Animal experiments are increasing

The number of animal experiments carried out in the UK rose by 3% last year, according to government figures.

The rise was largely due to an increase in the use of genetically modified (GM) and mutant animals, a trend that shows no signs of abating. The news comes as campaigners warn a new EU directive threatens standards of welfare for UK lab animals.

They argue that a number of the directive's regulations fall short of those already in place in the UK. Just over 3.7 million scientific experiments on animals were started in Great Britain in 2010, an increase of 105,000 on the previous year.

The statistics show that breeding to produce genetically modified (GM) animals and harmful mutants (an animal with potentially harmful genetic defects) rose by 87,000 to 1.6 million procedures. This rise, mainly due to the increased breeding of mice and fish, represents an increase of 6%.

Original Article

reply to post by Theoretician


Animal testing is usually an integral part of finding cures in medicine, however the increase is not acceptable! There are limited alternatives to reduce the amount of innocent animals being killed but they could be just as effective as testing on a live subject!

Scientists need to be creating more alternatives which will not only be cost efficient to spending but 100% humane.

Cell cultures can provide an effective means for replacing animal testing. Historically, animals were used for purposes such as vaccine development and creation. Throughout the 1970s in the Netherlands, for instance, thousands of monkeys were used to formulate the polio vaccine. Today, a kidney cell culture can be taken. In fact, a mere ten monkeys is sufficient to provide the vaccine to each person residing in the country. The added benefit of using cell cultures is that any vaccines from cell cultures are in a form that is particularly pure compared to one derived directly from the animal. This means that the usual safety testing that must occur on the vaccines can essentially be bypassed.

Some of the newer technologies entail improved scans such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This enables researchers to actually investigate disease through human scans rather than performing animal testing. Another important alternative is the use of an autopsy to provide information relevant to biomedical research. While this can't replace animals completely, it does reduce the numbers used.

Computer models are an effective tool to simulate the response to a specific research question or experiment. While they still don't replace an entire organism, they have proved useful as a substitute for animals in some cases. The use of computer models means that the need for live animals in laboratory experiments can be markedly reduced.

The development of new technologies and substitutes as an alternative to animal testing is important to enhance our knowledge of medicine as well as prevent and treat disease without the use of animals. As the need for alternatives increases, more funding will hopefully be directed to the development of animal testing alternatives, which means successful new treatments for disease without the use of animals in testing.

Original Source

If it's used to benefit the human race, and advance technology.
I could care less.

My university actually breeds their own animals such as mice and rats or whatever they use for this intended purpose. It's much easier than buying them or trapping them. So they wouldn't even exist if scientists didn't breed them.

I would think labs would prefer to buy them over trapping them, for the sake of scientific validity.

In regards to the OP:

There is only a certain amount of information one can obtain from in vitro testing. These sorts of models are usually good and they are certainly plenty, but they will not be able to replace animal testing in the foreseeable future. They simply don't offer the same level of certainty. Quite often, a potential drug compound that looks great in vitro will be terrible in vivo, due toxicity or bioavailability issues that are not made apparent during in vitro testing. You would be surprised at how often that happens. So, from an ethical standpoint, replacing animal testing with models such as Caco-2, P450 assays, etc., would be a reckless and endangering move from the human perspective.

The increase you've noted in this article is simply because of the increase in the number of lead compounds discovered in recent years, what with the surge in natural product isolation and research, etc.

reply to post by Theoretician


What can I say... Human Beings suck! There is no need to increase the numbers as a lot of the research has already been trialled in the past and documented. Genitically modified ANYTHING should be banned and this includes the testing of animals for this reason. Only a soul-less person would say otherwise. May your next lifetime (to anyone who disagrees with this) you come back as a rat.

Originally posted by Australiana
reply to post by Theoretician

 

What can I say... Human Beings suck! There is no need to increase the numbers as a lot of the research has already been trialled in the past and documented. Genitically modified ANYTHING should be banned and this includes the testing of animals for this reason. Only a soul-less person would say otherwise. May your next lifetime (to anyone who disagrees with this) you come back as a rat.

The only time I can think of for a failed drug to be retested on animals is because it's been found as a possible target for a condition separate to the one it was originally tested for. Majority of animal testing these days is for new drug compounds. I mean, I guess we could just ditch animal testing and jump straight to clinical trials, but then we'd have a bunch of dead people to deal with. If holding that opinion makes me soulless, then so be it.