|
For or Against Animal Testing? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| I would be in favor of it if I thought there were anything worth testing at all. But I don't. |
|
|
| Trancer85 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
all anmials must die except for me and all the hot women in the world. |
Survival of the fittest buddy. I would be the last man standing with lines of women circling the whole world on my left and right arm. |
|
|
| jessicah |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer85
Survival of the fittest buddy. I would be the last man standing with lines of women circling the whole world on my left and right arm. |
And they'd all get out their vibrators and ignore you :D |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
I don't think animals should have any rights. Hell we capture animals all the time and imprison them in our homes just to call them pets.
and nothing goes from being tested on rats then straight to humans. you work up the animal ladder to species that are more similar to humans. It is really really hard to get approved for human test subjects. |
|
|
| EyesOfExtasy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jessicah
And they'd all get out their vibrators and ignore you :D |
AHHHH!!!! ROFL!
BTW...I am against animal testing. |
|
|
| butterfly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lephaid
You need to test medications on animals with a complex CNS...single celled organisms are no comparison. |
this is very true.
i am definitely for animal testing, when it is necessary. i mean, i dont think it is absolutely necessary with cosmetics (and i dont really know what else) but i do think it is necessary with pharmaceuticals. pharmies are way too dangerous to be killing humans to figure out how to save the lives of others. and to all those who think there are alternatives to animal testing for drugs, stop kidding yourself, or learn a little about the science behind drug formulation. |
|
|
| whitesmoke |
| unfortunately it is necessary. most animals that are used are bred for testing purposes. there are also strict guidelines that must be followed in order to test on aniamls. most companies and organizations follow these guidelines but of course the few who dont receive all the attention and make it appear that all animals are excessively abused... |
|
|
| whitesmoke |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prodigy Child
but the same could be said that what if the animal had no reaction to the product but humans would. |
this has happened several times in the past but it does not mean aniaml testing is worthless |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
For Animal Testing
Its a necessary evil.
Even the most complex cell models and organisms which are computer based would not be able to tell us what happens because its just simulated. You can only gain real data from real experimentation.
I'm studying pharmacology and physiology at uni, and we've had to deal with the ethics of animal testing. To be truly against animal testing you would have to shun almost every single medical marvel that humans have come up with. |
|
|
| smallSHEEP |
Im for Animal Testing if used for drugs / Medical reasons.
Im againsed Animal Testing if used for testing cosmetics. (There are enough students willing to be paid to test this im sure) :) |
|
|
| insecurity |
| quote: | Originally posted by smallSHEEP
Im for Animal Testing if used for drugs / Medical reasons.
Im againsed Animal Testing if used for testing cosmetics. (There are enough students willing to be paid to test this im sure) :) |
my thoughts exactly |
|
|
| smallSHEEP |
This thread reminded me of a story I read last year:
Volunteer Gets Experimental Ebola Vaccine
By Rick Weiss
Steve Rucker, a registered nurse at the National Institutes of Health, broke with his lunchtime routine yesterday, forgoing his usual visit to the cafeteria and opting instead to roll up his sleeve for a shot filled with the biological essence of Ebola -- one of the world's deadliest and goriest diseases.
Surrounded by a gaggle of doctors and scientists, Rucker stepped into medical history at 12:10 p.m., becoming the first person ever injected with an experimental vaccine designed to protect against Ebola, the disease that was highlighted in the real-life thriller "The Hot Zone" and that continues to take a bloody toll in Africa.
"I've had better lunches," Rucker quipped as the shot's 100 trillion strands of synthetic DNA began to make their way into the cells in his arm.
Rucker is a pioneer in a high-tech effort to beat Ebola. If the vaccine works in people as it has in monkeys, it could fell one of the world's most horrid infectious scourges.
Alas, health officials say, despite weeks of advertisements and other pleas, only two people have volunteered to be part of the effort.
"People freak out about Ebola," said Margaret McCluskey, the director of nursing at the NIH's vaccine research center, where the new vaccine -- the first for Ebola -- awaits 25 more people to participate in initial safety tests.
