Professor defends testing of monkeys

The Oxford Times: . .

Campaigners have labelled the University of Oxford’s monkey-testing programme a “national disgrace” after footage of the laboratory was aired on BBC News on Tuesday.

Following the programme, which showed footage of animals with lesions (or areas of damage), Luke Steele, head of the Anti-Vivisection Coalition, said: “These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace.”

Neuroscientist Professor Matthew Rushworth said the lesions in the frontal lobe helped look at what happens when certain areas of the brain malfunction: “This gives us key insights into how some of these areas are going wrong in psychological illnesses such as depression, but it can also apply to disorders like autism.”

Related links

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:55am Thu 30 Jan 14

BigAlBiker says...

Seems to me that if they can find something to help us have a better and longer lasting life then that's good enough for me, and it would also seem to be very highly regulated nowadays rather then perhaps what went on 40 years ago.

Carry on Scientists.
Seems to me that if they can find something to help us have a better and longer lasting life then that's good enough for me, and it would also seem to be very highly regulated nowadays rather then perhaps what went on 40 years ago. Carry on Scientists. BigAlBiker

9:12am Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates.

All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do.

The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science.
There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates. All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do. The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science. museli

9:14am Thu 30 Jan 14

EMBOX2 says...

Yep, you can't test on humans, much as some would like to. So I'm afraid, captive bred animals are very necessary in this regard. That's not to say I agree with it 100%, but there seems to be no other way.

These computer models and "cultures" just don't show what drugs etc. do on a live mammal.
Yep, you can't test on humans, much as some would like to. So I'm afraid, captive bred animals are very necessary in this regard. That's not to say I agree with it 100%, but there seems to be no other way. These computer models and "cultures" just don't show what drugs etc. do on a live mammal. EMBOX2

9:34am Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

EMBOX2 wrote:
Yep, you can't test on humans, much as some would like to. So I'm afraid, captive bred animals are very necessary in this regard. That's not to say I agree with it 100%, but there seems to be no other way.

These computer models and "cultures" just don't show what drugs etc. do on a live mammal.
This article isn't actually about drug safety testing - it's about some bloke poking about in primates brains looking for an 'insight'.

Over 90% of drugs that pass animal safety testing go on to fail human trials so animal testing doesn't seem to be particularly effective - even then many of the drugs prove to be dangerous in the long run and end up being withdrawn. A skeptic might say that most animal experiments are just a way of the drug companies covering their backs while they screw a few more million pounds out of our health budget.
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote: Yep, you can't test on humans, much as some would like to. So I'm afraid, captive bred animals are very necessary in this regard. That's not to say I agree with it 100%, but there seems to be no other way. These computer models and "cultures" just don't show what drugs etc. do on a live mammal.[/p][/quote]This article isn't actually about drug safety testing - it's about some bloke poking about in primates brains looking for an 'insight'. Over 90% of drugs that pass animal safety testing go on to fail human trials so animal testing doesn't seem to be particularly effective - even then many of the drugs prove to be dangerous in the long run and end up being withdrawn. A skeptic might say that most animal experiments are just a way of the drug companies covering their backs while they screw a few more million pounds out of our health budget. museli

10:59am Thu 30 Jan 14

xenarthra says...

museli wrote:
There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates.

All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do.

The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science.
First of all, it is presumptuous of you to speculate on how Rushworth feels about animal suffering. But in any case, I would rather live in a society that cares more about human suffering than animal suffering, than the other way around. Of course, the ideal situation is to have concern for the welfare of both humans and animals, which is, in fact, the majority view in Britain.

All the anti-vivisection campaigners will ever accomplish is to make Britain an uncompetitive place to carry out animal research, thereby boosting animal testing in other countries that have far less regard for animal well-being. A rather spectacular own goal.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates. All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do. The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science.[/p][/quote]First of all, it is presumptuous of you to speculate on how Rushworth feels about animal suffering. But in any case, I would rather live in a society that cares more about human suffering than animal suffering, than the other way around. Of course, the ideal situation is to have concern for the welfare of both humans and animals, which is, in fact, the majority view in Britain. All the anti-vivisection campaigners will ever accomplish is to make Britain an uncompetitive place to carry out animal research, thereby boosting animal testing in other countries that have far less regard for animal well-being. A rather spectacular own goal. xenarthra

11:09am Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

xenarthra wrote:
museli wrote:
There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates.

