(no subject)
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." - Professor Charles R. Magel
Animal experiments harm, not benefit, human health
It is a widely-believed myth that animal testing is both necessary and useful. In fact, the opposite is true.
By law, all government-approved drugs are tested in animals before humans receive them. Because nonhuman animals are physiologically different from us, this has two consequences. First, numerous drugs shown to be safe in the animal models cause serious harm or even death to humans. Examples are DES, Rezulin and Seldane. Adverse reactions to animal-tested drugs are the fourth largest cause of death in America, and a recent study found that 20% of new drugs cause serious side effects that were unknown at the time of approval. Second, potentially valuable drugs are delayed or prevented from reaching the human market because they exhibit harmful effects in animals. Aspirin kills cats, and penicillin has no antibiotic effect in rabbits, but many humans safely use these drugs every day.
Chimpanzees, more similar to us physiologically than any other animals, were hailed as the perfect model for HIV-induced AIDS. Now most researchers admit that this approach has been a complete failure. Like all viruses, HIV is species-specific, adapted to its human host. Only humans get AIDS. Although chimpanzees can be infected with HIV, their bodies do not respond in the same way as humans and they do not get sick. What we know about AIDS has come from studying the disease in humans, not animals. The unfortunate consequence of the failure of the chimpanzee model is that many individuals are now infected, and while not suffering symptoms of illness, they are kept in solitary confinement due to the potential risk of virus transmission.
Similarly, while chimpanzees infected with hepatitis experience no symptoms, humans die from this disease. Most knowledge of this virus has come through in vitro (test tube) research, as chimpanzees are not predictive of human immunological response. Still, many of our closest kin are being used in a misguided attempt to develop a vaccine for HCV. As with AIDS vaccines that showed promise in chimpanzees but were ineffective for humans, this research is unlikely to advance human health.
Chimpanzees were also used as test subjects in coronary artery disease studies. But while humans eating high-fat diets develop elevated levels of two types of fat in their hearts, only one type is increased in chimpanzees, making them poor models for us.
In a study pertaining to benzene-associated leukemia, benzene was injected into chimpanzees. However, they do not metabolize the chemical in the same way as humans. Again, they proved to be poor models for human disease.
Chimpanzees have also been used for patently frivolous research when superior alternatives were readily available. In 1991, Nutrasweet and a Japanese company sponsored a study in which five chimpanzees had their heads cut open so that their nerves could be directly observed while different tastes were placed on their tongues. Imaging technology applied to human volunteers would have provided more pertinent and conclusive data concerning human tastes.
Humans are always the best models for human diseases and illnesses. Anyone taking a vaccine or medication developed through animal testing is taking a leap of faith. Infrequently, animal research may result in a benefit to human health, but the same results could be achieved through nonanimal methods. And regardless of any real or imagined benefit, using animals such as chimpanzees as medical research subjects is immoral, unethical, and unjustifiable.
Biomedical research is big busine$$.
Don't let the fancy titles fool you - these white-coat welfarists are out to make money any way they can. And the federal grant gravy train is easy money.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the largest sponsors of vivisection. The NIH gives out billions of our taxpayer dollars annually to fund medical research. Much of this money is wasted on animal studies, and would be better spent on clinical research of humans.
Many experiments are duplicative; researchers change a tiny variable and repeat essentially the same study. An "old-boys" network makes a mockery of the peer-review system, and keeps the money flowing.
There are alternatives.
Scientific advancement would not grind to a halt with the cessation of vivisection. In vitro research, clinical studies, genetic research, epidemiology, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling and other technologies are available to provide much more useful and pertinent data to further human health. Unfortunately, these areas are woefully under funded in favor of animals studies, which are holding back medical progress.
A note in my psychology text made me think of it. They were talking about how to treat a chimpanzee held in a zoo for its clinical depression caused by boredom and solitude, they taught it to play "Simon says" with visitors to entertain it.
Now, is there anyone out there that thinks that a creature complex enough to be able to be diagnosed with clinical depression should be cruelly experimented on?