When the NIH started testing an experimental vaccine for AIDS, many people with friends or lovers affected by that disease stepped forward. When it was for smallpox -- a disease feared these days as a weapon of bioterrorism -- a mix of patriotism and self-interest drew even more volunteers.
This time, however, the telephones are eerily silent. Almost no one, it seems, wants to get an Ebola shot. Indeed, the only volunteer so far other than Rucker is a landscaper who works in McCluskey's Silver Spring neighborhood.
"I basically raked him in," she conceded.
It is not surprising that people would hesitate about getting injected with anything labeled "Ebola." The disease is notoriously lethal, rapidly killing 50 percent to 90 percent of its victims. Just the thought makes people irrational.
Already, the landscaper has been asked by some clients whether he is going to be bringing the disease to the neighborhood.
The irony, scientists and doctors lament, is that this first Ebola vaccine is probably the safest and most sophisticated vaccine ever made, without a single component coming from the virus itself.
Indeed, the product spray-blasted into Rucker's arm (no needle necessary) is by any standard a marvel of biotechnological engineering. It was designed to rally the immune system even more than a real Ebola infection would, without causing any symptoms of the disease itself.
"It's remarkably sophisticated technology," said Gary Nabel, the virologist who is leading the Ebola effort in a fast-track program that has catapulted his basic research from the lab bench to the clinic in just three years.
Inexplicably, the frequency of Ebola outbreaks in Africa has been increasing. But it is not just Africans who will benefit, said Anthony S. Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which oversees NIH's vaccine research center. Like the smallpox virus and the bacterium that causes anthrax -- for which vaccines, though imperfect, at least exist -- Ebola virus, too, is a potential bioterrorism agent.
"In its natural form it's not the best," Fauci said. "You need close contact for it to spread. . . . But an aerosolized form would be extremely treacherous. And from a psychological terror aspect, you don't need a lot of people bleeding to get enormous terror in the population." The virus causes clotting abnormalities and tears holes in blood vessels, causing victims to bleed to death from multiple sites, including eyes, mouth and nose.
A vaccine, Fauci said, might deter those who would think about using such a weapon and would be "a big cause of comfort" for citizens, who would know that protection is available.
Rucker, 36, said he got religion about the importance of vaccines while living in medicine-deprived parts of South America.
"It sounds funny to say I'm excited about an Ebola vaccine, but this really is an exciting trial," he said. "It's so rare in research that you get to help with something that's so promising. And the pharmaceutical industry would never do this. There's no profit in this."
He has looked at the animal safety data and studied the informed-consent document that spells out the risks -- which are largely limited to soreness around the injection site.
"There's nothing in there about 'You could end up bleeding to death,' " he said. "It's not like the polio vaccine," one version of which causes polio in rare cases instead of preventing it.
In fact, the Ebola vaccine is made of laboratory-synthesized strands of DNA designed to preclude that possibility and other side effects.
With nearly atomic precision, researchers at Vical, a biotechnology company in San Diego, made the strands to mimic those found in the Ebola virus -- but with key components removed, including the part that triggers illness and the part that might allow the DNA to recombine with the DNA of some other virus to make a new and potentially disease-causing bug.
Volunteers will get three shots over three months. Blood tests will track their immune-system responses for a year.
The DNA enters subcutaneous skin cells, which use it to make Ebola proteins. Immune-system cells attack those proteins and then are primed forever to fight a real Ebola infection even more vigorously.
The long-term plan is to follow the DNA shot with a booster made of an adenovirus engineered to contain Ebola DNA. In a test of four monkeys given that one-two punch, all four were unfazed by an Ebola attack, while four monkeys given dummy shots all died, said virologist Anthony Sanchez of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which helped develop the vaccine.
Because it would be unethical to expose humans to Ebola to test the vaccine's efficacy, scientists will simply compare their immune responses with those that proved effective in monkeys and other animals. Much larger human studies will eventually be conducted to provide final proof that the vaccine is safe for large populations.
But first things first. To get 25 more volunteers, McCluskey is starting to focus her efforts on groups that might have a special appreciation for Ebola's African toll -- employees at the World Bank, for example, and Peace Corps people.
"When people read in the newspaper a few years from now that we're on a plane stopping an outbreak, they'll know they helped," McCluskey said.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
|
|
