280,000 animals used for testing in Ireland in 2010

ziggy23

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/280000-animals-used-for-testing-in-2010-184465.html


This is absolutely disgraceful:mad: The number has risen by 800% in the past 5 years. Why are we so backward?? I suggest people email the Dept of Health to get answers.

kildare.17hmr

Get over it! If you or any of your family get seriously ill in the future the medicine or treatment you recieve will likely have been developed from animal testing.

We cant have it every way

anniehoo

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Get over it! If you or any of your family get seriously ill in the future the medicine or treatment you recieve will likely have been developed from animal testing.

We cant have it every way

While i agree that many medical treatments absolutely do require animal research to say "get over it" is ridiculous. We should be asking ourselves why has there been such an increase and not simply accepting it.

In Universities for example theres a strict policy of the 3Rs (refine,reduce and reuse) whereever possible and research involving animals has to be approved by an Ethics Committee. Most animals are specifically bred for research and simply would not exist except for this fact. Some are genetically bred to have certain conditions to recreate as much as possible a body system that can be used to test procedures and drugs. Yes, they're not human but in a lot of cases that is the only alternative. If there is an alternative it should be used and if not,we most definitely should be asking why not.

Animal research is not black and white. If there's an increase in numbers in 5 years we need to know has there simply been an increase in valuable research that requires these animals or has the Law changed in some way to make it easier for animal experimentation to take place and researchers and companies to become lazier etc. It is a minefield of questions to be honest so just reading about "increased numbers" and vague statistics is not enough for me to be making blanket statements and getting irate about it just yet.

Yakult

ziggy23 wrote: »

I suggest people email the Dept of Health to get answers.

Why can't you do it??

kildare.17hmr

I heard a man from a university on monday being interviewed about this and he said that the increse was due to breaking the mouse genome a few years ago which has opened the door for testing alot more things. He aslo said that most of the tests are on mice and when they get something that works on mice they have to test it on another animal to make sure it works universally.

I have no problem at all with animal testing if its going to help cure disese or prolong life for someone sick.

Testing cosmetic products i have no opinion about ether way but id fully suport it for medical research

Lawrence1895

Most of all tests on animals are not necessary, and can be replaced by research on stem cells, imo.

And what the Cosmetic Industry is doing, is just cruelty. Full stop :mad:

kylith

I disagree with the testing of cosmetics, but agree with what Kildare says about medical research.

Until you're willing to test new medicines out on yourself or your family member animal testing is a necessary evil.

jay phelan

Lars1916 wrote: »

And what the Cosmetic Industry is doing, is just cruelty. Full stop :mad:

This is a good point, non of that is really necessary!

wetdogsmell

Lars1916 wrote: »

Most of all tests on animals are not necessary, and can be replaced by research on stem cells, imo.

And what the Cosmetic Industry is doing, is just cruelty. Full stop :mad:

fair enough about the cosmetic companys but i don't think you right about the stem cells, how can they use them for testing heart meds or for skin problems

Lawrence1895

wetdogsmell wrote: »

fair enough about the cosmetic companys but i don't think you right about the stem cells, how can they use them for testing heart meds or for skin problems

Some of the stem cells can develop into a culture, which replicates the human skin, from my best knowledge. But I'm not a scientist either.

Just googled for 'Alternatives to animal testing', loads of information there...maybe too much :rolleyes:

Discodog

The worrying thing it that it appears that our lack of proper regulation is fuelling the increase here. For example LD 50 testing is regarded as obsolete in many countries. We have also issued licenses that allow "the animal to experience severe pain that is likely to be prolonged". To make this worse 791 out of the 831 dogs used were not given anaesthetic.

It's logical that anyone who wants to carry out this testing will be attracted to countries where there is less regulation & less likelihood of public outcry & negative publicity.

The numbers are a bit of a misnomer in that many more animals will of died. The researchers specify the criteria & any animals that fall outside of this will be killed. For example they may want 100 female dogs of a certain age. In the breeding process you will also get a similar number of male dogs that are then surplus to requirements.