All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do.

The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science.
First of all, it is presumptuous of you to speculate on how Rushworth feels about animal suffering. But in any case, I would rather live in a society that cares more about human suffering than animal suffering, than the other way around. Of course, the ideal situation is to have concern for the welfare of both humans and animals, which is, in fact, the majority view in Britain.

All the anti-vivisection campaigners will ever accomplish is to make Britain an uncompetitive place to carry out animal research, thereby boosting animal testing in other countries that have far less regard for animal well-being. A rather spectacular own goal.
Where ever you turn - taxes, animal welfare, fair wages and employment conditions, environmental protection - always the same sorry argument about us becoming 'uncompetitive'. I don't think we should participate in these races to the gutter, if we can't lead the way then who will?
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: There is no real evidence that monkeys suffer autism or long-term recurring depression in nature, as with so many illnesses these are part of the human condition and it's time science started looking at people to find the answers instead of mistreating our fellow primates. All those years when thousands of beagles were killed by the science industry trying to disprove the obvious - that smoking causes clung cancer - and in the end Professor Doll uses statistics to demonstrate what animal abuse had failed to do. The Oxford vivisection facility allows those like Rushworth who have been conditioned to ignore animal suffering to pass on their lack of empathy to a new generation of scientists who will be told not to be squeamish and that animal abuse in necessary for science.[/p][/quote]First of all, it is presumptuous of you to speculate on how Rushworth feels about animal suffering. But in any case, I would rather live in a society that cares more about human suffering than animal suffering, than the other way around. Of course, the ideal situation is to have concern for the welfare of both humans and animals, which is, in fact, the majority view in Britain. All the anti-vivisection campaigners will ever accomplish is to make Britain an uncompetitive place to carry out animal research, thereby boosting animal testing in other countries that have far less regard for animal well-being. A rather spectacular own goal.[/p][/quote]Where ever you turn - taxes, animal welfare, fair wages and employment conditions, environmental protection - always the same sorry argument about us becoming 'uncompetitive'. I don't think we should participate in these races to the gutter, if we can't lead the way then who will? museli

11:36am Thu 30 Jan 14

Dr Cheale says...

i thought science brought us the understanding that as complex as we are, we have the ability to have empathy and know how sensitive other creatures are, you could say they are better then we, if using non-humans animals became illegal to have in a lab tomorrow, science would move on. animals experiments it is the only branch of sceince to be stuck in the past. it just keeps going around in circles. and i have seen the only people to shout about about vivisection is those that have mortgages, prove me otherwise.
i thought science brought us the understanding that as complex as we are, we have the ability to have empathy and know how sensitive other creatures are, you could say they are better then we, if using non-humans animals became illegal to have in a lab tomorrow, science would move on. animals experiments it is the only branch of sceince to be stuck in the past. it just keeps going around in circles. and i have seen the only people to shout about about vivisection is those that have mortgages, prove me otherwise. Dr Cheale

11:54am Thu 30 Jan 14

Hella7 says...

so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement?
It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly.

.
so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement? It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly. . Hella7

12:27pm Thu 30 Jan 14

M.Thornes says...

So disgusted that taxpayers money is being used to finance this cruelty. At a time when everyone is being told we need to cut back and while we see the most vulnerable in our society being marginalised and having their disability cut, youth centres closed and public spending cut, it is absurd that those in charge of the books still see fit to spend our hard-earned money on funding this archaic science. Most people are against experiments on monkeys, why does this government think it's acceptable to spend public money to do just that? We are an uncivilized society indeed when we look at those weaker than us and decide to use and abuse them simply because we are able to. Hope this ends.
So disgusted that taxpayers money is being used to finance this cruelty. At a time when everyone is being told we need to cut back and while we see the most vulnerable in our society being marginalised and having their disability cut, youth centres closed and public spending cut, it is absurd that those in charge of the books still see fit to spend our hard-earned money on funding this archaic science. Most people are against experiments on monkeys, why does this government think it's acceptable to spend public money to do just that? We are an uncivilized society indeed when we look at those weaker than us and decide to use and abuse them simply because we are able to. Hope this ends. M.Thornes

1:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Megamags says...

