Its disgusting that companies still use animals in experimentation. If the argument is that the research gained from this saves so many people....Then why is it that they cure absolutely nothing while making billions in the process.
Cancer is now about one in three and were told it is set to go on rising and people are dropping like flies with diabetes and many other ailments.
These companies are draining the NHS dry and yet cant even provide the cure to the common cold.
Here is a Vid thats well worth watching on the future of medicines http://www.welltv.com/

I think it's great that Scotland has the larger share of the animal testing industry. The Scottish Executive should develop incentives to expand it further - those billions that Scott complains about should be getting invested here.

The anti-finding-cures-for-human-illnesses-ist who was quoted as saying there is a "worsening animal welfare crisis" is wrong. There isn't a crisis - it's a humanistic and economic opportunity for the nation, and of course animal related work is sustainable and the by-products are recyclable. It's very green and I'm surprised the Green Party isn't championing it. Certainly, the Government should stop apologising for a great British and Scottish industry.

At the same time we should have policy of cracking down harder on animal rights terrorists. These people want to see the whole industry exported to China or wherever, where they won't be nearly kind to wee fwuffy bunnies as we are here in Scotland. Aw, da cute! Yes you are! Yes you are!

Actually I think we should export the terrorists to China where they would have a uniquely appropriate way of recycling them.

David Priestman is right to introduce himself as "Hi, I'm a sadistic animal torturer", because that's exactly what he is. He claims he's curing cancer and may well be, but that's no justification for the torture, caging, and brutal destruction of innocent animals. It say in the report that they use Beagles because of their friendly, gentle reputation: How sad. These poor dogs should be pets, to someone who cares for them. We don't deserve to cure cancer, if we have to do it in this manner. Why do people think they have the right to prolong thier own lives through the destruction of other's? Sick and twisted human supremacists.

Comment@4 Jim....Smoothly said mate :)

Testing for the cure of diseases is bad enough, but cosmetic testing on animals, so that fashion freaks can make themselves look "pretty", is completely indefensible. The people who defend this sort of behaviour are deplorable and have no argument against the claim that they are shallow heartless abominations of humanity, who think the way they look is of importance . I'd imagine they would be same people who think wearing fur is acceptable. Pure scum. Its a well known fact that those who abuse animals, particularly as children, go on to abuse people too.

It must be remembered that most medical animal research is aimed at producing commercial me-too drugs, near replicas of existing big sellers. Even where the research is directed at producing novel medicines for serious illnesses there are great flaws in using animals in tests. The London clinical trial which severely injured human particpants involved drugs which had already gone through animal research. Many drugs passed as safe on animals have to be withdrawn after causing serious and sometiimes fatal side-effects in humans. It is also likely that useful drugs have been lost due to adverse reactions in animals. Even if you do not give a monkeys about the pain and suffering caused to animals in laboratories you should at least realise that animal tests offer no guarantee of safety to humans.

Couldn't agree more John @7. Why can't we test this stuff on Colin Ross, Ian Huntley et al. It might be the one chance they have to redeem themselves in any way!

As far as I can tell the animal rights arguement is lets put animal lives above humans.

Lets not forget thats what your debates about. This is not about makeup or cosmetic testing but medical testing. I have never heard an arguement against medical testing, on animals, that hasn't been emotive and about the "cruelty" to the animals.

John have you figures to back up your claims?
Liam - cruelty towards animals in youth can be an indicator of socio or psychopathy but its hardly a fact that everyone who abuses animals as a child goes on to abuse people... In fact the vast majority probably just turn out the same as everyone else.

scottwebb.co.uk its all very clever using emotive language and then critiscing the general research process. Damn those scientists and them being unable to find a cure for cancer/aids/whatever! I guarantee that if you stop animal testing, without providing a viable, workable research alternative then it will take us a lot longer to cure most things.

One last point - if you want testing on animals stopped volunteer to test these drugs in their place. But you'll be lucky if you'll find a research scientist who is willing to risk your life ahead of an animal bred specifically for this purpose.

Meant to add...

Being against animal testing to me is analogous to being against stem cell research.

This government promised to reduce animal tests on its manifesto. Lies, lies, lies! Blairs lips moved again.

Throw the full weight of the anti-terrorim measures at the animal rights scum. If they're locked up for years that might teach them a leason. Meanwhile it's a fact of life that animals continue to be used for testing.

11.Bill

The British governement promised to reduce animal testing across Britain... Has animal testing increased across Britain?

If so, all power to you, your correct. If its just in Scotland there has been an increase but across Britain there has been a decrease your wrong.

Is the 4.5% increase mirrored in England, Wales and NI - that would be the sentient fact to look in to.

Jim 4 and Scott 5 - I don't have pets, I have stock.

Liam, 3 and 6 - not sick and not very twisted, but happy to be considered a "human supremacist". Humans, while not necessarily nicer or cuter, are definitiely better and more important than fwuffy bunnies and other animals.

Humans have never been so sentimental about our furry and feathered friends as in the past few years. We used to know what the proper ralationship was with animals but some of you have forgotten and have turned into human hating freaks.

Liam, your language suggests you think meat eaters, fur wearers and animal experiments and testers are "pure scum", "abominations against humanity". What should be done to us, I wonder? Do you think we should be hurt, possibly killed? It's just as well I've given a false name or I know I'd be in trouble for holding these views, which as far as I can tell are held by most of us humans, especially outside the "developed" world. Liam, you're a scary human hater, just you stay in Oz!

Liam #6,
You're way out of date mate. Cosmetic testing has not been conducted in the UK for many years. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your irrational beliefs. Isn't keeping a companion animal in captivity the worst sort of exploitation?
The solution is simple. Just as cosmetic testing was brought to an end by people refusing to use products tested on animals, the same could happen with therapeutic drugs. If a sizable proportion of the population refused to use drugs that had been tested on animals for themselves, their families, and their PETS, then it would all stop. Somehow I don't think Joe Public will do that however.

There is a lot of unnecessary duplication of testing on animals, scientists can be an arrogant, secretive lot who don`t always share their research with others, particularly internationally.

Janis from London, 17 - animal rights terrorists are an arrogant, secretive lot who terrorise and extort and burn and kill people and dig up their mums' graves. Scientists are a brave lot who keep doing this vital work in the face of terrorist threats.

Thanks to the animal welfare people, all those animals were much better off with better care and places to live than the vast majority of animals that get eaten in this country. (I assume all you anti-experiment people are either vegetarians or only eat free-range animals that were humanely killed, or else you would be amoral hypocrites.)

Scotland's cared more about science than England for hundreds of years, that's why more research can get done here. Conservatives hate to learn new things.

Animal rights is one thing but when they terrorise humans are they not worse than than the scientists.

I think the use of animals should be allowed it is the best way to bring in new treatments.

I also asked an animal rights activist to volunteer for clincal trials in place of animals she said "no chance"

On the other hand if someone is on deaths doors then test away they have nothing to lose everything to gain.

Don`t generalise Johnny, I haven`t !
I`m off to do my very, very small bit for helping the sick. Might even meet my scientist husband for lunch.

Keir #9 quotes
One last point - if you want testing on animals stopped volunteer to test these drugs in their place. But you'll be lucky if you'll find a research scientist who is willing to risk your life ahead of an animal bred specifically for this purpose

The reason for this may be that animals cannot sue.

As for emotive language used by people against animal testing, to most people, who are compasionate about other creatures, and not self obseeded like yourself, yes its emotive for a good reason, however I'm sure that this would be lost on someone like yourself, who has no concept of caring for another living being!!!

Johnny#15 What gives you such a superior attitude, humans are more important than animals,?? you will be telling us next to cut down every tree in the world, incase you dont realise, the world has a diversity of both, so that both can coexist its all about balace, you remove too much of one thing you knock everything else out of kilter. So climb down of your high horse, without animals you wouldn't live, your part of the cycle, the human animal, not the be all and end all

17. In reply...

There maybe unnessecary duplication in the private sector not because of scientists but because of drugs companys. Then again its not unusual for drug companies to publish said research and even to use it commercially to help sell their product.

Scientists are not in the least secretive. Their findings are nearly always published in peer reviewed journals which are readily avaliable on the internet and in published paper form by order. Of course it costs money initially to view these journals but in general after six months they are avaliable freely to be viewed or free from a decent reference library. To say scientists are secretive merely points to ignorance and lethargy on your point. There is a world of scientific research out there, not at all secretive, hidden away in some labs filing cabinet but freely avaliable for anyones consumption.

Then again it all comes down to how you define unessecary duplication... Science is based on theory and proof. One experiments results does not equal prove and may not even indicate a theory is sound. Thus the experiments are duplicated, in line with good scientific practice, to test the results of previos experiments and the results thereof. If anyone is to blame for this it is statisticians and statistics not scientists. Besides is it really unessecary duplication if a human life could potentially be at risk.

Arrogant perhaps? Secretive no chance ;)

What about human rights ? or do we not have any?
lets use the protestors and activists as test subjects instead of rats and mice.
At least that way they would contribute something worthwhile to society

49,284 rats were used in research last year.

Rats, the bringer of Weils disease, rats that brought bubonic plague. I'm ok with rats being tested on.

Yes if you are a human, Will. Disrespect for animals is maifested in so many ways. I have even witnessed vehicles driving straight at pheasants on the road, presumably to avoid wear and tear on brakes.

22. Karen.

No concept of caring for another human being. Why thank you - I have no problem with animal testing ergo this makes me, excuse my presumptions here, heartless, cruel and cold.

I assure you I have the capacity to care for another human being and indeed another living being. I am oppossed to the pointless subjection of cruelty to animals. However where we differ, if you would care to notice, is that I don't regard animal testing for medical purposes as pointless - particularly when the end result of said testing could potentially save lives.

I am reasonably sure its comforting to frame everyone who takes part in animal testing as money grabbing heartless animal torturers however they are doing so for the benefit of mankind. I have no problem with that, you do, this does not make me any less compassionate then you it justs means I am willing to put the lives of humans above other animals.

Don't mistake your rush to demonise those who disagree with your stance as free from compassion or caring - unless you are offering an alternative to animal testing your not showing much compassion for your fellow man. Your putting principles above peoples lives.

My dear old Pa was saved by drugs that had been tested on animals and I'm sure lots of you out there were either saved or know somebody that was saved by the animal tested drugs.

I dare anybody to tell me a rats life is worth more than my old Pa.

Testing of new drugs on animals is an unpleasent but necessary thing to do. Withouit proper testing many harmful drugs could be unleashed on the public. Testing prevents most of them being released.

The alternative to animal testing is human testing. How many of the critics would support the testing of a new drug on their partner or children, very few I would suggest.

The public have to accept proper testing. HOWEVER - their is a significant difference between testing and unnecessary cruelty. Cruelty should never be condoned. This is the element that has to be addressed.

