“Animal testing is an unfortunate necessity.

It's true that it is not quick, or cheap... this is why it is NOT undertaken lightly. Animal testing is one of the late stages of a drug trial, it comes after a drug has passed the in vitro stages of testing. Yes, we can study drug interactions on a cellular level, but anyone who has cracked open and merely glanced at a biochemistry textbook will tell you things are far, far, FAR more complicated than that. It is impossible to predict how a drug will interact with the tens of thousands of different biomolecules within a whole organism.

There is a misconception regarding the animals used in experiments. The vast majority of animals studied in the UK are single-celled organisms like yeast, or fruit flies. Mice have much DNA that is analogous to our own, so they sometimes prove necessary. Even so, mice that live in labs will often have much nicer living conditions than the average house pet. Fully ventilated and spotlessly clean cages, company from other animals, wood-chips to burrow in, things to chew on. Why? Because the animals' behaviour is often being studied, and they will need to be happy in order for changes in behaviour to be witnessed.

There is no intention for testing on beagles to be done in the new lab. I have heard myself, from professors who are studying primates, that they are not kept in labs either. The primates at a nearby zoo have been trained to provide saliva swabs. There is no secret research on these types of animals.. Why? Because illegality would compromise the credibility of any scientific research.

Before condemning the new facility, people should get their facts straight. Of course animals get sick! Cancer survival rates are higher than ever! The pictures on the NAVA website showing disfigured animals are not from Leicester, they're probably not even from the UK! And Sue, just because it contains a lot of clumsy, ill-conceived ideas that you happen to ignorantly agree with, it does not make it a brilliant letter.”

“Animal testing is complete fraud, lies, and torture... And if you think it saves lives you would be more wrong than right for examples: According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
Further more if you look at drugs that have been through the riggers of animal test that have failed, the number of human death is staggering Examples: Vioxx to date is responsable for over 150,000 injurys and at the very least 50,000 deaths and this drug was said to be very good for the human heart based on animal test. yet human trials proved this to be the furthest opposite. let us not forget Thalidomide how many out there have little to no arms or legs thanks to this animal tested drug. I could go on and on with examples of this kind.
Animal testing has been proven to be a fraud by these few examples I have told. Yet if the people who conducted these outrageous experiments really believed what they were doing work in any way then why do they refuse external studies to prove the validity of animal testing, what do they have to hide??? If they would just allow an external study we could put it all to rest but they refuse because they know what the outcome would be, that it is all a fraud. Sadly most of you speak of this subject as if you do steady research, but your comments show me just opinion as the facts are very lacking...

Just thought I would leave you with one more to ponder, heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn¿t work on dogs.

Cheers”

“Compared to other methodologies yes it is cheap, and because all of the processes are set up and in place it is cheaper for them to keep trudging on with what they are doing rather than re-struturing.
I use to work in a primate sanctuary which took in many ex-laboratory primates. Some of which had been used for 30 years, to conduct the same research year after year on cocaine abuse. For each year this was conducted, those researchers got their pockets lined, and for what benefit to human health, really?
To state that animals in labs are better cared for than most pets is a joke, and infuriates me actually. Whilst I wont attempt to claim that all pets are cared for as they should be (which they most certainly arent), laboratory animals suffer emotional and physical distress and psychological consequences that simply can not be disregarded. Ive personally cared for animals who have been in labs remember, and I have seen the life-long consequences of their time in labs.
With regards to animals getting illnesses, I think what the OP is referring to is the fact that many illnesses which animals suffer from are preventable and largely caused by human interference. Take canines for example- no case of cancer in a wild canine has ever been recorded- yet it is a very frequent ailment in dogs which live in human society.
The point is that although we are all animals, one species can not be used to accurately determine effects of a drug on another. Simple.”

“Animal testing is neither quick nor cheap. It is very time consuming and extremely expensive, not least because of the enormous amount of care and attention which the animals receive - much better than most pets. Animals aren't used instead of 'alternative methodologies'; all the alternatives - like computer models and cell cultures - have to be used first before any medicine can be tested on animals.
But I'm still trying to get over the original letter's claim that "animals don't get illnesses". What do vets do all day then?”

“In response to d snow, I think what you are failing to recognise is that fact that research could have come MUCH further without the hindrance of animal testing. If the highly effective and viable alternative methodologies had replaced the ineffective animal model a long time ago, it is a fact that medical practice owuld not be in a much better position.
It is just the fact that the animla model is cheaper, so costs the companies less to use that has kept it where it is.”

“I don't understand Sue's remark (where has it got us?) My daughter received immense amounts of chemotherapy last year which saved her life, and although I am a great animal lover, if these drugs were at some past time tested on animals, so be it.”

“Hear hear, couldnt agree more. Animal testing is outdated, and serves no other purpose than to line the pockets of researchers and allow the pharmaceutical companies to pass drugs though the system quickly and cheaply.
A serious re-evaluation of the animal model in research has been needed for a long long time- but unfortuntately money speaks louder than reason.”

“What a brilliant letter. I do hope more people listen to common sense!
Look at all the money that has been spent on cancer research using animals and where has it got us?”