I am not totally against the use of animals in medical research provided that there really is no alternative. We should have the same system as in many countries where you have to justify why you have to use a live animal & the matter is reviewed by experts before a permission is granted. Then the experimentation is constantly inspected to check that the researchers are keeping any suffering to a minimum level.

Their use in cosmetic testing should be totally banned.

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

fair enough about the cosmetic companys but i don't think you right about the stem cells, how can they use them for testing heart meds or for skin problems

Stem cells will replace a lot of testing because they are cheaper, easier & more reliable - you can replicate tests without the variance that comes from individual animals.

Lawrence1895

Discodog wrote: »

Stem cells will replace a lot of testing because they are cheaper, easier & more reliable - you can replicate tests without the variance that comes from individual animals.

Have you got a link to that handy? I can't find anything decent or easy to understand in the moment. Thanks

Discodog

Lars1916 wrote: »

Have you got a link to that handy? I can't find anything decent or easy to understand in the moment. Thanks

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/22/stem.cell.drug.tests/index.html

It's quite hard to find links that are easy to understand & many are on sites than could be deemed as against the API charter.

doctor evil

Where do people think the advancement of veterinary medicine and procedures come from.

As for cosmetics, you can't sell something that is not safe, some folk use cosmetics to cover scars etc

Discodog

AFAIK Vet schools do not use live animals for experimentation. Students may practise on pets but only in a highly supervised environment. The main Veterinary experimentation would be drug trials or for the teaching & evaluation of new techniques like keyhole surgery. Non of this involves causing suffering.

There is a huge range of cosmetics available that have not been tested on animals & are known to be safe. Anyone can make an ethical choice.

lorebringer

Lars1916 wrote: »

Most of all tests on animals are not necessary, and can be replaced by research on stem cells, imo.

And what the Cosmetic Industry is doing, is just cruelty. Full stop

Lars1916 wrote: »

Some of the stem cells can develop into a culture, which replicates the human skin, from my best knowledge. But I'm not a scientist either.

Just googled for 'Alternatives to animal testing', loads of information there...maybe too much :rolleyes:

Discodog wrote: »

Stem cells will replace a lot of testing because they are cheaper, easier & more reliable - you can replicate tests without the variance that comes from individual animals.

(I'm not aiming this rant at anyone in particular... just to note)...

The "stem cell replacing animal testing" theory is redundant - most labs HAVE TO carry out testing on stem cells and/or GM cells before they can get a licence to animal test (and it is bloody expensive!). There is a lot of crap out there about about stem cells but unless you have insider experience into a lab that does animal test the info out "in the real world" is very skewed.

Testing on stem cells is not cheap, or easy, and often not as accurate in giving the bigger picture as animal testing. Stem cell/GM testing is so artificial that there can be massive difference between results in a petri dish to in a living organism. The alien environment that is created by testing ex vivo can cause fake results, and does not give any indication as to what the results will mean for the rest of the body (eg. X kills cancer cells in kidneys (fantastic), but also brain cells (not so fantastic)) - this cannot be replicated in a lab environment. Just to note also, a lot of good things have come out of research that was not intended to do what it was first set out to do. Not all animal testing is seen as "necessary" but by discovering new things about how the body works and interacts, loads of new technologies and drugs can be applied to areas that we may have never even thought of

If, at any point in your life or your lived ones lives, you or they have taken antibiotics, antihistamines, any chemo therapy for cancer, insulin, anaesthetic, painkillers... millions of drugs, therapies, treatments for millions of illnesses, you more than likely would not be here. Bitching about how it is terrible that animals are tested on is not going to save peoples lives, the testing does. If some transgenic mice have to live and die for my health, for my families and loved ones health - I'm very pro animal testing. Information is definitely power and I find it amazing the amount of negative surrounding animal testing. Personally, I know I wouldn't be here and almost everyone I know wouldn't be here if animal testing didn't exist.