There are lot of ignorant comments on here. I think I saw the "9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans". But the animals are used to test if it's safe, not whether it works.

This rule was brought in after the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials and Nuremburg code. Hitler was a passionate anti-vivisectionist, so used humans. As a network of European societies, we have agree that a mouse's life is worth less than a human's. That is the public consensus.
There are lot of ignorant comments on here. I think I saw the "9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans". But the animals are used to test if it's safe, not whether it works. This rule was brought in after the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials and Nuremburg code. Hitler was a passionate anti-vivisectionist, so used humans. As a network of European societies, we have agree that a mouse's life is worth less than a human's. That is the public consensus. Megamags

1:32pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Chris Magee says...

“These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace."

Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%.

http://www.ipsos-mor
i.com/researchpublic
ations/publications/
1512/Views-on-the-us
e-of-animals-in-scie
ntific-research.aspx


Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.
“These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace." Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%. http://www.ipsos-mor i.com/researchpublic ations/publications/ 1512/Views-on-the-us e-of-animals-in-scie ntific-research.aspx Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority. Chris Magee

1:36pm Thu 30 Jan 14

blwibwib says...

Hella7 wrote:
so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement?
It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly.

.
The BBC report actually said that 2/3 of the work that the lab does uses human volunteers, and uses technology like PET and CT scans - this is the "sine qua none", and the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if there is an alternative - this is enshrined in UK law. However, animals are used to look at specific things like the effect of brain lesions that you cannot simply create in a laboratory.
[quote][p][bold]Hella7[/bold] wrote: so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement? It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly. .[/p][/quote]The BBC report actually said that 2/3 of the work that the lab does uses human volunteers, and uses technology like PET and CT scans - this is the "sine qua none", and the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if there is an alternative - this is enshrined in UK law. However, animals are used to look at specific things like the effect of brain lesions that you cannot simply create in a laboratory. blwibwib

1:49pm Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

Megamags wrote:
There are lot of ignorant comments on here. I think I saw the "9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans". But the animals are used to test if it's safe, not whether it works.

This rule was brought in after the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials and Nuremburg code. Hitler was a passionate anti-vivisectionist, so used humans. As a network of European societies, we have agree that a mouse's life is worth less than a human's. That is the public consensus.
The human trials that I say drugs fail after passing animal safety trials are also safety trials, not functional, so please explain why you think my comment 'ignorant'. It appears you didn't read what I wrote properly.

The anti-vivisection movement dates back to Victorian liberalism, a long time before Hitler - not sure what point your are trying to make there.

At the moment both your mouse and the human die - that is part of the reason why there is no public consensus. In a society where animal research has been relied on for many years yet we suffer more and more illness specific to human beings it is obvious to many of us that medical science is stuck up a blind alley and the first thing it could do to sort itself out is abandon it's reliance on outdated research methods.
[quote][p][bold]Megamags[/bold] wrote: There are lot of ignorant comments on here. I think I saw the "9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans". But the animals are used to test if it's safe, not whether it works. This rule was brought in after the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials and Nuremburg code. Hitler was a passionate anti-vivisectionist, so used humans. As a network of European societies, we have agree that a mouse's life is worth less than a human's. That is the public consensus.[/p][/quote]The human trials that I say drugs fail after passing animal safety trials are also safety trials, not functional, so please explain why you think my comment 'ignorant'. It appears you didn't read what I wrote properly. The anti-vivisection movement dates back to Victorian liberalism, a long time before Hitler - not sure what point your are trying to make there. At the moment both your mouse and the human die - that is part of the reason why there is no public consensus. In a society where animal research has been relied on for many years yet we suffer more and more illness specific to human beings it is obvious to many of us that medical science is stuck up a blind alley and the first thing it could do to sort itself out is abandon it's reliance on outdated research methods. museli

2:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

Chris Magee wrote:
“These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace."

Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%.

http://www.ipsos-mor

i.com/researchpublic

ations/publications/

1512/Views-on-the-us

e-of-animals-in-scie

ntific-research.aspx



Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.
So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it!
[quote][p][bold]Chris Magee[/bold] wrote: “These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace." Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%. http://www.ipsos-mor i.com/researchpublic ations/publications/ 1512/Views-on-the-us e-of-animals-in-scie ntific-research.aspx Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.[/p][/quote]So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it! museli

2:12pm Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

blwibwib wrote:
Hella7 wrote:
so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement?
It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly.