On a last note some people who have made comments link animal testing and the wearing of fur, etc. A question to all of you, do you eat meat? If so some animal has died to feed you. Do you waer leather shoes or a leather belt? If so some animal has died to allow you to wear leather. There is far too much hypocracy in the meat/fur debate. Most animals which are bred specifically for their meat are raised in humane conditions (farmers get a better price for good supplies) and also killed humanely.

If you want to attack anyone then please attack the minority who are cruel and not tar the majority with a cruellty brush.

Janis from London, 21 - of course you were generalising, and what your husband does for a living is irrelevant, unless he's a vivisectionist, in which case he deserves some extra cake.

L, your always going to get 'extremists' and 'lunatics' in organisations. Not all animal rights poeple are scum.

I can't believe I missed the inherent irony of post number 3...

The inherent irony being that calling those who test on animals for the benefit of humans "human supremacists" being of course that you are declaring your superiority over animals by deciding to protect them. Oh and your superiority morally over those who decide to test on them.

Philosophically speaking you are the bigger human supremacist. ;)

Marrianna, 26 - what are we supposed to do if we see a hen or a game bird on the road? Stop and risk a crash, or plough through?

I once heard an interview on Radio 2 where an animal rights extremist, who thought it was ok to send death threats to scientists would refuse life-saving treatment for his children if the drug was tested on animals. Surprise, surprise, he refused to answer the question. The answer was obviously no and shows how strongly held these 'beliefs' really are.

The simple solution is to have an anti-testing, national register. Anyone who puts there name to it will then not get any treatments which have been tested on animals, whether it could save their lives. This would prevent them abandoning their principles, which they so 'strongly' believe in.

Get real!

Well said Kier and David

Sorry, I meant Dave!

31. Marrianna

In a similar vein neither are all vivisectionists or scientists involved in animal testing.

There are generalisations on both sides. If you look further up you'll see that I am clearly free from compassion...

You too Robert, nicely put!

A bit like Jehova witnesses that sign a waiver to refuse blood tranfusions. Good call mate!

Keir
You seem to miss the point, that almost all testing on animals for medical research is a complete waste of time and money, effects seen in animals wil not necessarily be repeated in humans, I dare say the drugs used in the much publicised case of the "elephant man" were indeed first tested on animals.

Drugs after being tested on animals, are then tested on humans, why whats the sense in this, if no possitive results can be obtained, why bother.

Oh and just to clear things up before you make any more assumpions, I am a scientist, I dont agree with animal testing, I am a vegetarian, I am not animal rights, but i do believe animals have rights

Karen, 22 - daft argument. I don't think every tree should be cut down. I do think humans get to decide about these things. I also think we get to ride around on high horses. Why shouldn't I ride a high horse if I want to? I'll get off when I want to. You say that anyone who doesn't agree with your perverted way of thinking has no concept of caring for another living being. That's a wrong and stupid conclusion. You ask what gives me a superior attitude - it's because I am human and we're superior to beasts.

It might be helpful to list which of the major world diseases have been eradicated by experimenting on animals. Cancer? AIDS? Malaria? For the trillions of animals that have died excrutiatingly painful deaths we must have soemthing to show for it surely?

Karen, 26 - you claim to be a scientist! Some kind of astrologer or alchemist, perhaps? The only way animals have rights is where humans decide to allow them to have them, and they aren't really rights because they can't assert them.

Karen

What are the viable alternatives to animal research?

Fair enough I may be making assupmtions - but in fairness you assumed I was self obsesse and did not care for another human being :| pots and kettles perhaps?

"Drugs after being tested on animals, are then tested on humans, why whats the sense in this, if no possitive results can be obtained, why bother."

Drugs being tested on animals are generally meant to be used by humans. They are tested on animals, not just so scientists can see they are safe or further their own research, but so they can observe how the drug interacts with a biological system similar to our own. They can see where the drug goes essentially, what tissues it can penetrate, what membranes it is permeable to and so on. Thusly when it is tested on humans they will now where the drug goes if the worst happens.

In the vast majority of cases, bar some very notable exceptions the recent drugs trial gone wrong in London being a notable example, the tests prove positive results when they get to the stage of human trials.

Then again in the vast majority of cases there is no terrorist bomb on a plane but it doesn't stop people worrying about it or pointing it out as a reason that air travel is unsafe...

Johnny, you are showing by your answers that you really have no concept of what you are talking about, just opening your mouth and letting hot air escape, however I will agree with you on one point, the human animal does descide what happens, it's also the human animal that is making such a mess of things, no other animal would be so stupid to do so.

28:
I won't tell you that, but I will tell you that those drugs were tested on human's long before they were given any kind of seal of approval. I doubt very much your father's illness can occur in rats, or indeed, any animal naturally. Therefore the results of testing on it are often extremely flawed. They aren't mentioning how often these vivisections are just "pure research" which enables a hefty government grant..
29:
Animals are killed humanely?? You're just a little ill-informed. They're stunned before slaughter, with a steel bolt through their eyes that has a fifty-fifty chance of incapacitating them before slaughter, or just causing them f****** agony. Or you could always just break their necks, whichever appeals. We then have the ever charming halal/kosher modes of killing, which contravene animal rights laws, but we mustn't upset the minority groups..

Karen - what is a "concept of what you are talking about"? That is just vague abuse. You disagree with me but you can't articulate why. You can't really be a scientist. I just don't believe you. A student, maybe, or still stoned from last night. I do believe that you're a vegetarian, though.

Johnny, I repeat : I have witnessed vehicles being driven straight at pheasants on the road, even when there is no danger to other motorists !!!!

There is much debate on GM foods etc and better labeling wanted on food packages stating what they contain. If all medical products that had been tested on animals stated that on the box, the protesters would have the right to refuse. Let's see how many are genuine.

You're implying that a rats life is worth more than my dear old pa Ryan. You're scum mate.

By the way, cancer occurs in every life form be it animal or plant and don't think it doesn't. My cat died lst year of lukemia. My dog has, just now, a non malignat tumour.

Marrianna, 46 - that's just pure terrible. And a right waste of food. There's good eatin' off a pheasant.

Keir, animal testing assumes that a drug will have the same effect on humans as animals, but when you take the concept for example, that guinea pigs are totally intolerant to almost all antibiotics, then you start to get a little better insight, as to how our systems vary, to animals, yes it may give a general view, but not a definative one.

It may be something we will have to agree to disagree on, and as much as you may hate to admit it, emotion is on both sides, otherwise, why do you defend it!!

Karen

So all these drugs, developed by testing on animals, are just hocus pocus with no scientific merit at all? Are you debasing science then?

Anyway all this exchanging of abuse isn't paying off the national debt. Surey the choice isn't between keeping animal testing and stopping it - it's between the animal testing tsking place in Scotland where it can be managed and controlled, or the industry leaving for China or somewhere like that where you can be sure they won't lavish the loving care practised on the beasts that we have here.

Out of sight and out or mind? Or are the animal rights loonies going to invade Shenzen and take on the People's Liberation Army?

Animal tests have actually caused more human suffering than otherwise.

Much valuable time and resources are wasted by testing on animals. Very often results on lab animals are not transferable to other species, including that they are not transferrable to humans.

If testing had been done on artifically grown human tissue, results would be instantly transferable to treatment of disease in humans.

Johnny, the answer is 'Yes'! Animal charities are active in China, and all other countries in the world.

Animal tests have actually caused more human suffering than otherwise @53

Proof please of your fantastic claim. Anybody can make up anything they like and assert it as gospel. We need links to proven studies before we can accept your wild claim. Thanks.

Ryan #44 - As I said most animals are killed humanely. This is done in most slaughterhouses by trained operatives using Captive Bolt equipment (under The
Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995). Animals are not shot through the eye- It is done either on the forehead or the back of the head depending on the animal.

It does happen, but rarely, that the operator misdirects the shot, usually due to sudden movements of the animal. In such case I agree that the animal may suffer greatly before being slaughtered.

I don't disagree there is emotion on both sides. However I would say that coming at the debate from the point of view that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few which I think is slightly less emotive then your standpoint. But agree to disagree we must.

On another note I am also debating this with the good folks on http://www.altnation.com/forums/current-affairs-debate-po...

One of whom posted this.

"1. Medical testing cannot be done on people for a number of reasons:
a. remember the recent scandal when loads of folk took a reaction to a drug? Well that would happen ALL THE TIME
b. most first-stage animal testing is done on mice or rats, which have been bred to the stage they are fairly genetically identical. Would you like to try and find 100 human volunteers of the same age, medical background, and virtually identical genetics? No?"

... There is a pont two but it relates to the specific example of thalidimide.

"3. the 'order' of preference for animals in medical testing is: mice/rats -> rabbits (they have a vagely similar reproductive system, hence are often involved in screening for teratogenic effects ala thalidomide) -> dogs and ferrets (rodents can't vomit) -> primates -> healthy humans -> patient groups"

Which articulates some of the points I have been trying to make somewhat better then I possibly am.

Eyeglass, 54 - I would imagine the life of an animal rights protester in tne People's Republic of China would be nasty, brutish, and probably very short indeed.

Anyway, should the Scottish industry be exported there? Would the animal rights loonies be happier?

I have yet to hear of an animal rights activist who has refused medical treatment on the grounds of their belief. Not testing on animals is so nonsensical as to not be worth even discussing. No risk to human life is justifiable.

There is of course no argument for testing on cosmetics and I believe that this is no longer done in the UK.

Johnny, I agree, but I am a vegetarian, have been for 30 years.

OK Johnny. I will answer you, when we make the decissions, for all animals, we descide how much, to take of any given environment, our seas are lacking in fish, now why is that Johnny? is it because for millions of years, all the fish eating creatures, that have maintained a balance, are suddenly eating too much, there numbers are not being limited by the amount of prey available to them, oh or may it be because the human animal is taking too much away, and wont allow time for recovery, hhhmmmm now thats a hard one!!!

Introduction of species that dont belong in an ecosystem (am I still sounding like an astrologer??) that then removes, a competeter, knocks out a whole system, animals on their own dont move into a foriegn environmemt, the human animal introduces them, and messes up the whole system.

You can see from these couple of examples, why I believe that the human animal, is not the superior, animal, mearly the one that can muck things up. Now this has went off topic, but since you insisted that I explaine, things that are as clear as the nose on your face.

You might like to explain to me your point of view??

Keir 14

It is hard to get accurate information on such an emotive subject. However, it is clear that animal testing is not decreasing to the extent that it could or should.

It is unrealistic to expect that animal testing can be done away with entirely, but I remember that the Blair manifesto promised a massive decrease in 'unnecessary' testing and experiments.

I attach a link showing the UK figures up to 2002.
You will see that there has not been any decrease over the period of the Blair government. Over the period 1997-2002 it has been flat. Perhaps you have the figures for 2003,4,5?