Another thing that really irks me - is people who are anti testing but fulling willing to avail of the benefits of the testing that takes place (a certain person working for PETA comes to mind... but I won't get started on that, could be here all day). Like vegans who still use animal based products, people who don't carry a donor card but will freely take one - either be in or out, not in until it gets hard or difficult to justify.

/rant

EDIT: I am not pro testing in the cosmetic sense, just the scientific research sense.

Discodog

lorebringer wrote: »

Bitching about how it is terrible that animals are tested on is not going to save peoples lives, the testing does.

I don't think that many would object to essential testing. The concern of the thread is that Ireland is doing far more testing per capita than most other countries & that we are known for our lack of animal welfare laws. Because of our belief in confidentiality it is very difficult to find out how & why these animals are being used. So all the ingredients are there to possibly allow testing here that wouldn't be allowed in other countries.

The right to be allowed to inflict suffering on an animal on any grounds should have to be based on very solid evidence & constantly reassessed. In many cases it should be possible to carry out the research without using methods that inflict pain or distress. For example I did some work with fish. In those days the standard method was apply chemical x until the fish dies. We developed a revolving cylinder full of water with the fish in the middle & one could measure how many rpm the fish could resist before flipping over - the fish were totally unharmed.

I have worked with animals in a laboratory. For example we needed to establish the effects of pesticides. In those days everything revolved around LD50 testing, which today still kills thousands of animals, whereas we quickly learnt that this was pretty irrelevant to what happened in the field.

angry kitten

As much as I hate the use of animals in medical research testing I do accept that it is an necessary evil at present. Cosmetic testing on animals,however, is not. It is quite easy to buy high quality products that aren't tested on animals. The Irish government's spending on animal welfare is negligible at best. Lets hope we see a massive reduction in the numbers of animals being tested on in Ireland.

I will be contacting the Dept of Agriculture about the matter, however experience tells me that contacting them and being given the courtesy of a reply are 2 entirely different things.

denballs

ziggy23 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/280000-animals-used-for-testing-in-2010-184465.html


This is absolutely disgraceful:mad: The number has risen by 800% in the past 5 years. Why are we so backward?? I suggest people email the Dept of Health to get answers.

we use and have always used them as we like......i dont think its right and would probably be angry if it was a dog ,......but if we didnt use them what would we do instead...until you hav a better option...ill eat my kfc and use my aftershave without complaint of how animals where treated in these products production,.....because if its a choice between human happiness or other species.....i know where i stand.

ziggy23

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Get over it! If you or any of your family get seriously ill in the future the medicine or treatment you recieve will likely have been developed from animal testing.

We cant have it every way

No I won't get over it I want to know why it has increased by 800% in the past 5 years.

Yakult wrote: »

Why can't you do it??

No need to be so smart:rolleyes: Of course I have emailed them myself I was suggesting if other people were concerned to email them too.

Traonach

Discodog wrote: »

AFAIK Vet schools do not use live animals for experimentation. Students may practise on pets but only in a highly supervised environment. The main Veterinary experimentation would be drug trials or for the teaching & evaluation of new techniques like keyhole surgery. Non of this involves causing suffering.
.

My local vet told me that they do. They experiment on frogs, rabbits in physiology experiments. They used to experiment on greyhounds, but I think he said that they don't experiment on dogs anymore.

kildare.17hmr

ziggy23 wrote: »

No I won't get over it I want to know why it has increased by 800% in the past 5 years.

Because they cracked the mouse genome aparently, thos was from someone involved. Thats why about 240,000 of the 270,000 animals listed in the link were mice

Hellrazer

The by-product of mice experimentation is snake food--some of these labs supply food to shops that sell exotics.

I dont have an issue for medical reasons but I do for cosmetic ones--that should be banned outright.