.
The BBC report actually said that 2/3 of the work that the lab does uses human volunteers, and uses technology like PET and CT scans - this is the "sine qua none", and the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if there is an alternative - this is enshrined in UK law. However, animals are used to look at specific things like the effect of brain lesions that you cannot simply create in a laboratory.
But why is it so important to look at the effect of brain lesions in a species that doesn't suffer from the disorders that are being researched? How is this sufficient justification to treat primate in this way? I don't see that this is necessary at all - it sounds like a typical scientific fishing expedition. That's just great if it's just a matter of looking at outer space or particles in the hope of gaining insight but no excuse for animal abuse.
[quote][p][bold]blwibwib[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hella7[/bold] wrote: so this is what Prof. Rushworth calls SCIENCE-cutting lesion's into monkey's brains to gain more knowledge about human brain activity and depression? Astonishing that simply observing humans and employing PET and CT technology which has been around for decades isn't the sine qua non requirement? It's high time that Rushworth et al at Oxford Uni stopped defending the indefensible and pressed for research funding which would be relevant to advance knowledge in neuroscience (or any other area for that matter) by studying the human animal and extrapolate data accordingly. .[/p][/quote]The BBC report actually said that 2/3 of the work that the lab does uses human volunteers, and uses technology like PET and CT scans - this is the "sine qua none", and the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if there is an alternative - this is enshrined in UK law. However, animals are used to look at specific things like the effect of brain lesions that you cannot simply create in a laboratory.[/p][/quote]But why is it so important to look at the effect of brain lesions in a species that doesn't suffer from the disorders that are being researched? How is this sufficient justification to treat primate in this way? I don't see that this is necessary at all - it sounds like a typical scientific fishing expedition. That's just great if it's just a matter of looking at outer space or particles in the hope of gaining insight but no excuse for animal abuse. museli

3:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Megamags says...

@muesli. I'm afraid you're wrong. There hasn't been a single death in a clinical trial for over 30 years. If it were safety testing and it failed in humans after being safe in animals then people would get sick in the clinical trials 9/10 times which they clearly don't. The only major incidence of that was the tgn 1214, where the animal data were ignored for some reason.

I have had a full briefing on this process. The first stage of research uses petri dishes, computer modelling and such to test a potential drug before it is given to animals. The animal stage weeds out the half of them that is toxic. Without it, it, far more phase 1 human trials would end in sick people. The human trials have 3 stages, reducing 5 candidate drugs to one that goes on to be a medicine. So 80% of candidate drugs rather than drugs are weeded out. 3 are left at the end of phase 1, but only one passes stage 3. You could say 66% of candidate drugs that pass human tests, fail human tests that is how silly the whole idea is
@muesli. I'm afraid you're wrong. There hasn't been a single death in a clinical trial for over 30 years. If it were safety testing and it failed in humans after being safe in animals then people would get sick in the clinical trials 9/10 times which they clearly don't. The only major incidence of that was the tgn 1214, where the animal data were ignored for some reason. I have had a full briefing on this process. The first stage of research uses petri dishes, computer modelling and such to test a potential drug before it is given to animals. The animal stage weeds out the half of them that is toxic. Without it, it, far more phase 1 human trials would end in sick people. The human trials have 3 stages, reducing 5 candidate drugs to one that goes on to be a medicine. So 80% of candidate drugs rather than drugs are weeded out. 3 are left at the end of phase 1, but only one passes stage 3. You could say 66% of candidate drugs that pass human tests, fail human tests that is how silly the whole idea is Megamags

3:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Hella7 says...