The point is that any increase anywhere in the UK is bad news; if there was a determined effort to reduce this activity then we would be seeing good reults by now. As I said; lies, lies, lies.

Link for animal tests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3650057.stm

Karen

You don't spell like a scientist. decissions? mearly?

By the way, a pheasant and rabbit is an introduced species to our eco system but are now part of the food chain.

Well, Karen 61, you're using big words now but I 'm not convinced that you aren't an astrologer, with a penchant for black velvet clothes and a cat, and Sobranie cigarettes.

What you are saying is that the planet would be fine if it wasn't for us humans (I bet you think "you humans" because you hate us) with our horrible opposable thumbs.

And how do you know the nose on my face is clear? I can 't see my own nose and I'm sure you can't. And that is my point of view (think about it).

To all vegitarians taking partr in the discussion - Do you eat cheese, yoghurt, eggs, fish, etc. Do you drink milk?

If you answer yes to any of them then you are not 100% in support of animal rights. All these products are commonly produced via various types of farming. In the eyes of many animal rights supporters this is cruelty. Does this brand everyone as being cruel.

61. This is vastly off topic but related philosophically I suppose (in the man destorys planet regard)

In the North East sand eel stocks have been damaged by the increase in the number of gulls. which reduces the food stocks avaliable for consumption by the fish and has a knock on effect.

It would be fair to say that humans are the only animals that go against the natural order in this respect. By imposing quotas and trying to preserve the numbers of other species and regulate them through protection or pest status.

It would be erroneous to say other animals allow time for recovery within the context of an ecosystem. If they overuse their food stuff then their numbers dwindle because they start to die thus allowing their food source to recover and then their numbers to recover. Its not really about the animals themselves maintaining a balance - and in all probability any animal with as many resources as ourselfs would probably be just as damaging as we are.

Keir, 67 - you're another one! "Natural" to you means "without human involvement". Two legs bad, four or six or eight or no legs good?

Keir
your point b above, will indeed give an accurate, reading for an experiment, but experiments, also need a varient, to see what the different results can bring, the biggest varient here will be when it is given to a different species (humans) with possibly very differnt results.
At this moment in time there is no suitable alternative, but given that there are so many advanses in all the sciences, we are learning all the time, it's maybe time some money was flung at finding an alternative

Bill. 62 + 63.

Cheers for the info. I have to agree with your lies, lies, lies comments now ;)

Although in fairness think of the hypothetical public outcry if a new drug for the treatment of (or even potentially a cure for...) cancer/aids or another major disease was developed but delayed by stingent government animal testing legislation?

I don't think its something you can really regulate in such a way as the research is undertaken (in 80% of cases) when a new drug reaches a certain stage of development.

None of my recent comments should be in any way seen as endorsing the policies of the Scottish Fishing Industry. They are a bunch of no hopers determined to plunder the Scottish fisheries into extinction in defiance of sensible and serious scientific advice.

Keir thats why they want to completley ban both cod and sandeel fishing, so that recovery can take place

And the point you made after that is indeed the balace

48:
I said nothing of the bloody kind you moron!! I said that the medicine your father used was tested on other people(what is known as a test subject) long before your father used it, and that the tests on rats were largely useless, because the illness your father had is very unlikely to have ever occurred in a rat naturally, therefore their reaction to it will be nigh on useless. Try reading what I said.
How many cancerous rats, or AIDS infected baboons do you think there have ever been outside of a laboratory?

70. Karen

As soon as there is a viable alternative to animal testing I will abhorre any animal testing that occurs and I do sincerly hope we reach that point sooner than latter ;)

However until then I will remain in support of animal testing.

Johnny, I am a witch astronomer, human hater, taking to a man without a nose, hhhmmm interesting,but WHY are humans superior??

I can't argue with Karen on the fact that we have overfished the seas and that introducing some species into foreign ecosystems was a bad idea.

I also agree that we shouldn't be repeating tests, especially for cosmetic purposes (I know we stopped that ourselves some time ago), but if using animals to test drugs saves lives, then of course we should do it!!! Scientists are now able to grow organs to use in replacement surgery (remember seeing the mouse with an ear growing on it on the news?) - do you think humans should have been used for THAT?

I actually worry about people who say things like "I prefer animals to humans any day" - they may have some unresolved issues.

Karen - you and I agree on something!

Back to my original point - would it be better to end animal testing in Scotland and have the industry go abroad, or keep it and regulate it?

but WHY are humans superior??

The ability to put together cognitive thougths abd communicate them through the medium of speech and the written word I guess.

Animal testing is just about keeping these 'scientists' in a job. They will come up with all kinds of indefensible nonsense just to keep their industry going, and stop the jobs going to China or anywhere else. I'm sure the misguided fools know it's morally wrong.

79. Dave

You'd be as well saying humans are superior because they think they are ;)

Although written language is one thing we have that no other animal has thus far developed without our intervention.

80. James

Morally wrong in your opinion. Moral absolutism is no way to win a debate. Start an arguement maybe but not win a debate ;)

Johnny & Keir - you are correct.
Bring on more testing and more labs into Scotland I say. More highly skilled well paid scientific jobs.
Who are these anti-vivisectionsists anyway who appointed them?
We are not talking pets here folks we are talking animals bred for the purpose no existance otherwise.
Liam OZ you must be on eof the ugly people the way you are so anti cosmetics. Try using more you may get a life.

Why are humans superior? Is it not something to with the fact that we have the ability to develop conscience (over and above the capability to read and write!), which other animals don't have?

80. James

I should also point out that some of my remarks could be taken as moral absolutism as well in fairness. However I assure you I see both sides of the debate and in my personal final analysis I see animal testing as a nessecary evil.

Also its worth noting that the scientists will not lose their jobs if a viable alternative becomes avaliable - they will simply adapt to use the viable alternative instead. The economic impact will be felt by the people involved in administering the research and breeding the animals.

Karen, 76 - you ask why humans are superior. It is tempting to demonstrate why humans are different, but that's not the same as superior.

Eagles can fly and lift a lambs from the field with their great talons - we can't. Cheetahs can run and capture prey at great speeds - we can't. Bees can co-operate and make honey, we can't. Elephants can see their own noses as can anteaters - we can't (usually).

We can have unnatural recreational sex, we can cook, we can bring together tomatoes, onions and the oil from olives to make really nice sauce, we can practise double entry book-keeping, we can manufacture ibuprofen.

That's pretty damn superior.

I think they should use paedophiles for all the drug testing, along with all the other assorted perverts, rapists and murderers. That way we solve two problems; we help eliminate animal testing, and we make sure these sub-humans are kept away from society.

83:
And on the other side, who gave us the right to torture, blind, and kill other sentient creatures for purely our own benefit? I don't see these animals walking with a cheery countenance into the average lab. In fact they scream, whine, scratch, and try and escape, a pretty clear way of expressing a wish to not be involved, wouldn't you think??
No mention either of how easily the risks of cancer can be cut dramatically with simple lifestyle changes, how rather than force-feed animals to test anti-obesity pills we could try using a bit of willpower, likewise nicotine patches, it's a pretty long list. But who doesn't love a quick fix, and lets forget any pretence of morality.

87. Guga

Do you perhaps right for a certain well known Murdoch owned tabloid ;P

88. Ryan

Forget any pretence of your own personal morality. Blind and kill fair enough but torture is somewhat subjective.

So, if all you tree hugging, right on types were unfortunate enough to contract some horrible disease and found out that the drug to cure it had been tested on some cute wee bunny wunnies or doggy woggies, would you decide not take it in order to uphold your beliefs?

88. Ryan

Sorry should clarify. Merely stating that your personal morality is not the absolute correct morality for everyone. Don't think I made that particularly clear.

As for torture being subjective I take this definition of torture

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. "

Which I don't think applies. Its all about the intent of the person undertaking the action not whether the action itself is "cruel" (for a given value of cruel)

another reason for testing on the same day as the bad news we have good.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02112006/325/red-wine-molecule-h...

Ryan - don't be so flippant about cancer reducing lifestyle changes.

Johnny lol you are telling me why humans are different, not why they are superior, you can do all these things in a human society, we will put you in Africa, beside a pack of lions, will you survive by telling them you are a superior being??
Or drop you in the depths of the sea, out of your natural environment, still superior, still able to use your human attributes to survive??
when you destoy your own living
space, for your own needs, how superior does that make you. AS people we have the the ability to change the world, its about time we started thinking about how we are doing it!!

Dave we are not the only animals capable of thinking, and speaking

And yes my spelling is awful, my writing is even worse, by the way and has an "n" in the middle not a "b"

I find female animal right campaigners to be frightfully unattractive.

Do they really think big baggy jumpers, shaved heads, nose piercings and no make up, is the way to attract a male?!?

100

Try again, here goes

Gotcha!!!

96. Karen.

I fear you may have left yourself open to ridicule with this post. Of course a human being is not superior naked and bereft of his species acheivements that you describe.

However a human being could use a gun (lethal or non lethal) to subdue the lions. Or some form of motorised veichle to escape?

In the depths of the sea they could sit smugly in their submersable (sp?) watching the fish swim about in the greaty depths warm and dry.

So yes Johnny still could take advantage of the human attribute of invention to be superior in said situations.

All animals destory their living space, food stocks etc to a certain extent we just do it more. It doesn't imply that our achievements are any less.

103.

Its probably more the fact that people tend to view them as socially akward or the like because they have a cause.

Nelson Mandella hardly fits the profile now does he?

Karen - you're a Sagittarius, right?

Funny how nobody seems to want to answer my question.....
which of the major world diseases have been eradicated by experimenting on animals. Cancer? AIDS? Malaria? For the trillions of animals that have died excrutiatingly painful deaths we must have soemthing to show for it surely?
...anybody?

I'm surprised that the debate here in the comments hasn't yet linked independence for Scotland to testing on animals. Seems to happen on all other comments boards on the Scotsman website!!!

For what it's worth testing on animals for medical purposes is a necessary evil. We need to make choices in life (not always pleasant ones) and this is one that we have to support.

The extreme animal rights activists do themselves no favours and i find it difficult to see how they're animal lovers - e.g. the beagles that were let loose from a lab all had to be put down when caught and the fish who were let out of a fish farm recently all died as they couldn't survive in the natural environment.

The government should be much much tougher on these extremists. Exhuming a body (as they did once) to make a point really shows the depth of comtempt for all life of some of these people.

Keep smiling!

