Helen Marston heads Humane Research Australia , which campaigns against animal experimentation. This article is from the July-August issue of New Internationalist. You can access the entire archive of over issues with a digital subscription. Subscribe today ». Patreon is a platform that enables us to offer more to our readership. Support us ». New Internationalist is a lifeline for activists, campaigners and readers who value independent journalism. It is free to read online — please support us so we can keep it that way.
Support us » Support us » Support us ». Subscribe Ethical Shop. The suffering of animals used in medical research is not contested, although the scale of it often is.
However, views diverge sharply on whether animal experimentation is part of good science and results in medical breakthroughs for humans, or whether such progress could have been achieved by other means. Pro-Test march in Oxford, UK. Help us produce more like this Patreon is a platform that enables us to offer more to our readership. X New Internationalist is a lifeline for activists, campaigners and readers who value independent journalism.
Related Articles. A bloody business. Iris Gonzales reflects on a violent national obsession that has only grown under coronavirus restrictions in the Philippines. Lea Surugue reports on the dramatic rise of heart disease in Africa and the corresponding crisis of fake cardiac drugs.
Mosquitoes versus humankind. The fight against vector-borne diseases is in dire need of new insecticides. The latest Polyp cartoon, from October's New Internationalist magazine. Male baldness v malaria? Simon Trace on the skewed priorities of medical research. Green machines. Diana Beresford-Kroeger unveils the hidden bio-chemistry of trees. Cowspiracy: stampeding in the wrong direction? Half-baked and out of time.
How do we escape our evolutionary shortcomings to avoid climate catastrophe? Scalpel please, nurse… oh, wait! Rich countries need to use their medical resources to address the global lack of surgical equipment, argues Maziar M Nourian. Modern life and medicine. Can our ancestral medical progress keep up with modern life? Naomi Elster asks. Why China should host the World Dog Show.
Beulah Devaney disagrees. Opt out! Amit Singh suggests a step back from our heavy meat consumption. Should halal and kosher methods of slaughter be banned? Profit-focused drug companies are failing the ill, says Nick Harvey. Henry Owino looks into the increase of the crime in a country that claims to be pulling out all the stops to eradicate it. Vivisection is not essential to medical progress. Animals do not need to suffer in order to find cures for human diseases.
The fundamental flaw of animal-based research is referred to as "species difference". This means that animal tests are basically unreliable as a way to predict effects in humans. Not only that, but as we have seen many times, positive results in animal studies can prove disastrous when applied to humans. In fact, animal research has been shown time and again to hold back medical progress for people.
Here are just a few examples: arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn in , caused over , strokes and heart attacks almost 60, fatal , even though it appeared safe when tested on animals. In the s, thousands of people were given HIV-contaminated blood, which was deemed safe as it did not affect chimpanzees chimpanzees are essentially immune to HIV. Blood transfusions were delayed by years and corneal transplants delayed by 90 years as a result of animal studies. Twenty-two drugs to treat spinal cord damage were developed on animals - all failed when applied to humans.
The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol DES were tested on animals and released for human use. In , TGN, a new drug for leukaemia, cancer, multiple sclerosis and arthritis, caused disastrous side effects in the first human volunteers - even though it had passed tests on monkeys who were given doses times greater than those given to the volunteers.
Rats and mice are the animals primarily used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer which affects membranes eg lung cancer. Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared. Even a former director of Huntingdon Life Sciences which is one of Europe's largest animal testing facilities admitted that animal tests only correctly predict effects in humans between 5 and 25 per cent of the time.
Compare that to the fact that human cell culture tests have proven to be 80 per cent accurate. Today there is a wealth of sophisticated techniques available for use that offer a cruelty-free, reliable alternative to animal testing, including computer modelling, tissue cultures, epidemiological studies and clinical studies.
DNA chips provide further valuable information. They allow researchers to see who will respond to a drug, who will not respond, and who may be harmed by it. But more important than any scientific argument is the fact that there is absolutely no moral or ethical justification whatsoever in testing on animals - regardless of any benefit to humans it may result in. If humans were the ones being experimented on against their will, would you agree with it?
Of course not! So what makes people feel that it is acceptable to use animals in this way? Is it a trait inherent in humans, to take advantage of beings whom they deem "lesser"? To exploit the vulnerable, profit from suffering, or to deny a fellow species of this planet their fundamental right to life, to freedom? Animals are living, breathing, feeling, sentient beings who deserve to be treated as equals - and it's time people started to realise this.
We are calling upon the people of this country to help us stop the crimes inflicted against animals every day in Trinity College. Demand justice - demand a complete ban on vivisection in Ireland. The translation of new therapies from the laboratory into the clinic only arises following years of rigorously conducted research involving an array of experimental approaches, including computer modelling of drug-protein interactions, the investigation of cell function in a Petri dish and animal experimentation.
The final stages in the development of a new drug or therapeutic strategy involves studies on healthy humans and eventually a clinical trial. The 3 Rs were first defined in and are: Replacement replacing animals tests with other experiments wherever possible , Refinement changing the tests to cause less suffering to the animals and Reduction reducing the number of animals that the tests are carried out on.
The UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction in Animals in Research NC3Rs is an independent scientific organisation whose job it is to find ways to reduce the need for animal testing and to improve the welfare conditions of any animals used for research. What are some possible alternatives to vivisection? Read More: Credits. Animal rights Factsheet. Amphibians Factsheet.
0コメント