blwibwib,
so that's very reassuring then if the Oxford lab uses 2/3 of human volunteers-never mind about the rest of experiments performed on animals-all of them being individual beings capable of suffering physical and emotional pain and distress?! Odd isn't it, that there are various medical organisations out there such as the Dr. Hadwen Trust, The Humane Research Trust,etc. who manage to commission human relevant research without the use of outdated,immoral animal research.
Furthermore, you say that the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if alternatives are available.In practice,enforcement of this is very weak.The legal obligation to use alternatives relies on those alternatives being officially seen to be available and this can be a very complex and lengthy process.The development of non-animal methodologies requires a formal validation process to ascertain that the method is reliable and repeatable.This validation includes further trial and assessment which can take many years, but sadly, funding for non-animal research is miniscule compared to funding allocated to animal research.
blwibwib, so that's very reassuring then if the Oxford lab uses 2/3 of human volunteers-never mind about the rest of experiments performed on animals-all of them being individual beings capable of suffering physical and emotional pain and distress?! Odd isn't it, that there are various medical organisations out there such as the Dr. Hadwen Trust, The Humane Research Trust,etc. who manage to commission human relevant research without the use of outdated,immoral animal research. Furthermore, you say that the lab is not permitted to use monkeys if alternatives are available.In practice,enforcement of this is very weak.The legal obligation to use alternatives relies on those alternatives being officially seen to be available and this can be a very complex and lengthy process.The development of non-animal methodologies requires a formal validation process to ascertain that the method is reliable and repeatable.This validation includes further trial and assessment which can take many years, but sadly, funding for non-animal research is miniscule compared to funding allocated to animal research. Hella7

4:22pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Chris Magee says...

museli wrote:
Chris Magee wrote:
“These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace."

Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%.

http://www.ipsos-mor


i.com/researchpublic


ations/publications/


1512/Views-on-the-us


e-of-animals-in-scie


ntific-research.aspx




Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.
So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it!
I'm not sure you understood my post. It demonstrated that the majority of people conditionally accept animal research.

Cosmetic testing on animals ended when and only when alternatives had been developed. If it had been done on principle or "people power" I strongly suspect a ban would have been in the 1986 act. It took a further decade for the technology to catch up.

The badger TB vaccine was developed, and could only have been developed, using animals. It is being used in Wales instead of a cull. It is necessary to vaccinate them so they don't have TB any more.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Magee[/bold] wrote: “These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace." Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%. http://www.ipsos-mor i.com/researchpublic ations/publications/ 1512/Views-on-the-us e-of-animals-in-scie ntific-research.aspx Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.[/p][/quote]So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it![/p][/quote]I'm not sure you understood my post. It demonstrated that the majority of people conditionally accept animal research. Cosmetic testing on animals ended when and only when alternatives had been developed. If it had been done on principle or "people power" I strongly suspect a ban would have been in the 1986 act. It took a further decade for the technology to catch up. The badger TB vaccine was developed, and could only have been developed, using animals. It is being used in Wales instead of a cull. It is necessary to vaccinate them so they don't have TB any more. Chris Magee

4:24pm Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

Megamags wrote:
@muesli. I'm afraid you're wrong. There hasn't been a single death in a clinical trial for over 30 years. If it were safety testing and it failed in humans after being safe in animals then people would get sick in the clinical trials 9/10 times which they clearly don't. The only major incidence of that was the tgn 1214, where the animal data were ignored for some reason.

I have had a full briefing on this process. The first stage of research uses petri dishes, computer modelling and such to test a potential drug before it is given to animals. The animal stage weeds out the half of them that is toxic. Without it, it, far more phase 1 human trials would end in sick people. The human trials have 3 stages, reducing 5 candidate drugs to one that goes on to be a medicine. So 80% of candidate drugs rather than drugs are weeded out. 3 are left at the end of phase 1, but only one passes stage 3. You could say 66% of candidate drugs that pass human tests, fail human tests that is how silly the whole idea is
In the TGN1214 incident the drug had been judged safe after testing on monkeys for 4 consecutive weeks - I expect we all remember what a tiny dose of it did to those 6 poor human volunteers! Probably the biggest mistake in that whole drug company research fcuk up was giving the dose to 6 people at one time rather than being cautious and trying it out on one person first - a perfect example of over confidence in the results of animal testing!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2964774/