Keir:
'tis ok, I knew what you meant.
"Infliction of severe physical pain" "as a tool for the extraction of information" sounds exactly right to me, but I admit I take exception to vivisection on moral grounds, so perhaps unbiased isn't a good word for me.
It seems as if people smoke cigarettes, pollute the very air we breathe,take excessive alcohol into their bloodstream, eat food their bodies cant digest, take no exercise and then wonder why they develop horrible diseases later on in life. If you take no care of yourself, you've no right to demand a cure for your own self-neglect based on animals suffering. Again, in purely my opinion.

bupf, they can compare their ridiculous tastes in large groups, therefore supporting each other in their empty lives.

It also leads to lesbianism and poofery!!

107#
Diabetes

110# tell that to all the non smoking lung cancer sufferers Ryan.

Keir I stand by all I said ridiculed or not, animals in there own environment have evolved things to cope that humans are only starting to catch up on, if we are still in the depths of the ocean, how long ago before man invented electricity, were eels, rays and the likes using it, how can deep diving whales like sperm whales, and northern bottlenose whales dive to such depths without being crushed (something us humans still havent done) and why dont they suffer from the bends, unless affected by sonar??

Yes humans have invented things, and made advancments, but without the other creatures around them, they too will die out.

My original point was that we are part of the cycle, without the rest we wont exist, now that does't make us superior!!

Johnny no I am not a sagittarius, and just because I know this doesn't make me an astrologist either!!

If people are serious about reducing animal suffering should there not be a ban on the slaughter of animals using kosher or halal methods which arguably cause more suffering than the traditional way of killing meat for food?

116. Karen

The point I was making it makes no sense pointing to evolved adaptations to enviroments humans do not traditional inhabit to dissprove peoples notions of human superiority because they can simply come back at you with examples akin to the ones that I have mentioned.

On an evolutionary level humans could be said to be superior in the way they have colonised nearly every enviroment on the planet and are at the top of nearly every food chain. Also the fact that we have created means of visiting enviroments we wouldn't survive in perhaps also indicates a degree of superiority over other animals.

Morally and philosophically its another matter, as is whether or not we are "higher than animals" As Desmond Morris once said "Not a fallen angel but a risen ape".

I am fond of aniamls and hate to think of them being mistreated. However, animal testing is essential to advances in medicine. My father has had serious health issues in the past, but due to advanced medical science he now lives a great life. For that simple reason I am fully in favour of research using animals.

Karen - when did we start tesing lipstock on bottle nose dolphins?

Stick to the subject. It is not about wildlife at all.

Agreed we are going way off topic, but it was brought about, by the superior bit way back.

The article, we are discussing however, why with promises of reduced animal testing, has it indeed been allowed to increase, why with all our advancments and knowlege do we still rely on a species that is so different from ourselfs, why as "superior" beings have we not moved on from this, or is it the fact that animals are an easy commodity, who cant tell us how much we are hurting them, (so therefor you can not debate the extent of there suffering), small animals , prey animals, will indeed hide very well how much they are suffering, in the wild a sign of weakness would see them eaten!!

So no it shouldn't continue, it certainly shouldn't be increasing, and the superior being should be working on that

How about Brigitte Bardot, Pamela Anderson, Stella McCartney.......

Karen 124 #
what have you done yourself to help reduce it through science?
Perhaps there has been a reduction in real terms against what it would have been left unchecked.
We have some very good scientists who support testing (not for for cosmetics) and very few against
(fringe really).
However you have wasted too many inches on wildlife I feel to have much more to say on this subject.

Who was the mug that said cosmetic testing had finished, maybe in Britain but the vast majority of cosmetics women purchase here are made abroad and tested on animals, L'Oreal? because I'm worth a rabbit being blinded by chemicals? Dont effin think so, and if you think you are safe buying from the Body Shop, think again, who owns them now? yesss L'Oreal, all the money goes into the same coffers dont care if they say they keep their priciples thats nonsense now. Us women are the worst offenders in animal cruelty, drape yourself in some poor creatures skin and then slap the paint on your face that another has been forced to consume in some way or another.

Who was the daftie that said the victims of testing were better looked after than other animals? Joana was it? Get a bloody grip, if you are born in a cage, life all your life in a cage and die strapped down in a cage its hardly a life is it? But never mind darlin you just spray on something expensive that makes you think you are rich, beautiful and possibly, in a certain light, look just that little bit like Nicole Kidman. Who cares if it causes another creature to scream in fear and pain eh?

The whiff of human arrogance.......We are superior to animals because god says so? whit god there isnae a bloody god, but then thats a good justification all round isnt it. We abuse animals because there is still the beast in each and every one of us, no matter how much you protest your innocence.....this is why we cannot claim to be civilised.

That Corbert wan he's goat a bliddy nerve, phoned me up fir a menagerie a twa n ah wis rite up fir it. Nixt thing ah no he's kicked me aff the bed and him n ma Shuggy are giein it boardin school buddys, ye've goat a cheek pal!

Doreen 128

Spot on!

Tell it like it is - Anita Roddick sold all her goodwill and employee trust down the river to the frogs. We know about animal rights in France, Spain, Italy and all points south and east - they hardly exist.

We are streets ahead of the rest of the world in the UK, but there's a long long way to go yet.

Scott #1
"Then why is it that they cure absolutely nothing while making billions in the process.
Cancer is now about one in three"

The increase in cancer is because the things people used to die of are now being cured - partly due to animal tests.

Regretably life has a 100% mortality rate.

Why should we not be different if we are to claim that we are a civilised race? We are supposedly the more intelligent species surely then our intellect should be used to protect and care for the more vulnerable species?.......no? oh well on you go back to exploiting and killing them then. The human race justifies every atrocity that it commits in one way or another.

Big business drug treatment for major diseases and ilnesses, you sure they are really going to come up with a cure for it?

bupf 131

We are animals with intellect, reason, compassion etc - you know, all those human qualities that are supposed to lead civilisation, peace etc.

Unfortunately, some of us are primitive to the point of being neanderthal (no names mentioned, keep W out of this), and it is up to the enlightened ones to help them along their thorny path.

We are in control of this planet, so we do have dominion over other living things. How we exercise this dominion depends on us, and in a perfect world every action has to be justified (don't mention the war).

The hypocrisy I can smell does not come form the government or those scientists whose work necessitates research on animals - it comes from the general public who demand that all of their drugs, products and food stuffs are SAFE - btw without defining what safe is, and want cures for all kinds of diseases
but don't want to see any cuddly animals being used for testing

Until there is a reliable and reproducible alternative to animal testiong it will have to continue

And a little scientific point - almost all of mice used in these studies have been bred and dsigned for purpose - they would not exist if they were not required for testing - genetically defined mice can be very powerful in working out how drugs work or diseases progress.

#116 Karen: Sperm Whales have recently been found to show signs of being affected by the bends

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4122119.stm

Actually, perhaps not so recent. That was in 2004 when I was still at Uni - how time flies!

Sorry to go off topic : )

Nature is nasty, smelly and if it gets the chance, it will incorporate you into the food chain.
Every other species on this planet looks after itself at the expense of others.

In the end, this arguement boils down to whether you think it's valid for humans to use other species to protect our own from disease.

Drug companies make money - they are businesses which need profit to give back to shareholders and to plough into further research. They are also under very strict Home Office rules in the way they treat animals, and comply to the three R's principle. Unfortunately at the moment there are few real replacements for a living, breathing body.

Most scientists involved in this work are not evil torturers - they believe that they are working for the greater good of mankind.
Some will disagree and say that we have no right - this is a valid opinion, but does not excuse terrorism against the research community.

Finally, for those who are vehemently against all animal testing - remember that most of the chemicals in your food, the clothes you wear and the drugs you may or may not take are required to be tested on animals by law.

134. Doreen

Paranoia about diseases not being cured because money is made from treatments and the like is just plain stupiditiy.

Clearly they would invent new diseases ;)

Apparently there's a lot of money to be made in animal testing in China, and costs are a quarter of those here. Whether the bunny huggers like it, the beagles are on their way.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/1030/024.html

I would ask the animal rights people this - how can animals be conferred with rights? If this is the case they also have reponsiblities to reduce suffering to their fellow creatures. How could this be possible? Could big cats be made to understand that in exchange for their right not to be persecuted by humans they in turn should dispatch their prey humanely. Not much sense there then, so no, animals cannot have 'rights' as we understand them. However it is surely the case that they should have the basic right to be treated as humanely possible if they are used for our needs.

However it is surely the case that they should have the basic right to be treated as humanely possible if they are used for our needs.

If they were humane I would agree. Domesticated animals should be given basic rigths such as:

Freedom of movement
Freedom to food and water
Freedom from pain and suffering
Freedom to medical attention

And STILL none of the anti animal testing contributers have answered my question at #92!!!!

JG

Dunno, I think the tree hugging, liberal left loonie Marxist train spotters are busy just now!

Afternoon Dave - how are you today?

I like animals too, and agree they should be treated well - if you decide to have a pet you should look after it properly, but if the question is "would you cause the death of a a few rats and mice to save the life of a human?"

OF COURSE I WOULD!

Mans inhumanity to man, that's human weakness. Mans inhumanity to animals, thats cruelty; but animals preying on each other, how can that be justified. Know I'm off course here, but the last part being part of God's plan - hard to come to terms with.

There was a Chinese man who wanted the publicity and he declared that he could create cells!!!. These papers, TVs are best left for the Police news, the Miss World contest, the beauty parlour, the muscles man, the politicians and space. I hesitate the science to appear. There are errors. We had Pluto, Cane saw, gone. See what we are doing to the planet. In addition, the space. The global warming is left on one side as every body accuses the other of shortages in budgets or the Iraq war or the poppy going higher in price and coffee is lower. The Chinese gold is up and the Indian silver is down, Can we keep the science out. I understand that we nee this but ewe need the right stuff, the solidly verified statement and no guesses. Alternatively, we will have ill-educated young ones who will challenge us one day and we will not be able to reply. I mean now can you talk of Pluto or many stars that were found. Gone?

I do not subscribe to Animal right extremists and i have a suspicion they are being used to help bring in laws that will result in us being RFID chipped....Problem...Reaction....Solution.
As for the other points made like better animals than humans.....What makes you think they don't ?
They do......Constantly...and as for cures, they don't cure....theres no money in cures.
Someone made a comment about diabetes......diabetes is not cured, diebetes is a major earner for them.
Cancer.....B17 has been proven time and time again to prevent cancer.
Then theres the superbugs.....bit handy they turn up in NHS hospitals but apparently ( if you check back on a story in the Scotsman a few weeks ago ) not Private hospitals.
There nothing new in this, here is just one vid of many that is 100% accurate.....so to the SUDO intellectuals who think they KNOW http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=731975204235208... this out

As an extension to my 'register' at #34, to save the animals suffering, animal rights extremists should have the testing done on them. I'm sure they wouldn't mind as it's saving the cuddly, wee creatures from harm.