Animal experiments harm, not benefit, human health
It is a widely-believed myth that animal testing is both necessary and useful. In fact, the opposite is true.
By law, all government-approved drugs are tested in animals before humans receive them. Because nonhuman animals are physiologically different from us, this has two consequences. First, numerous drugs shown to be safe in the animal models cause serious harm or even death to humans. Examples are DES, Rezulin and Seldane. Adverse reactions to animal-tested drugs are the fourth largest cause of death in America, and a recent study found that 20% of new drugs cause serious side effects that were unknown at the time of approval. Second, potentially valuable drugs are delayed or prevented from reaching the human market because they exhibit harmful effects in animals. Aspirin kills cats, and penicillin has no antibiotic effect in rabbits, but many humans safely use these drugs every day.
Chimpanzees, more similar to us physiologically than any other animals, were hailed as the perfect model for HIV-induced AIDS. Now most researchers admit that this approach has been a complete failure. Like all viruses, HIV is species-specific, adapted to its human host. Only humans get AIDS. Although chimpanzees can be infected with HIV, their bodies do not respond in the same way as humans and they do not get sick. What we know about AIDS has come from studying the disease in humans, not animals. The unfortunate consequence of the failure of the chimpanzee model is that many individuals are now infected, and while not suffering symptoms of illness, they are kept in solitary confinement due to the potential risk of virus transmission.
Similarly, while chimpanzees infected with hepatitis experience no symptoms, humans die from this disease. Most knowledge of this virus has come through in vitro (test tube) research, as chimpanzees are not predictive of human immunological response. Still, many of our closest kin are being used in a misguided attempt to develop a vaccine for HCV. As with AIDS vaccines that showed promise in chimpanzees but were ineffective for humans, this research is unlikely to advance human health.
Chimpanzees were also used as test subjects in coronary artery disease studies. But while humans eating high-fat diets develop elevated levels of two types of fat in their hearts, only one type is increased in chimpanzees, making them poor models for us.
In a study pertaining to benzene-associated leukemia, benzene was injected into chimpanzees. However, they do not metabolize the chemical in the same way as humans. Again, they proved to be poor models for human disease.
Chimpanzees have also been used for patently frivolous research when superior alternatives were readily available. In 1991, Nutrasweet and a Japanese company sponsored a study in which five chimpanzees had their heads cut open so that their nerves could be directly observed while different tastes were placed on their tongues. Imaging technology applied to human volunteers would have provided more pertinent and conclusive data concerning human tastes.
Humans are always the best models for human diseases and illnesses. Anyone taking a vaccine or medication developed through animal testing is taking a leap of faith. Infrequently, animal research may result in a benefit to human health, but the same results could be achieved through nonanimal methods. And regardless of any real or imagined benefit, using animals such as chimpanzees as medical research subjects is immoral, unethical, and unjustifiable.
Biomedical research is big busine$$.
Don't let the fancy titles fool you - these white-coat welfarists are out to make money any way they can. And the federal grant gravy train is easy money.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the largest sponsors of vivisection. The NIH gives out billions of our taxpayer dollars annually to fund medical research. Much of this money is wasted on animal studies, and would be better spent on clinical research of humans.
Many experiments are duplicative; researchers change a tiny variable and repeat essentially the same study. An "old-boys" network makes a mockery of the peer-review system, and keeps the money flowing.
There are alternatives.
Scientific advancement would not grind to a halt with the cessation of vivisection. In vitro research, clinical studies, genetic research, epidemiology, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling and other technologies are available to provide much more useful and pertinent data to further human health. Unfortunately, these areas are woefully under funded in favor of animals studies, which are holding back medical progress.
A note in my psychology text made me think of it. They were talking about how to treat a chimpanzee held in a zoo for its clinical depression caused by boredom and solitude, they taught it to play "Simon says" with visitors to entertain it.
Now, is there anyone out there that thinks that a creature complex enough to be able to be diagnosed with clinical depression should be cruelly experimented on?