Yes I know that computer modelling etc is conducted before animal testing. I don't follow what you are trying to say after that - I understand that testing for safety and function is done throughout the stages so yes the 90% figure is uncertain. But 100s of drugs do fail to get through on safety grounds and a lot are also withdrawn during stage 4, post market surveillance, which you don't mention. The animal stage certainly doesn't weed out the half that is toxic - probably nearer the truth to say it weeds out half those that are toxic!
[quote][p][bold]Megamags[/bold] wrote: @muesli. I'm afraid you're wrong. There hasn't been a single death in a clinical trial for over 30 years. If it were safety testing and it failed in humans after being safe in animals then people would get sick in the clinical trials 9/10 times which they clearly don't. The only major incidence of that was the tgn 1214, where the animal data were ignored for some reason. I have had a full briefing on this process. The first stage of research uses petri dishes, computer modelling and such to test a potential drug before it is given to animals. The animal stage weeds out the half of them that is toxic. Without it, it, far more phase 1 human trials would end in sick people. The human trials have 3 stages, reducing 5 candidate drugs to one that goes on to be a medicine. So 80% of candidate drugs rather than drugs are weeded out. 3 are left at the end of phase 1, but only one passes stage 3. You could say 66% of candidate drugs that pass human tests, fail human tests that is how silly the whole idea is[/p][/quote]In the TGN1214 incident the drug had been judged safe after testing on monkeys for 4 consecutive weeks - I expect we all remember what a tiny dose of it did to those 6 poor human volunteers! Probably the biggest mistake in that whole drug company research fcuk up was giving the dose to 6 people at one time rather than being cautious and trying it out on one person first - a perfect example of over confidence in the results of animal testing! http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC2964774/ Yes I know that computer modelling etc is conducted before animal testing. I don't follow what you are trying to say after that - I understand that testing for safety and function is done throughout the stages so yes the 90% figure is uncertain. But 100s of drugs do fail to get through on safety grounds and a lot are also withdrawn during stage 4, post market surveillance, which you don't mention. The animal stage certainly doesn't weed out the half that is toxic - probably nearer the truth to say it weeds out half those that are toxic! museli

4:44pm Thu 30 Jan 14

museli says...

Chris Magee wrote:
museli wrote:
Chris Magee wrote:
“These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace."

Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%.

http://www.ipsos-mor



i.com/researchpublic



ations/publications/



1512/Views-on-the-us



e-of-animals-in-scie



ntific-research.aspx





Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.
So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it!
I'm not sure you understood my post. It demonstrated that the majority of people conditionally accept animal research.

Cosmetic testing on animals ended when and only when alternatives had been developed. If it had been done on principle or "people power" I strongly suspect a ban would have been in the 1986 act. It took a further decade for the technology to catch up.

The badger TB vaccine was developed, and could only have been developed, using animals. It is being used in Wales instead of a cull. It is necessary to vaccinate them so they don't have TB any more.
I think you'll find that the badger bTB vaccine is identical to the human one just in a higher dose.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Magee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Magee[/bold] wrote: “These tests are financed by the very public who oppose this national disgrace." Not so. Ipsos Mori shows conditional support for animal research (e.g.. when there is no alternative and when it's for medical purposes) at about 85%. http://www.ipsos-mor i.com/researchpublic ations/publications/ 1512/Views-on-the-us e-of-animals-in-scie ntific-research.aspx Nobody wishes to see an animal suffer unnecessarily, but absolutist anti-vivisectionists speak for a minority, not a majority.[/p][/quote]So who decides that it is 'necessary' for an animal to suffer? We were told it was 'necessary' for cosmetics to be tested on animals till enough of us shouted foul and people started asking questions. We are told it is 'necessary' for the military to blow up pigs so their medics can train on the results - this when war zones are full of humans injured by weaponry crying out for the most basic surgical care. We are told it is 'necessary' to effectively wipe out the badger population over whole areas of our countryside so farmers don't have to change their ways. Necessity has always been a favourite excuse for animal abuse - if you expect me to buy it then you better be able to prove it![/p][/quote]I'm not sure you understood my post. It demonstrated that the majority of people conditionally accept animal research. Cosmetic testing on animals ended when and only when alternatives had been developed. If it had been done on principle or "people power" I strongly suspect a ban would have been in the 1986 act. It took a further decade for the technology to catch up. The badger TB vaccine was developed, and could only have been developed, using animals. It is being used in Wales instead of a cull. It is necessary to vaccinate them so they don't have TB any more.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that the badger bTB vaccine is identical to the human one just in a higher dose. museli

8:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

faatmaan says...