I meant to say CHECK this out, dam my multitasking :)

144. Dave:

Freedom of movement - Are you mad? The very definition of domesticated animal means that they don't/can't have freedom of movement - or they would no longer be domesticated... :S

150. Scottwebb

Bryson I see... 100% accurate...
...
On the subject of B17 or Amygdalin

"It Has been advocated by some as a "cure" or a "preventative" for cancer: as there is no scientifically accepted evidence of its efficacy, it has not been approved for this use by the Food and Drug Administration. The US government's National Institutes of Health reports that two clinical trials with laetrile have been published. One Phase I study found that amygdalin caused minimal side effects; the side effects that were seen were similar to the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. One Phase II study with 175 patients had some patients reporting improvements in symptoms, but all patients showed cancer progression 7 months after completing treatment, and it was determined no further tests were necessary."

So excuse me if I can detect the none too subtle whiff of conspiracy theorist bullshit wafting about your post and your "100% accuracy" ;)

While were at it...download this http://www.archive.org/details/Population_Control__None_D...

Comment @153 Keir..........oh really.......http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=431293019028124...

Current estimates of the number of domestic and feral cats in the UK are about 9 million.
The Mammal Society estimated from a 5 month survey that each cat on average kills about one prey every two weeks, and these are predominantly mice. And as the report indicated, these are likely to be underestimates. Hence, Britain's cats kill around 250-300 million mice a year. And of course, anyone can trap and kill mice as vermin in their house.
So let's get a grip here.
Why the fuss when Medical researchers who are trying to find cures for human diseases primarily use many, many fewer rodents and primarily mice in the most highly regulated legal environment in the world?

Anyway I'm off to do stuff, I'm beginning to AGREE with the elites points when i see some of the comments here

Keywords: ufo alien contact grey earth vaccine semjase billy meier pleyadees health genocide population control

Taking the proverbial now yeah?

155.

You want me to take the word of a documentary film maker and people the general medical community has accussed of quackery over scientific and medical proof?

Or for that matter another journalist going on about the historical applications of a chemical as a reason why iot might cause cancer as decent evidence.

Find me some proper scientific research by respected members of the scientific community and maybe you will have an once of credibility.

92, JG, and 146 Dave, speaking as one you'd call a " tree hugging, liberal left loonie Marxist train spotters", that's not the point. Of course I would save my life and that of any other human in any way possible. The point that animal rights activists make is that there are other ways of doing so. Right now, laboritories are murdering animals unnecessarily. These animals are invariably the closest relations to humans on this planet. They are more often than not also the most trusting. Humans have free will. Right now we are using that to destroy our planet and torture and murder other species. Pour scorn on this all you like. Reply with your puerile and pointless banter. Make fun and laugh at it. Just remember that what goes around comes around and one day soon the human race will also be struggling to survive in a poisoned planet that can no longer sustain ANY life, far less that of humans. Then you, or possibly your children or grandchildren will see the error of our human ways. But it will be too late: The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.

Comment@ Keir....Do me a favour and breathe deeply...http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-28153201986551...

143. L , if your theory is to be considered, then it must surely follow that all mentally handicapped, senile or comatose humans must also be deprived of their rights ?

All living animals have rights. And little wonder that the SSPCA has such a hard task when there are people around with your attitude.

160. Gabriel, or anyone else who wants vivesection banned now - what are the alternatives?

Pray tell, I've been waiting for 161+ comments to find out.

Firozali#161

Couldnae huv put it better masel!

You could stop most of the protests by taking names and addresses of the protesters, and comparing them against the lists of those claiming benifit. As people on the broo are ment to be available for work, they could then be prosecuted for making a false claim, and kicked off benifits altogether. We could also save the NHS millions by letting them keep their integridy by not giving them any treatments which have been tested on animals.

#160 Gabriel
I quite like a good argument on just about any subject you can name! However, that means (in my book) giving opposing points of view and trying to decide (from the evidence presented) which side you agree with. It seems that you've already made up your mind and the tone of your comment is quite emotive and a wee bit worrying! Animal testing and planet destruction aren't really a natural progression, one from the other. Testing a drug on a rat destroys the planet, how?

167. JG

Rat tested with gamma radiation, when rat gets angry turns green and goes on rampage. Ultimatly leading to destruciton of civillisations as we know it.

As a child, my friends and I often tested insects and small rodents and their ability to catch fire. This taught us the danger of fire and how burny burny it could be!

Surely there are animal experiments worth carrying out, in order to prevent things like burny burny!

so some bunnies/monkies/mice get killed in the name of science. What is the problem here? Every drug that you have ever taken has been tested on animals, from asprin to the latest cancer cures. If you don't like it, boycott the products.

I'd rather some animals got killed in the course of controlled scientific experiments if it meant that we had a cure for cancer, parkinsons, MS etc. And if Scotland is becoming a centre for medical research, then this can only be a good thing.

If you were testing on animals to find some cure for animal diseases then testing would be ok by me. We humans are animals so I think testing is ok for real research. But I'm a leather wearing vegetarian that can't understand why people want their meat to be pampered before they kill it and cook it. I even enjoy cooking meat so I guess we're just animals after all, and from the nature programs I've seen animals don't treat animals that are'nt their own kind very well indeed. Doreen the way you took 500 last night was absolutely brilliant! I'm keeping my hat off all day in your honour.

#169 Keir
I'm obviously not thinking today! The rampage of the angry green rats!! Of course!!!

Do you think he's Gabriel, as in The Archangel?

The basic freedoms I stated at 144 are a leglislative requirement for domesticated farm animals and have been extended to domestic pet animals.

For clarity, Freedom to movement means the abilty to sit, stand, turn around and lie down unfettered.

I agree regarding the comment that some elderly or people would like this. It's true, we don't treat ourselves in accordance to how we treat our animals and is causing a schism in society. Such as, being threatend with a beating or death because somebody gave a dog a hiding. It proves that the animal liberators/huggers are the least "humane" of us all.

As someone who used to work in research I usually welcome these kinds of debates as it helps bring the facts to the surface so the public can have a better understanding about what animal experimentation is about.

However, it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be about a topic they clearly have no knowledge about.

Some of the misinformation in the comments above is staggering although I'm sure made with best intentions to get their point across.

To actually be inside a lab which conducts animal testing would be a surprise to many as to how this is conducted and the conditions in which animals are housed.

Animal experimentation is certainly not a cheap or easy option in science. If it could be done on a £500 PC from Dell it would be. The human body is obviously extremely complex there is much about it we simply do not understand. Animal experimentation helps to bridge the gaps in our knowledge taking ideas from the PC into humans.

It would be worthwhile to consider yourselves and your families and the benefits that modern medicine has brought to our lives to help erradicate human suffering and ill health. None of this would have been possible without animal experimentation. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Andrew
Yes I agree there is so much to learn about these deep diving whales, the Thames whale(a northern bottlenose whale) was also found to have pits in some of her bones, which some are attributing to arthritis.

But by far the largest problem for these whales is the use of military sonar, which current thinking, says that it actually changes their diving patterns, and indeed produces gas bubbles.

Oh dear I've now wasted a few more inches GP will go with the ones you used telling me I had wasted them;)

#170AJ, you promised me you would never tell about the burny burny stuff..we got tae tha in the past, ok?

they haven't caught me yet!

Steve, you wouldnae have popped in just in time to catch the 200 would you?

JG and Steve

The 600 is up for grabs on the Shi-ite Hawk story!

This could be an unprecedented double dunter!

Nooo, JG, not me, not ever, ah willna treat such a serious debate as a mere competition for 200.

It's a wee bitty childish, aw this number hunting.

On topic - did you ever experiment with captured bees in a jar, checking out their resilience when confronted with fire and boiling water etc?

Sorry for the off topic post...did Dave ever give a final tally?

He did!
The final score was (in reverse order)
3rd - Eagle 15
2nd - Beaver 22
1st - Sh*te Hawk 23

It was (in the end) a close run thing!!!!

Steve
The Shi-ite Hawk jist squeaked it in front of a beaver - it's still going on with an emphasis on human burdz!!

It's been like an experiment wi animals as well, so it's kinda on topic neebs!

So this is what happens to little boys and girls who grow up tieing squirrls to a tree and throwing stones at them till they die, they become scientists and doctors. I pray not. WILL THE REAL SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS PLEASE STAND UP. The ones that believe in having a soul......All creatures great and small or did everyone forget, yup they did. Glad to see the Scotts exposing this, This ought to be on canada news, world news to wake the people up as there are many who are dead from the heart up .brainwashed, I guess thats what they mean by whitewashing everything. Know that there are many here who support you in exposing these horrific truths. Its a bout time.

#187 Gizella
Have you been experimenting with substances?

Is there a prize for the 200? How about a couple of goldfish in a bag?

Steve - Aj sneaked across and pinched your 600!

They could test cosmetics and other potentially toxic substances on young criminals instead. Oh, but the drinks industry already thought of that!

no testing on "Nessie"

Gizella,

Torturing wee bees and the odd cat is wan thing, but killing squirrels is anither!

I bet I can get to 200 before you lot. Gotta type fast though...

Can they test stuff on midgies? There's always plenty o' them and who would care. All God's creatures ma erse!

Nearly there now. Jist gotta pace masel.

200 and the 600 here a come!!

Bet you all wondered where I was today.

i compleatly agree with post 176....nuff said.
200 in mine Mac KIlljoy!!

i quit

No you don't Paul

Bugger!

Get in there!!

Baws

AJ #183 #192, hey dude, your scarin me, like totally!!! ;)

my only minor offence is putting fireflies/lightening bugs in a jar, to see who's jar glowed the brightest....how boring!!

looks like Steve gotcha on this one!

Dinny worry Melanie, we were bored as kids - nothing to dae, naewhere to go - the only outlet was testing insects oot.

If aliens invaded earth and started eating us and using us for experiments ...we would be horrified..and rightly so ...so why is it humans think its ok to terrorise, kill , eat , experiment on animals ?...I dont see these cowards experiment on alligators or great white sharks, its always helpless smaller and docile creatures...its human problems so they should experiment on willing humans ...the animals dont have a say...all you people who say animal experimentation is ok are sick in the head (if we remove cosmetic and bio weapons experimentation how much of it is needed?)its a cull of humans that is needed on this planet...not animals, were eating and destroying everything(the superior species)..until they can learn that this planet and its animals are not there for their abuse theres no hope for mankind....we are not much better than cavemen!

Animal experiments designed to cure human ailments are less than effective due to species differences. There are now 5 surefire ways to cure diabeties - in mice! None work in humans. We need to abandon the old animal experimentation methods and move into the 21st century.
The American group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org) are doing excellent work in reducing the need for animal experimentation. Check them out.

