libby@cca.UUCP (11/21/86)
>> Take the following two examples. By a structure-function >>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, >>it is perfectly safe - in rabbits, and in humans beyond 20 weeks gestation. >> Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound. >>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable. Rats >>and certain strains of mice can literally eat it by the pound, but just >>a few millionths of a gram will kill a guinea pig (or is it a gerbil). > It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc. There are lots of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at results like the above. "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?" "Uh...I can't say." What the heck are all these animals dying for? Rather useless information, and potentially dangerous assumptions. And as far as household cleaners, and the like. My great-grandmother in Italy was cleaning her house with the same chemicals I am using today: bleach, lye, etc. She didn't need someone to stick lye in a rabbit's eye to tell her that it was dangerous stuff and that skin contact should be avoided. And neither do I. Have they really added any new chemicals to the household-cleaning and make-up arsenal in the past 20 years? If so, why? The old ones work fine. And if not (new and improved = ga ga, in my opinion) then why are they continuing to torture animals with repetitive tests. At any rate, thanks to Julie for sharing her list of good-and-evil manufact- urers with us. I will not be buying very many of the same products I used to. For those of you who care, make your dollars talk! Corporations that don't know the meaning of the word "ethics" are still very tuned in to the word "money".
werner@aecom.UUCP (11/24/86)
In article <11244@cca.UUCP>, libby@cca.UUCP (Libby Sackett) writes: > My examples: > >> Take the following two examples. By a structure-function > >>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, > > >> Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound. > >>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable. Rats > It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing > for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc. There are lots > of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at > results like the above. "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can > we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?" "Uh...I can't say." As much as I hate to be involved in run-on discussions, I also hate to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. The logical leap that Libby Sackett makes in response to my examples is essentially unjustified. There is a long experience to suggest that most chemicals that are harmful in a proper animal model are in fact harmful to humans. Furthermore, interspecies differences in reaction provide an insight into the mechanism and action of compounds. It is the converse that is not true: just because something is safe in animals does not mean it is safe in humans. However, anything harmful to animals should be considered harmful to humans until proven otherwise (and frankly I don't think the effort to prove otherwise is generally undertaken). One can never completely eliminate animal research. There is some, admittedly, that is redundant and unneccesaary, but one cannot generalize. One cannot generalize! -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "If you've heard this story before, don't stop me. I want to hear it again."
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (11/25/86)
In article <11244@cca.UUCP> libby@cca.UUCP (Libby Sackett) writes: > > >>> Take the following two examples. By a structure-function >>>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, >>>it is perfectly safe - in rabbits, and in humans beyond 20 weeks gestation. > >>> Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound. >>>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable. Rats >>>and certain strains of mice can literally eat it by the pound, but just >>>a few millionths of a gram will kill a guinea pig (or is it a gerbil). >> > >It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing >for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc. There are lots >of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at >results like the above. "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can >we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?" "Uh...I can't say." The US FDA says: "if a drug causes cancer in rats, we're not gonna certify it for human use". Remember Saccharin? Because, if a chemical does do something nasty to animals, it'll *probably* do something equally nasty to human beings. And "probably" is good enough. And it's evil (to use your terminology) to perform tests in that scale on human beings to find out for sure - Hitler's Germany did such testing. And, in the case of things like Saccharin, it's extremely difficult to detect that a drug is doing nasty things. Saccharin, (If I remember correctly) was guessed at being capable of causing a couple of cancers per *million* people. You want to do testing on humans on that big a scale? How? Or (as they do with rats) extremely high dosage testing for several generations? If doing this testing on animals is unethical - what's doing the same on human beings? Don't give me any nonsense about tissue cultures or computers. They simply *won't* catch problems that subtle. OF COURSE, killing thousands of animals to determine that Chlorox is corrosive is stupid and cruel. But blanket condemnation of all animal testing is equally so (to the people suffering from the conditions the drug is being researched in the first place). Fortunately, most Universities have ethics committees that review test plans before allowing researchers to perform tests on animals or people. Perhaps the cosmetics industry should be forced to clear test plans with a government body that evaluates testing for reasonability. -- Chris Lewis Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov Phone: (416)-474-1955
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (11/25/86)
>Fortunately, most Universities have ethics >committees that review test plans before allowing researchers to perform >tests on animals or people. Perhaps the cosmetics industry should be forced >to clear test plans with a government body that evaluates testing for >reasonability. >-- >Chris Lewis This is true, UNfortunately these committees are usually rather lax, (this is first hand, I've worked in and around such labs at some well known places) regardless of what they may be on paper. Having seen it first hand I would tend to tolerate some of the "extremists" on the subject, perhaps they will at least goad the others to clean up their house before some scandals cause them some real troubles. I think people idealize the situation, I haven't heard any defenses from people who have actually worked in these labs, I suspect they'd mostly rather forget the whole thing. More importantly, I think the conversation was specifically directed at unnecessary testing, such as on products we probably already know are harmful. Not medicines or new things (except perhaps new things of dubious value, like a cheaper formulation to make your dishwasher detergent smell "lemony!".) Animal testing motivated by vague fears of litigation rather than adding to the base of scientific knowledge. I have little doubt that our choice is either we engage in certain animal testing, or we stop right here (a choice some advocate.) I also have little doubt that those of us with compassion for animals would like to know that such testing is done as humanely as possible. I fear that it isn't. -Barry Shein, Boston University