as somebody who had major neuro-surgery many years ago, I believe I many not be alive today if it was not for the testing carries out on animals, in the scheme of things a lot of us unwittingly are part of experiments everyday of our lives, whether it be behavioural or the items we consume, whether it be food, drugs or ? Until a method is found of testing new procedures and medicines for Human use , there has to be a lot of give an take .I wonder how many of the protesters on Thursdays now and in the past on Parks road actually may have died without this type of testing ?
as somebody who had major neuro-surgery many years ago, I believe I many not be alive today if it was not for the testing carries out on animals, in the scheme of things a lot of us unwittingly are part of experiments everyday of our lives, whether it be behavioural or the items we consume, whether it be food, drugs or ? Until a method is found of testing new procedures and medicines for Human use , there has to be a lot of give an take .I wonder how many of the protesters on Thursdays now and in the past on Parks road actually may have died without this type of testing ? faatmaan

8:57pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Steve Magee says...

Many experiments carried out on primates include brain surgery to implant electrodes into the brain, the electrodes held in place by stainless steel screws, head bolts and dental cement.

A macaque monkey, named Felix by Oxford University vivisectors, was forced to perform tasks by being deprived of food and water. After learning these tasks, Felix had the top of his head sliced off, electrodes were forced into his brain and he was chemically brain damaged.

As this is a family newspaper, it is best that I refrain from going into the further horrific details of this poor creatures suffering.

The licence obtained for this experiment allowed “severe pain and suffering”. Similar experiments to this are banned in a number of other countries due to the cruelty involved.

This barbarism must be stopped.
Many experiments carried out on primates include brain surgery to implant electrodes into the brain, the electrodes held in place by stainless steel screws, head bolts and dental cement. A macaque monkey, named Felix by Oxford University vivisectors, was forced to perform tasks by being deprived of food and water. After learning these tasks, Felix had the top of his head sliced off, electrodes were forced into his brain and he was chemically brain damaged. As this is a family newspaper, it is best that I refrain from going into the further horrific details of this poor creatures suffering. The licence obtained for this experiment allowed “severe pain and suffering”. Similar experiments to this are banned in a number of other countries due to the cruelty involved. This barbarism must be stopped. Steve Magee

2:49am Mon 3 Feb 14

pro-compassion, anti-vivisection says...

Thank you for drawing people's attention to this often hidden issue.
Needless to say, after going our separate ways from monkeys 7 million years ago, nothing has changed since 1985.
If animal welfare is so high then these labs should accept CCTV cameras as they've been asked to do.

Good science has absolutely nothing to do with basing human medicine on monkeys. Primates have been a consistent failure for suffering humans as decade after decade they (and other animals) fail to cure human disease and pass harmful substances as "safe". Over 100 AIDS vaccines have worked in monkeys, none have worked in humans; haemophiliacs were given HIV infected blood proved "safe" in monkeys; vioxx was safe in monkeys and other species but caused 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in humans; the polio vaccine was delayed for decades by primate research; warnings were kept off cigarettes for 30 years by "tests" on monkeys and other animals; passed thalidomide as "safe" and so on.

"... prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys" Sabin, Albert, MD statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-4

"Warning is given not to carry over, without reservation, to man, the conclusions based on animal experiments. In monkeys none of the powerful carcinogens has been shown to produce cancers."The Lancet (1952) Aug 9, p 274.

Parkinson's: DBS is an effective treatment and has nothing to do with animal experiments as its creator makes clear; "You are right I discovered serendipitously DBS at high frequency in 1987 during a thalamotomy for essential tremor." and concludes, "Here is History as I saw it, and I have no doubt that many, for many reasons, want to rewrite it." Prophetic last words from Professor Benabid in his letter to Europeans for Medical Progress.