Re: #9 keir: " But you'll be lucky if you'll find a research scientist who is willing to risk your life ahead of an animal bred specifically for this purpose."
The only way any animal is specifically bred for this purpose is by Research Scientists, who care nothing for the pain and hurt inflicted on animals, for their
oudated form of research...it has been proven time and time again that such tests are not the answer, except in your warped minds. Every animal has a specific purpose in life and it is NOT only to be used by Research Scientists. Your ideas are barbaric and should be stopped immediately.

We want we want cures for terrible human and also animal disease and a knowledge based economy, only lunatics and people on the very fringes of society can honestly be appalled. I for one am delighted to see Scotland applying our human and veterinary sciences for the welfare of us and our pets / livestock.
I am disgusted to note the animal welfare people have signed up to decreased welfare for those whose rights they seek to represent by striving to abolish research into improving animal welfare too.

Sorry not read all the posts so my apologies if I am repeating something that has already been said.

Why when animals have a different genetic makeup to us do these people still experiment on them. It has been said in the past and no doubt will be again that what works in an animal does not necessary mean it will work in a human. They should use the scum that inhabit our prisons put them to good use, a lot of them when they get out will only go on to re offend so save society from them and use them for experiments.

Our politicians seem to think that the way forward is through unprovoked violence.

Before I post, I recommend a visit to http://www.curedisease.net - scientists and medical professionals (many of whom used to vivisect) working towards animal-free medical research.

AR activists are not against medical progress, they want real scientific progress which will truly help humanity. The 'they think fluffy animals are more important than us humans' claim is from thoughtless proponents of vivisection who do not wish to conduct detailed discussion - they do not even support an Early Day Motion in parliament calling for an independent enquiry into whether or not animal experimentation even works. This has never been done. There is no evidence to prove the necessity of animals in research. Yes, they've been used, but most medicines have come to market despite animal tests, not because of them - how many potential human cures for disease have been scrapped because they didn't work in the appropriate number of animal species? We'll never know...

BTW, it is NOT a legal requirement to test on animals - it is, however, drug companies' preferred interpretation of guidance and the normal method of safeguarding themselves against law suits. These is the same scientific community who insisted that smoking does not cause lung cancer because they couldn't replicate it in animals for so many years...

Animal rights IS human rights too. Most AR campaigners I know are also active in some aspect of human rights work. We ARE human, why would we not want humankind to be well, to progress? There have been 'extremists' in every movement in history - those fighting for women's liberation, against slavery or apartheid or other freedoms, have all been labelled 'extreme' at some point in time - if that's who I would share a label with, I would be proud to be called an 'extremist'. The animal rights movement overall is peaceful and considerate to ALL life. Only those who would benefit from openi

We should be celebrating the outstanding work that Scots scientists are doing instead of whinging about a trivial increase in animal experimentation. The increase reflects the current stage of much research. There are many promising results appearing and Scotland is playing a leading part.

As the Scots invented everything in the world (or so I've been told by a frequenter of these boards who hails from Fife) ......... we would expect you to be the leaders in this field!!

It may well be discovered (by a Scotsman of course) that the Scots invented all of the animals as well and then that will be something else for you to put on your nice tea towels!! :D

216 Douglas. Joanna 215 is right. Some of you people should get out of the tunnel you're viewing the world from and really have a good look at yourselves - but I doubt you're capable of doing that, it's too cosy for you in that dark little place.

A pathetic remark Post 216. Read the other Joanna`s post @ 19. An illustration of some Scots` attitude to the English.

Aren`t you all blooming marvellous.

208. Eileen

The PCRM site was good, but all the papers there were dated 2005. Which kinda backs up my suspicions that the alternatives to vivesection are not fully viable yet. Hopefully one day they will be (sooner rather than later one hopes)

209. Haggis

Warped mind? Ok I put human life and human suffering above animal life and suffering and I am warped. Well done for taking what I said in my post - repeating it almost verbatim and trying to use that to refute what I was saying. Was I saying the animals were not specifically bred for testing? I think not, in fact I think thats what I said. What is every animals purpose in live may I ask? To eat, reproduce and die essentially. I find it amusing that I am accussed of barbarism for saying I am willing to tolerate animal testing as a nessecary evil. Seriously some people can be some intolerant to different points of view. Perhaps if you adopted a more rational and intelligent stance in your debate. Or provided examples of viable alternatives I might listen. No wait, in fact I have already stated I would agree with you if I could be convinced such viable alternatives existed.

Cretin. (One hates to be rude on the internet but you frankly deserve it.)

211. Terri

Terri read further through the posts and you'll find out about the genetically altered mice whose DNA is practically identical to our own (although we share 50% of our DNA with cabbages so...) and also its worth noting that not many drugs directly affect your DNA and that most mammilian structures, tissues and organ systems are virtually identical.

212. Care to explain? As your in Turra could even over you a pint for your troubles ;)

213. LK

Thank you for a reasoned and sensible arguement. I shall peruse the link with great intrest. Although I would be intrigued to know what you would propose to replace vivisection with?

AH Diddums..... Douglas,

Is that your level of debate ...... don't throw teddy out of the cot now will you?

My comment was actually a joke and as I know some of the commenters on these boards have a sense of humour I thought it would be taken as one...... I didn't realise that there were still little children up!!

215. 220. Joanna

Its official God was a Scotsman ;)

Toys out the pram or spitting the dummy would be a more appropriate "jock" term to use ;P

Joanna - just ignore #216. He obviously didn't take part in the highly intellectual eagle debate yesterday and is unaware that Steve created America (and everything in it).

P.S. You REALlY want a tea towel, don't you?

Thank you Keir for the correct Scottish term .... I'll remember to use it .... I always find it helps to make an effort and 'speak the language' of the natives..:D

Hello, JG......... Yes, OK I'll 'fess up it has long been my secret desire to have one of those tea towels for my kitchen wall .....!

Will that do you?

222.

Are teatowels and shortbread not our main exports ;)

#222 JG, please let everyone know that I have since apoligised for for that. I agree with #214, but i don't agree with #216. No matter how we treat animals we should be kind to each other.

"kind to each other" Och, jeezus!, i'm gettin old and soft. I'm goona go kick a cat for postin tha crap

You huvnae been the same since you took the 200 title today!

There is a terrible condition that affects millions of human beings each year, and which urgently needs a cure. It's called barbaric cruelty, self-obsession, and a profoundly arrogant position of on the one hand demanding that we are the dominant species, but on the other then failing to behave as such. We have a responsibility to the other species of this planet as well as to ourselves. Might does not make right.

More lies.

#229 was meant as a joke, not an advert sorry monitors....won't happen again

Hi Steve #229, 231 that was classic!! I hope ya dinna get in trouble!! :)

Hi JG #222 and Joanna #223, and powers that be, repeat, Steve was Not advertising!! :)

Douglas, uncalled for #216 totally threw a shadow on the interesting #214...perhaps an apology is due to Joanna!?? There was a :D at the end of her comment....it was humour, dude!!

Duooooo, I reported myself..how utterly daft!

228.

Its interesting that you infer wanting to continue testing on animals is arrogant and wanting to protect them is not.

I've just lost my mother to cancer.

Both my husband & I have kidney conditions.

Not one of the three of us has ever felt it right or morally justifiable that any other sentient creature should suffer in order to prevent/relieve our suffering.

Suffering is suffering. No exceptions. Lab habitat alone can cause suffering never mind the darn experiments.

Nobody has the right to deliberately experiment on another creature .... I despise those who rationalise it to themselves as acceptable.

#235, thank you, I come here to have my opinions challenged. You have done that for me! I am glad you have made me think and not make light of the matter.

I am not rationalising testing on animals #235,but the sad fact of the matter is we need it to save our lives. Yes i,m sorry animals are used in this way,but when my dad's life needed saving, I was damn glad these tests had been carried out for just one more chance to be with him.

237.

Not to piss on your parade or anything but thats a pretty unconvincing display of not rationalising testing on animals.

I for one would like to hear more rational arguements against vivesection and more rational alternatives proposed and posted here please.

Its easy to name call (as both sides of the debate have shown) but I'd like to point out that being 'despised' called 'compassionless' and 'barbaric' does little to change my views on the matter. Some rational debate might.

There are subjects that can be made light of, a bit of humour does us all good. There is an awful lot of suffering in this world for both humans and animals. I'm glad we humans try to alleviate some of it weather by humour or by research. I do have friends that do medical research on lab animals; they tell me a lab rat is specially bred to be a lab rat. I don't know enough about medical research on animals to even have a firm opinion on the subject. But looking back on all the postings on this subject I realise that any creatures’ suffering isn’t in any way funny. I hope one day researchers can find an alternative to animal testing. But until that day my selfish self thinks we need to continue research to alleviate human suffering, God knows we do enough to bring suffering on each other.

Emotive topic. It took me 2 years back in the late 1980s to come to terms with animal experimentation (lets shy away from 'testing'). As an animal lover from childhood the concept of harming animals for whatever reason sits quite uncomfortably. For the last 2 decades I have worked in veterinary research, developing vaccines to prevent disease in animals. I can't believe the amount of utter crap and disinformation contained in 90% of the responses above.

Animal research in the UK and here in Australia is very tightly regulated. Breaches in protocol bring severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines of upto 250,000 dollars.

Before any research can be conducted, a full proposal for the procedures to be undertaken has to be evaluated by an ethics committee. In Australia, this comprises an equal mix of scientists, members of the general public, and animal rights representatives. In other words, the work has to be justified to lay audience (should I do the work?) and eveluated for scientific rigour (If I do the work, is it sufficiently rigorous to provide the information we need). This process generally takes about 2-3 months.

Research animal welfare is paramount. Not only because the law dictates that it has to be, but also because stressed or unhealthy animals are not a good model. In my field of vaccines we depend on the the immune response of the animals. The first thing to shut down under stress is the immune system, thus a stressed animal is of no use to the study.

Research animals are domesticated animals, bred in captivity for many generations. They are kept in clean surroundings. Higher vetebrates such as mice and rats must be provided with a stimulating environment. They are well fed and not overcrowded.

Procedures (vaccination in my case) are carried out under general anaesthesia.

If a challenge (disease) model is used (and this is only done in the final stages of vaccine research), any animal showing clear signs

239....correct I have a friend (allright Rene doll how ye doin?) who has taken into her home and cared for lab rats and their offspring. None of them lasted for more than a year, without exception they all died from one physical illness after another, went blind or developed massive tumours etc....and suffered before they died.

240....which country are you talking about?...UK Australia, America, France....oh sorry maybe you are talking about all of these countries and all of their procedures, my you get about.

Point 1.....crap....the animals can and regularly are subdued to lessen their 'pain' and 'stress'

Point 2....crap....I have seen footage of guinea pigs staked out and shaved, then exposed to strong light, having been smeared in the latest anti burn b******s, yes siree they must have lapped that one up big style.

I like your 'procedures that cause severe distress to animals are rarely permitted' geezabreak you! your havin a laugh mate.....if you really are that naive get onto the internet go on I dare you....google image it and then get back to us. 'rarely permitted' translates as yessss! it does happen.

Do you work in the industry or are you merely fishin fur a joab!

Hi Keir #238, I suppose it's hard not to get emotional on some issues, but you're right about the need for rational debate. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the research or the alternatives for this subject to present anything clearly, but it is still a subject that does not sit well with me. I'm in health care, and very much wish to see diseases/conditions eradicated, but only with animal research as a last resort, and as humane and minimal, as possible. I suppose Steve summed it up a bit for me.

Hi Steve #239 Well said!!

Hi Andrew#240 thank you, very informative!

Hi Doreen #241 I don't think Keir meant to offend, I think he was just pointing out emotion based opinion vs fact base opinion, is all! Not pickin a fight wi ya!!

Just re-read your post....sorry did not see that bit about animal torture being how you earn your crust...twas the red mist.....must be promotion you are after then.

Too bad some of you folks can't go into one of these laboratories and view for a while what is going on there and if you come out and feel that it all okay in there and it doesn't bother you one bit, then God help us all - we aren't worth saving.

Nite nite sleep tight no chance o lettin your conscience bite?....oh well hope yer drawers ignite.

Ok ronnie, last time I'm goona tell ye, stop lookin in ma room! You know ah wid never kick a cat, but kickin you widnae be a bother...cheers, mate ;)

I'm 59 years old now and even as a child in Scotland, I protested against the use of animals in research, cosmetic testing and the Canadian seal hunt.
It's painful for me to see that nothing has changed.
We still have cancer, diabetes, name-your-disease, in spite of the torture and suffering of millions of animals and stupid people still wear fur.
I can only hope that the next generation will be more humane than this one - and yes, I am a vegetarian and have been for thirty years.

Andrew in Australia how about reading the article above on the goats killed by the MOD, I think the lucky ones had a swifter death.

248.

As most people involved in the industry point out their concience is fine. Most people in support of animal testing probably sleep failry well knowing that is ultimatly helping mankind. Trying to enofrce your morality or way of thinking on to someone should really be giving you more trouble sleeping at night. Its also wotrh noting that if you are against animal testing then its pretty much a no brainer to describe the test procedures as unessecary suffering. But its important to remember the key word is unessecary. Any pain or suffering is involved in the test itself there is nothing in your example that is unessecary in the context of the experiment or test (whether or nto you think the test/experiment unessecary is frankly irrelevant to this point).

247.

Of course it bothers me when another living thing dies. However bothers me more when that living thing also happens to be a human being. Particularly if they are are pain and suffering.

251.

There is no longer cosmetic testing on animals in the UK and at some point in the future (when the alternatives to vivesection are viable and 'safe' (for a given value of 'safe' there will no longer be animal testing)

254....no all the cosmetic testing is done abroad and then flogged here to dodge the law, the cosmetic industry are trying their damndest to avoid changes in the law as it means they have to hinder changes to their products. This is how L'Oreal or Laboratoire Garnier operate, nanosomes? eh whit is that nonesense all about?...they come up with these different ingredients all the time that the law states MUST be tested on animals, its disgusting and this company have exploited and caused suffering to a huge amount of animals because of their greed and the stupidity of women who buy the speel.

I aint worth it neither are you!

Keith Banf can you translate that please?

256. I assume you mean me? ;) [Curse of the weegie strikes again ;)]

When there are viable and safe alternatives in medical testing then there will be no further need for vivesection and it will be stopped. Safety relates to the tests being reliable and foolproof - the only sure fire way I can see for that is allowing medical researchers (under license) to be able to produce human organ systems but thats probably a long way off. (Computer modelling is another option but computer modelling is in itself flawed. Particularly when dealing with new information).

Viable means that the procedues have to make sense to use timewise and financially. Granted this is only a valid reason in the case of medical testing in the development of drugs which will have an impact on saving lives or vastly improving a persons quality of life. For "so called" "me too" drugs, although noone has been able to give me an example of a "me too" drug so I am not to sure what they are suppossed to be :S... its less of a valid arguement.

Once we have a viable and safe alternative then we can stop animal testing and contraty to popular belief the scientific community is working towards finding an alternative.

As for cosmetic testing the problem is people will buy products that do not bear the "not tested on animals" disclaimer. Its a simple matter of economics if people care enought and don't buy products tested on animals then the companies will stop the testing - theres no point testing a product if no one will buy it. Medical testing is a different matter entirely.

It has got to be stated that make-up can hide a multitude of imperfections in a woman's appearance. Whether it has been tested on small rodents or a horse, it matters not!

As long as the required effect is successful, surely that is the justification for hamsters having a pout like Bridget Bardot!!!!

HOME TRUTH TIME:
1. Viable, superior, cheaper, safer alternatives DO exist. Unfortunately it seems that most here, in this forum, have accepted without question that drug therapy is necessary and need occur in the first place without looking beyond this blinkered view. Drug therapy has not produced any real progress in Cancer, Aids, MS ME, Parkinsons Disease etc - diseases caused by living in chemical based chemical polluted societies. Real alternatives exist in the form of Herbs, Acupuncture and Homoeopathy (none of which require animal testing) all are sciences that have existed before modern drug therapy which since its introduction has marked an INCREASE in all the major diseases and a few new ones too. All have produced better results by far in the battle against ill health. 2. No one disease is the same and therefore it is not the disease that is to be treated but the person - The Chinese for instance knew this thousands of years ago and developed a system of medicine superior to ours while we were still going around grunting and hitting each other over the head with sticks no doubt thinking then also that were were smarter than anyone else. 3. Drug testing is only for the drug undustry not the patient. It is for profit not the welfare of human kind. Drug therapy like weapons are the biggest generators of profit in the capitalist world and there is money - lots of it in keeping people sick. 4. It is folly to believe we, or rather human beings (since I do not wish to be classified in that group) are superior to other animals. Many species were around on this planet long before us and are likely to continue to be here long after our foolish belief in our invincibility perishes along with us through auto-destruction - we need to be more humble here. Having the capability to destroy, to inflict pain and suffering and abuse 'lower life forms' does not make us superior it merely demonstrates we have that capability. The ability to survive as a species make

I couldn't agree more! People are being conned by animal tests. We are the real guinea pigs and how anyone with any sense could still call for animal tests after the recent drug disaster were 8 healthy volunteers almost lost there lives beggars belief Animal tests are only used as an alibi and to brain wash the public that something is being done, while really the only people that are benefiting are the people employed. We'd be better off tossing a coin when it comes to deciding if a drug is safe for human consumption.

Unfortunately it is a smokescreen that science is working towards alternatives and the amount spent is paltry compared with other research. This is the real problem. Some researchers may start out genuinely seeking advances through animal experiments but unfortunately by the time they have done their training and gone so far down the line, there will obviously be a reluctance to change their career and mindset on something that threatens their lifetimes training.

Five points I would like to make.

1. Would those who support animal testing do so if they were a child affected by Thalidomide?

2. Supporters of animal testing should buy the little book which describes medicines and see how many have side effects. I bought one some time ago in Bargain Books for £1.

3. The varying side effects of everyday medicines even within the human species show that testing outside the species is deeply flawed.

4 Our government has spent taxpayers, money and assured us that animal testing would be reduced. Is this just another waste of taxpayers' money?

5 I agree with the other poster who avdocates that prisoners should be used for testing. Rather than give them remission for good behaviour they should be allowed to volunteer for testing to reduce their sentences.

Well every thing in the gardens lovely eh?How many times do we hear this only for another undercover investigation showing the opposite. It is completely unnecessary in any circumstance to experiment on animals. We have enough sick animals to treat them as clinical trials. You seem to think wee are all baffled by qualifications and lack of knowledge on this subject. Well have ever ever heard the saying 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?' As I have already stated their are plenty sick animals to try new drugs on and what sense does it make to artificially make a perfectly healthy animal sick and with an intact immune system?

I apologise for for posting this twice but I'm not quite sure that my posts are getting to the right person and want to try it again.

Well every thing in the gardens lovely eh?How many times do we hear this only for another undercover investigation showing the opposite. It is completely unnecessary in any circumstance to experiment on animals. We have enough sick animals to treat them as clinical trials. You seem to think wee are all baffled by qualifications and lack of knowledge on this subject. Well have ever ever heard the saying 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?' As I have already stated their are plenty sick animals to try new drugs on and what sense does it make to artificially make a perfectly healthy animal sick and with an intact immune system?

This answer is directed at G or 176 who obviously is involved in animal experimentation. no surprise that this person wishes to be anonymus. The enormous benefits...What benefits? There have been absolutely no benefits to human beings from animal experiments and I challenge you to name one!

This is directed at johny or number 2
Here we go again, wild exaggerated statements about animal terrorists without any proof! All the abuse actually is coming from the other side. Four animal rights activists have actually been killed on demonstrations while not one person from the other side has even been hurt (only claims). I have seen violence at first hand but not from animal activists

In reply to Keir,
I could give you hundreds of
examples (probably thousands if that were practically possible) of me too drugs! There are over 200 drugs for arthritis alone when only are handful actually needed. The World health organisation states that only 200 drugs are needed for basic health, yet we have thousands on the market in Britain. Not so Norway were there are probably less than a quarter, because everything over there has to be validated as necessary and not merely a slightly different molecular structure.

Just a little tip for those who have arthritis;
Marine pine Bark and Grape Seed Extract have got rid of the pain of arthritis for me.
I can tell you that if you get the right brand (those tablets without binding agents) then you will quickly get relief from arthritic pain. I have successfully eliminated my pain of twenty years. So why are we doing arthritis research? Whom.. well, theres no money in using a relatively inexpensive natural cure and this is what the pharmaceutical companies are scared of. Think of all the people who will have to find more useful employment and the compared with the profits they make and the research grants there would be a lot less money coming in..by far.

Animal testing is not about saving human lives. It is about making profits for the pharmaceutical companies and animal breeders by any means possible. My first wife died of cancer, twenty five years ago. At the time, the pharmaceutical companies announced "breakthroughs" We are still waiting for one. All the thousands of animals saved neither her nor the other people who have died of cancer.

When a drug causes death and serious side effects the question is never asked, that if animal test are valid how were these side effects not picked up in animals? The public are taking the brunt of animal testing yet never question it. The fact is that animals are anatomically. Physiologically, metabolically, genetically different to human beings so extrapolation to human beings is impossible. Even when side effects are found in animals conveniently they are ignored. Animal testing is so flexible ( for the pharmaceutical companies) that they can ignore results by saying that animals are different but when defending animal experiments they will say that we are similar which is illogical.

