio lab where beagles were... more
-