Cherry Blossom

About 10 years ago I took a rabbit to the vet with an inner-ear infection, I was told that the prognosis was not good due to the fact that no drugs that may cure the problem were licensed for use on rabbits due to lack of testing which came down to the fact that it was not worth spending the money on, as people were unwilling to spend money treating small pets that in the scheme of things have short lifespans and are easy and cheap to replace.

After being asked if I was willing to pay the costs, including the two week stay in the vets as they would want to monitor the effects/condition of the rabbit very carefully, I signed a whole bunch of waivers and disclaimers including one which allowed the vet's to pts at any time they deemed it appropriate. The rabbit came home a week later with the remainder of it's course of dog tablets as its condition had improved ten fold, by the end of the treatment she had made a complete recovery.

OP - it is worth keeping in mind that every-time your pet is given a drug (everything from worming tablets and flea treatments to aesthetic) this can be done because all of these medications have been thoroughly tested on other pets of the same species to ensure it is effective and that you can be warned of any side-effects in advance. If side effects occur - somebody somewhere has these well documented, and ways to combat these has also been thoroughly tested. I don't think too many of us are going to refuse medical treatment for either our own pets or kids on grounds that we find the research that make them available immoral.

I'm interested to know what steps posters here take to ensure their homes are free of cleaning products, processed foods, pet foods etc that have contributed to animal testing, keeping in mind that unless it specifically says it isn't tested on animals you can almost guarantee that it is. It's unnecessary to buy every day products like this, it's a matter of personal choice and if you want to make an impact on this, this the area where you can make your personal moral contribution.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

OP - it is worth keeping in mind that every-time your pet is given a drug (everything from worming tablets and flea treatments to aesthetic) this can be done because all of these medications have been thoroughly tested on other pets of the same species to ensure it is effective and that you can be warned of any side-effects in advance.

But those test are done on the basis of a clinical trial. They are totally different to a toxicology test in a laboratory. I have had similar situations where a Vet has been part of a trial group & I was given the choice of trialling the new drug or sticking to the old one.

There are far fewer ethical considerations regarding the trial of an Veterinary product on animals especially as it is with the owners consent. Also the animals used in a clinical Veterinary trial are not going to part of the published figures.

Personally I would have no problems with Petfood being tested on animals & I wouldn't of thought that it would be a painful or distressing experience. I would suspect that most of the chemicals in processed foods & cleaning product would of been tested long ago.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

But those test are done on the basis of a clinical trial. They are totally different to a toxicology test in a laboratory. I have had similar situations where a Vet has been part of a trial group & I was given the choice of trialling the new drug or sticking to the old one.

The vet was not part of a trial group in the experience I had, just willing to help while covering their own back against possible legal action, the drugs were approved in some other countries.

Extensive lab testing is part and parcel of the process for any new drug release, there's plenty on information on the subject for anyone who cares to trawl through it. Clinical trials comes after extensive testing on animals as part of the lab testing stage.


This is drugs meant for humans but the illustration is very clear and easy to understand. I would find it hard to believe that any veterinary drug would not be extensively tested on its intended species before it went to clinical trials which would then give a more accurate picture of its effect on whatever it is that it's supposed to cure. If you have some evidence that says otherwise then post a link to it.





http://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html

ItsAWindUp

That's disgraceful

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Extensive lab testing is part and parcel of the process for any new drug release, there's plenty on information on the subject for anyone who cares to trawl through it. Clinical trials comes after extensive testing on animals as part of the lab testing stage.

But it is logical that you do not need the same level of testing for a product that is going to be trialled on animals rather than humans. A dog drug won't of been toxicity tested on dogs.

Much of the testing for veterinary drugs is concerned with testing the residue from the drug, primarily for animals that will be consumed. Also the shelf life needs to be tested but this shouldn't involve animals.

As for brainwashing it is up to us as individuals to decide what we believe. For example, because of some of their extreme views, organisations like Peta can be dismissed yet they produce some very valid material from highly reputable sources. Surely we have to be constantly vigilant to ensure that any suffering to animals in research is kept to the absolute minimum.