Douglas what promising results? It will certainly be a surprise to the families whose loved ones have died of cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc. A few animals? 300 to 800 million animals are tortured and killed in laboratories every year Cancer charities boast of cures. Well lets establish what they mean by cures! If you survive 5 years with cancer you are deemed cured and even if you die in the sixth year you are still listed 'cured' in the statistics..I don't call that cure! I don't know how they get away with boasting of cures!

259. Heimdall

Heimdall a few interesting points that maybe of intrest.

There is little or no empirical medical data for the majority of treatments you mention that show they have an effect beyond that you'd expect for a placebo. Accupuncture may be the exception.

Also its worth noting that the NHS board that spends nothing on complimentary medecine and alternative therapies also has the healthiest population in Scotland. (Aberdeenshire)

260. Stanley

The recent drugs test disaster, although very prominent in the media, is far from the norm where drugs tests are concerned. If animal testing where to be abolished it is however likely that "test disasters" where humans nearly lose their lives would become more common. Animal tests are done to observe how a drug affects a living organic system - the most viable alternative would be to grow a human organ system for the purpose of testing however that has its own ethical dubiousness and would require (in all likelyhood) vast amounts of research into stem cell research.

262. Angus.

Thamlidomide is not an example of why animal testing is useless. If anything it is an example of how human incompetence is universal. The tests were not carried out on pregnant rats (presumably because of ethical concerns.) Therefore their mode of action was not properly researched which led to the problem in the first place. Its not really on topic but thallidimide is used now to allieviate the symptoms of leprosy.

On the subject of prisoners being tested may I suggest you take an example from history and set up concentration camps for this purpose - it assisted the nazis no end in the last major "human tests" to be carried out.

263. Stanley

The point of testing on a perfectly bred animal is because it reduces so called 'confound variables.' To be sure an effect is actually caused by the drug and not by the illness.

Also as regards the "garden" qu

Damn lost half my post :(

cont...

These aren't guidelines, these are had and fast rules and if they're broken the breaker will face a custodial sentence."

267. Stanley

Your arguements are conflicting. We only need 200 drugs there are too many drugs on the market and whats the point of testing drugs on animals when there is such variance in side effects in the human population. I a respect I suppost you answer your own question as to why there are more then the 200 drugs we "need".

An example of an advancement or benefit of animal testing... Well we know a lot more about how the human visual system works and develops from experiments done on cats. How brains themselves devlop from experiments on rats and mice and various other psychological things aswell. Also we have hundreds of safe (for a given value of safe) drugs on the market that help people with a wide variety of illnesses.

Animal experimentation may also soon allow us to grow replacement organs and the like.

Think about this the reason that cancer, AIDS et al all seem so "scary" (for want of a better word) is because there is no cure yet. Animal testing so far is playing a part in helping us find a cure.

As for animal rights supporters not being violent etc... They do some pretty reprehensible things to the extent they are banned from coming within (I think) one mile of Oxford's new facility because of intimidation and threats to staff. Also occassionally animal rights fundamentalists will steal peoples grandmothers remains. (Hell if you can choose one isolated and recent case as a valid example so can I ;))

In reply to Keir,
Firstly let me deal with your answer about violence. You have not provided one bit of evidence to show violence.

You state that we know about the working of the eye because of experiments on cats. People in the field of eye research disagree with you. The whole anatomical make up of the eye is different to a human beings. All that we have learned about the functions of the eye has come from studying people. Colin Blakemore tried to pass off his work as pioneering and stated that before this we knew nothing. When I did my own research I found that this was completely untrue and that the work he was passing off a original had actually been done clinically 30 years before. Researchers working in the field have critisiced his work into blindness as dishonesty. In a book review by Dr. E. P. fortin on the human retina, the British Medical Journal, October 26, 1940 stated: Fortin advances strong critisism of Cajal's methods of studying the retina and his conception of studying retinal structure, stressing the point that Cajal's studies are based on largely non human eyes and that his methods are open to the possibility of numerous artifact appearences.....etc.etc.

Cats eyes differ in structure and reactions, They see in the dark and we don't,Theirs remain closed long after birth and ours open up, their pupil is vertical and ours is horizontal, theirs must focus on a particular object at a distance while ours have a wide angle viewand they also have cells that in all other animals only appear in the ear. There couldn't in fact be a more different eye from ours! The cat does not have macula or fovea two regions of the retina which is of primary importance to human vision. ...more to follow on your other points.

Keir,
Interestingly enough I attended a lecture on stem cell research recently and it is dogma that is stopping research and pressure from from religious fanatics which is slowing progress with human stem cell research.

You imply that drug side effects are unsual. This is completely untrue and is easily disproved. I have a book by the United Nations which is 900 pages long and lists the drugs withdrawn or severely restricted because of seriou side effects to people.
The BNF lists all the side effects of drugs on the market now, which could not have been forecast in humans, proof positive that animal experiments do not work. You say that disasters would become more common if we didn't use animals. I'm sorry but that does not make sense because in clinical trials we would pick up side effects easier and this would limit disasters. Whereas now we use comparitively few people in clinical trials, if we used more we would pick up the side effects before we let a drug loose on millions of people. Animal tests do not predict human fatalities The clinical trial of TGN1412 proves that animal expertiments don't work.
The drug was given to monkeys and rabbits at 500 times the dose that the volunteers received. So if it was given at such a large dose to animals and they didn't show side ffects, how on earth can any drug safely predict what will happen in humans
I cannot at the moment write as much as I would like due to university studies, so I apologise at having left some gaps however I will endevour to answer all of your points

Keir,
Again you provide no proof of advances using animals, only simplistic utterances that assure us that animals did give us advances and promises, promises. These promises are a well rehearsed fabrication of the truth, promise an advance somewhere in the future and who can disprove it? Of course we have heard it all before like 'Cancer Cured!' only to find it had been cured in mice but promising this would be achieved when all of us have forgot about the initial promise then promised again in another ten years or so that it would materialise, but please give us more money. All that we know about treating patients for cancer has come from numerous clinical studies and epidemiology. (more info on request)

The workings of the brain were actually investigated clinically many centuries ago. Psycological studies on rats and such animals are absolute nonsense, because a rat is not subject to the same commitments, ambitions, social pressures, peer pressure, work pressure helath problems etc, etc. In short their priorities are not remotely connected to ours. >'Sixty years ago it was confidently anticipated that these experiments on the exposed brains of living animals would speedily disclose the inner working of the brain, and make mental disorders disappear for ever. But as is well known, these extravagant hopes have not been fulfilled. "it is fantastic to expect a solution of the working of the human brain ..from the stimulation or destruction of bits of the cerebal tissues of monkeys, dogs and cats'. <
Bernard Hollander, MD, Medical Press,

278.

The neurological studies to which I refer took place in this century and are still ongoing. The workings of the brain are by and large still a mystery to us its anatomy is not by and large due to the dual investigations of autopsy and animal research. Its somewhat extravagant to expect we will ever understand the workings of the human brain fully let alone through animal research although animal research has helped us in our understanding of its function. Psychology as a science is little more than an infant - neuropsychology more so.

The main advance through neurological experiments on cats being the "discovery" of the striate cortex and also feature detection cells that detect various properties of objects. Which are common to both cats and humans.

I do not imply that drug side effects are unusual. I imply that arguing about the breadth of drug side effects on humans is not an arguement that does hand in hand with saying we have too many drugs. A more logical arguement is that we have so many drugs directly because of the vast variance of side effects displayed in humans.

I note the studies you have quoted deal mainly with the historical context of neurological animal experimentation. Studies in rats in the seventies for example showed the increase in brain mass in a stimulated versus unstimulated enviroment.

Psychological studies into social aspects of human life rarely involve animals - studies into brain function and behaviour frequently do.

I would count intimidation and threats as violence, unless you wish to suggest that everyone within the animal testing community is lying about such things. Desecration of someones grave is also to my mind a violent act.

The three R's are a smokescreen which only keeps the whole vivsection busines going. I have talked to people who utter these smokescreens like FRAME.
They are definitely not anti vivisectionists, moreover an excuse for pharmacuetical companies.

I will reply to these comments later as I have work for university now.

Keir in rteply to brain

In the 1930's Cushing gave mild stimulation under anaesthesia to a human brain which established the sensory function of a strip of the brains surface, around the same time Bernard Hollander M.D. had pointed out that it was fantastic to expect a solution of the working of the brain from the stimulation or destruction of bits of cerebral tissues of monkeys, dogs or cats. Further to Cushings clinical work Penfold extended clinical knowledge. More recently more Researchers have criticised animal experimental work on scientific grounds. Most of the work on brain research has been done on cats and monkeys. It is risky to extrapolate such data to the human brain.

Animal testing is not a good thing. too much could destroy our plant our world

Stop animal testing!

282.

Risky in what way? In that it might not be 100% accurate? Its certainly given them a better idea of the form and function of areas of the human brain and also provided evidence for a critical period in the development of sight.

Keir
I am off to university now and don't have much time. But I will finish by asking you to name (as I did earlier) one disease that could not have been cured without animal experiments, because we are getting into the realms of science for sciences sake which has not cured anybody, it's merely curiosity. I would challenge though, that investigations into the brains of animals has taught us anything. I will address your points later.

keir,
If we are talking in terms of neurones we may think of the brain as a telephone switchboard which we tap into and we may know that a call is being made but we may not know where the call is going to. Before experiments on animals had even been carried out, investigations using clinical methods had already shown that there is a critical period in the development of the human visual system.

…the fact that there is a critical period in the development of vision, and its clinical implications, that visual defects should be detected and corrected as early as possible, did not derive from this work on animals. It was already known.
Dr. R.Drewett ,Durham University, Department of Psychology, Animals in Research (1981)

The brain is mapped is out into areas and in 1929 the German psychiatrist Hans Berger published the first information about scalp -recorded brain waves in humans.The function of the Hypocampus in memory was discovered by Scovil and Milner without the use of animals. In 1933 Herrick suggested that the Rhinencephalon of which the hypocampus was reckoned to be a part, might influence behaviour in the form of learning capacity, memory and so on.

To Keir:

"For few neurological and probably no psychiatric disturbances disorders can can be adequately reproduced in animals."
British Medical Journal, June 12, 1954

It is risky to extrapolate such data (animal) to the human brain... the electrodes may be simply picking up signals in transit to some other parts of the brain.
W. H Wheeler, Science Digest Nov, 1972

287.

Indeed. However neurological research into the brain is not done to look at psychiatric disturbances or disorders its more about what areas of the brain maybe related to function. Of course its somewhat of a moot point given that this research can now be done with neural networks and modern scanning techniques. Mainly because studies on animal brains quickly exhausted all the information that they were likely to uncover. Well that and quite a large shift in the morality of psychological research. Brought about, at least in part, by some truley disturbing experiments on social deprivation on monkeys. However these experiments pale in comparison to what was done to little Albert... ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6120664.stm