"The best model of PD to date, is the…(MPTP)-lesione
d marmoset….unlike human PD, which is progressive, the neurotoxic damage produced by MPTP is reversible.” 2 Kau & Creese in Emerich, Dean and Sanberg (Eds) ‘Central Nervous System Diseases: Innovative Animal Models from Lab to Clinic, Humana Press 2000
Multiple sclerosis; "Multiple sclerosis does not occur in animals. Ultimately, therefore, definitive research on multiple sclerosis must be done with humans."
(Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic, 1985)
Thank you for drawing people's attention to this often hidden issue. Needless to say, after going our separate ways from monkeys 7 million years ago, nothing has changed since 1985. If animal welfare is so high then these labs should accept CCTV cameras as they've been asked to do. Good science has absolutely nothing to do with basing human medicine on monkeys. Primates have been a consistent failure for suffering humans as decade after decade they (and other animals) fail to cure human disease and pass harmful substances as "safe". Over 100 AIDS vaccines have worked in monkeys, none have worked in humans; haemophiliacs were given HIV infected blood proved "safe" in monkeys; vioxx was safe in monkeys and other species but caused 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in humans; the polio vaccine was delayed for decades by primate research; warnings were kept off cigarettes for 30 years by "tests" on monkeys and other animals; passed thalidomide as "safe" and so on. "... prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys" Sabin, Albert, MD statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-4 "Warning is given not to carry over, without reservation, to man, the conclusions based on animal experiments. In monkeys none of the powerful carcinogens [of humans] has been shown to produce cancers."The Lancet (1952) Aug 9, p 274. Parkinson's: DBS is an effective treatment and has nothing to do with animal experiments as its creator makes clear; "You are right I discovered serendipitously DBS at high frequency in 1987 during a thalamotomy for essential tremor." and concludes, "Here is History as I saw it, and I have no doubt that many, for many reasons, want to rewrite it." Prophetic last words from Professor Benabid in his letter to Europeans for Medical Progress. "The best model of PD to date, is the…(MPTP)-lesione d marmoset….unlike human PD, which is progressive, the neurotoxic damage produced by MPTP is reversible.” 2 Kau & Creese in Emerich, Dean and Sanberg (Eds) ‘Central Nervous System Diseases: Innovative Animal Models from Lab to Clinic, Humana Press 2000 Multiple sclerosis; "Multiple sclerosis does not occur in animals. Ultimately, therefore, definitive research on multiple sclerosis must be done with humans." (Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic, 1985) pro-compassion, anti-vivisection

3:19am Mon 3 Feb 14

pro-compassion, anti-vivisection says...

Steve Magee wrote:
Many experiments carried out on primates include brain surgery to implant electrodes into the brain, the electrodes held in place by stainless steel screws, head bolts and dental cement.

A macaque monkey, named Felix by Oxford University vivisectors, was forced to perform tasks by being deprived of food and water. After learning these tasks, Felix had the top of his head sliced off, electrodes were forced into his brain and he was chemically brain damaged.

As this is a family newspaper, it is best that I refrain from going into the further horrific details of this poor creatures suffering.

The licence obtained for this experiment allowed “severe pain and suffering”. Similar experiments to this are banned in a number of other countries due to the cruelty involved.

This barbarism must be stopped.
The disconnection to the violence of animal abuse is so very apparent in the Oxford vivisectors' choice for their victim of the slightly comic name of "Felix".

It also smacks of condescension ( synonyms: superciliousness, superiority, scorn, disdain, loftiness, airs, lordliness, haughtiness, imperiousness, snobbishness, snobbery ).

I suggest that this is an unhealthy way to live and that they look for an alternative job before suffering irreversible damage to their psyche.
[quote][p][bold]Steve Magee[/bold] wrote: Many experiments carried out on primates include brain surgery to implant electrodes into the brain, the electrodes held in place by stainless steel screws, head bolts and dental cement. A macaque monkey, named Felix by Oxford University vivisectors, was forced to perform tasks by being deprived of food and water. After learning these tasks, Felix had the top of his head sliced off, electrodes were forced into his brain and he was chemically brain damaged. As this is a family newspaper, it is best that I refrain from going into the further horrific details of this poor creatures suffering. The licence obtained for this experiment allowed “severe pain and suffering”. Similar experiments to this are banned in a number of other countries due to the cruelty involved. This barbarism must be stopped.[/p][/quote]The disconnection to the violence of animal abuse is so very apparent in the Oxford vivisectors' choice for their victim of the slightly comic name of "Felix". It also smacks of condescension ( synonyms: superciliousness, superiority, scorn, disdain, loftiness, airs, lordliness, haughtiness, imperiousness, snobbishness, snobbery ). I suggest that this is an unhealthy way to live and that they look for an alternative job before suffering irreversible damage to their psyche. pro-compassion, anti-vivisection

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree