Scientist: Animal tests don't work

[yoshomon]

Feb 24 2005

By Paul James, The Journal


A Newcastle scientist is spearheading a campaign to end medical research on animals.

But Dr Jarrod Bailey is no animal rights activist and his argument is founded entirely on the belief that it simply does not work.

As scientific director of Europeans for Medical Progress, Dr Bailey, 34, said "archaic" animal methods have either harmed humans or set research back by decades.

The group say scientists are not making best use of new technology that would allow the same experiments to take place using human tissue rather than mice or apes.

Following last week's defence of animal testing at Newcastle's Centre for Life by Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, he said academics are stifling progress as much as the major drugs companies.

Dr Bailey, who lives in Corbridge, Northumberland, and is project development coordinator for the University of Newcastle's School of Population and Health Sciences, was appointed to the group in December.

He said: "We want an end to vivisection because of its lack of relevance to human medicine. There are historic examples, like penicillin, the introduction of which was delayed by 10 years because it was given to a
rabbit and didn't work. Even after thalidomide had harmed about 15,000 people, they still struggled to show similar birth defects in animals."

He says research into the likes of cancer, brain diseases and hormone replacement therapy has been held back by a reliance on animal methods. He is now preparing for a series of head-to-head debates with those who defend animal testing, including one later this year with Professor Blakemore.

He said relating results of animal testing to how drugs will affect humans can be as unreliable as guessing the result of a coin toss. "The ethical side is a big dilemma, but that is removed when you present people with the information that animal methods are not useful," he said. "They haven't got us very far at all.

"Colin Blakemore uses examples like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to defend the animal model but never substantiates his claims with any hard science. What we have learned about Alzheimer's and Parkinson's has all been from studying human beings."

After commissioning an independent study that found 82pc of GPs thought animal data can be misleading when applied to humans, Europeans for Medical Progress is now trying to persuade the Government to launch an independent study of how effective animal research has been.

More info about animal testing:
www.curedisease.net
www.insidehls.com
www.pcrm.org

[Homsar]

1. Test on humans.
2. Test on animals.
3. Test on "human tissue."

What to do, what to do....

[Orville Wrong]

From the article:

But Dr Jarrod Bailey is no animal rights activist

From Jarrod Bailey's own on-line CV:

My spare time is spent, when opportunity allows; on my mountain bike, practicing my Italian, reading and researching animal-welfare related literature...

Whatever, PETA Boy.

I did this research in 30 friggin' seconds. Is the media really this dim?

[keyst2891]

Is the media really this dim?

You have it backwards. The media believes that WE are this dim...

The media CONVENIENTLY left that part out. The journalist gets their point across and makes their stance look better

[Orville Wrong]

You have it backwards. The media believes that WE are this dim...

The media CONVENIENTLY left that part out. The journalist gets their point across and makes their stance look better
Yeah, the question was mostly rhetorical. But it's so damn lazy. I could probably do another 60 whole seconds of research on this subject and find a scientist who agrees with Bailey and isn't a PETA pawn. Where are the editors?

[yoshomon]

He reads animal welfare literature... how does that make him an animal activist or a "PETA pawn"?

Moreover, what does that have to do with what he's saying? Clearly, his arguments are not about the ethical issue of animal testing - they're about the scientific legitimacy of the testing.

[keyst2891]

He reads animal welfare literature... how does that make him an animal activist or a "PETA pawn"?

Moreover, what does that have to do with what he's saying? Clearly, his arguments are not about the ethical issue of animal testing - they're about the scientific legitimacy of the testing.

That's like saying a Doctor who tells us the environment is fine and there is no such thing as global warming. That's great and all... Then you realize that he listens to Rush Limbaugh everyday. Does that change your opinion of the doctor's findings and the "scientific legitmacy" of his work? It does mine

[Orville Wrong]

Moreover, what does that have to do with what he's saying? Clearly, his arguments are not about the ethical issue of animal testing - they're about the scientific legitimacy of the testing.
Just so. If those arguments are valid, they could have sourced them to a non-bunny-hugger and made a better case. They are lazy, they can't be bothered to expend 20 keystrokes on Google, and they take me for granted.

It hurts YOUR cause, not mine.

[yoshomon]

Well, I think that animal lovers can be good scientists.

[Handy Smurf]

I think the point of this thread has been lost...why are we still testing things on animals? :confused:

[Sushi]

I think the point of this thread has been lost...why are we still testing things on animals? :confused:
Ummm.... cause if you do it in the name of science, then nobody calls you a sadist?

I'm pretty sure cosmetics companies don't need to drop makeup or shampoo into the eyes of a rabbit in order to give me new and improved products. Putting foreign substances in your eyes hurts. Duh. (And putting personal care products into the eyes of an animal is not research that will save human lives.)

[Handy Smurf]

Ummm.... cause if you do it in the name of science, then nobody calls you a sadist?

I'm pretty sure cosmetics companies don't need to drop makeup or shampoo into the eyes of a rabbit in order to give me new and improved products. Putting foreign substances in your eyes hurts. Duh. (And putting personal care products into the eyes of an animal is not research that will save human lives.)
I probably shouldnt have a preference of what kind of animal testing I hate more than others, but I do and it is certainly the cosmetics industry. As I railed on the disgusting fashion "industry" in the fur thread so shall I rail against thee here, cosmetics industry. What a testament to how vain people are, that in our pursuit to have a shinier eyeliner that won't smear, we deem it necessary to torture animals. Every time I see commercials for cosmetics I end up needing a new television, because I generally put my face thru the screen. The fact that what is currently available isn't good enough and new makeup needs to be researched is a fucking farce. What the hell are you trying to improve? All we need is more girls who grow up being told they arent pretty enough, don't end up proud of the way they look and decide its necessary to apply their makeup with a friggin paint roller.
rant over
Sorry, I hate advertising, I hate dumb sheeople, I hate so many things
I'm hungry now

[Sushi]

The fact that what is currently available isn't good enough and new makeup needs to be researched is a fucking farce. What the hell are you trying to improve? All we need is more girls who grow up being told they arent pretty enough, don't end up proud of the way they look and decide its necessary to apply their makeup with a friggin paint roller.
rant over
Sorry, I hate advertising, I hate dumb sheeople, I hate so many things
I'm hungry now
Have I told you how much I'm starting to like you, Handy?

[Orville Wrong]

Well, I think that animal lovers can be good scientists.
I don't dispute this. They make decent (though less than ideal) sources for articles about the science and animals as well, IF THE FREAKING REPORTER DISCLOSES THAT FACT.

I don't care a whit about animal testing, pro or con, so I will exit the thread and let you all agree with one another now.

[purple_octopus]

My whiny, bitchy dogs are pissing me off today. I'd gladly sell them to science. :mad:

(Not really, but they are pissing me off... and then I saw this thread... and got some ideas in my head... But I wouldn't really sell them to science. No matter how much they're asking for it today.)

[Handy Smurf]

If that horse doesn't win this race we're taking a trip to the glue factory-and he doesn't get to come

Eh, its Friday, figured I'd lighten things up

[purple_octopus]

If that horse doesn't win this race we're taking a trip to the glue factory-and he doesn't get to come

Eh, its Friday, figured I'd lighten things up
I think you and I might be sharing a mood today. :D

[Phreon]

On a similar note, some other scientists we dredged up to support our claims, announced animal testing is of vital importance........

Phreon

[jps]

in regards to the cosmetics testing on animals... what exactly is in these products that makes it so someone working in say the r & d department at the company won't allow the test to be performed on them? i mean... could the lipstick do permanent damage until it has been properly tested?

[yoshomon]

in regards to the cosmetics testing on animals... what exactly is in these products that makes it so someone working in say the r & d department at the company won't allow the test to be performed on them? i mean... could the lipstick do permanent damage until it has been properly tested?

Companies use animal testing to cover their asses. Let's say a product or drug harms people (as animal tested products and drugs do all the time), the company can shrug their shoulders and say "hey, we tested it on dogs - don't blame us!"

[IPrayForSound]

Three words for ya, Yosh - "bull", "fucking" and "shit".

I'll give y'all the skinny on P&G and their animal testing policies. Other companies are very similar. P&G likes to make money, and they're really good at it. In order to make more money, they decided to branch out into fields other than soap and candles, including things like shampoo, makeup and pharmaceuticals. Now, in order to get these things on shelves across the nation and gain widespread consumer confidence, P&G needed more than just clever advertising and a solid product; they needed FDA approval.

The FDA, or the United States Food and Drug Administration, oversees the testing and manufacture of pretty much everything you can buy, including cell phones for some odd reason. For many things, including cosmetics, the FDA will not approve anything without it meeting minimum testing requirements that include animal testing.

If the government didn't require it, virtually zero companies would test on animals. It's expensive.

[AmericanScience]

Plus, how will you know if a certain eyeliner or lipgloss or conditioner will harm little Spot unless it's rigorously tested on other animals of similar build and body type?

[DaHood]

The FDA, or the United States Food and Drug Administration, oversees the testing and manufacture of pretty much everything you can buy, including cell phones for some odd reason.
Umm... that would be because they need to test the effects of microwaves on tissue. I mean it's not for 'some odd reason', it's a very valid reason. Cell phones emit potentially harmful radiation.

I'm not excusing it, just pointing out the reason.

Personally, I am not afraid of my cell phone. It's about exposure rates... time and power of the exposure. I'm not scared of my cell phone.

[the happy prole]

For many things, including cosmetics, the FDA will not approve anything without it meeting minimum testing requirements that include animal testing.

If the government didn't require it, virtually zero companies would test on animals. It's expensive.

But who do you think it is that lobbies the FDA to accept animal testing even when it's not that conclusive? Might it not be someone who wants to rush yet another haircare product out to the market, doesn't want to spend money on better tests, and needs a scapegoat should the product prove unsafe?

We've all had this conversation before. I approve of medical testing in many situations, but by and large most cosmetic product testing on animals is bullshit.