Allergan researchers frequently commit murder by Botox. In a test known as 'lethal dose 50', researchers kill mice in high numbers (the exact number is not known because laboratories do not count individual mice) to assess potential harm to humans from Botox injections. Mice receive injections until a dose is found that 'only' causes half the population to die. Why do these innocent mice have to die? So that later some vain person can try to defy wrinkles and old age? Animals used in scientific research experience horrific pain, abuse, or even death, when forced to endure various testing methods like 'lethal dose 50'. For this reason, scientific researchers should abandon inhumane, costly, and inefficient animal testing processes, and instead favor alternative methods.
Truly understanding animal testing requires knowing some background information. Numerous laboratories all over the country use animal testing methods. Personal care and household products makers, colleges and universities, drug and chemical manufacturers, and state and federal regulatory agencies own and operate these torture facilities, er, i mean laboratories. These labs usually acquire the animals by two ways, either through USDA licensed Class A or Class B dealers. Class A dealers sell "purpose-bred" animals. This means the sole purpose for the animals' life is experimentation. Afterwards, they face termination. Class B dealers supply “random source” animals. Class B dealers obtain these animals through auctions, “adopting” them from shelters, or even stealing them from backyards while their unsuspecting owners aren’t home. Class B dealers sell animals to researchers by word of mouth, or even publications like Lab Animal magazine. Seriously. A whole magazine is dedicated to this. After the animals reach the labs, researchers subject them to various experiments. Animals are cloned, bred for organs, addicted to drugs and alcohol, purposely deafened or blinded, made to suffer strokes, and many other horrible abuses. Who funds this glorified animal abuse? Funding can come from private individuals and foundations, donations solicited from the public, industry money, and the biggest contributor: the federal government.
Now that you know the back story you probably already recognize the inhumanity of animal experiments. However, many problems associated with animal testing most people don’t even consider. For one thing, animal testing methods are outdated. Some tests used today are as much as eighty years old. Despite their age, these tests were never formally validated in multiple labs. So basically, scientists keep using these tests, even though there is no precedent that says they actually work. Actually, results from animal testing do not necessarily predict similar results in humans. Scientific evidence shows that even the most common animal tests poorly indicate human effects. For example, in two hundred and eighty one cases of accidental human exposure to household products, investigators with the US Food and Drug administration discovered that rabbit test results predicted human responses correctly less than half of the time. This means that for more than fifty percent of the time, rabbit test results were not similar to that of human results. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but that's not exactly trustworthy research, is it?
Other options do exist. Alternatives to animal testing cost less, and have more efficient outcomes. Just one example is testing non-genotoxic cancer risks. The animal test assessing cancer risks cost $700, 000. The in-vitro test cost $22,000. I may not be a rocket scientist, but even I know that the animal test costs almost 35 times more than the in-vitro test. Also, since most toxicity tests were first put to use long ago, a number of advances in biology and biotechnology have occured. Advances include those in tissue engineering and robotics, which have introduced the ability for in vitro testing. Computer-based engineering technologies include in silico testing. One example of an alternative method available for use involves human skin, leftover from surgeries or donated cadavers, which can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical will penetrate the skin. This option is not detrimental to animals, or living humans. This is just an example of one alternative that could generate more relevant data, and reduce the amount of time, money, and animals involved in scientific testing.
Luckily, someone out there noticed the numerous disadvantages of experimenting on animals. After recognizing the need for alternatives to animal testing, the cosmetics industry now experiments with different methods. Previously, a ‘rabbit Draize test’ was used to evaluate eye irritation of cosmetic ingredients. Research by the industry, as reported in the article "A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing", led to the development of several alternatives. Bonus! These alternatives were approved via formal validation. So far, no single in vitro alternative has completely replaced the rabbit Draize eye test, but the cosmetics industry is working on it, as they have done for the past decade. These alternatives provide valuable evidence that animal testing is not the only option for assessing the safety of ingredients and finished products. The cosmetics industry demonstrates a prime example of how some manufacturers are working to introduce alternative testing methods. So, here's some advice for those aforementioned Botox users: get some wrinkle-cream.
Ultimately, the fact that animal testing is costly and often produces wrong results is reason enough to use other methods in scientific research. Technological advances will surely keep introducing newer and better alternative testing methods. The cosmetics industry is one example of how it is possible to use alternative methods to correctly predict products’ safety. The only obstacle now is to clear animal testing completely out of laboratories. Many people show their support for non-animal testing by only buying products that are cruelty-free, or giving only to charities that do not experiment on animals. Hopefully, reading this has made you aware of the inhumanity of experimenting on animals, if you weren't before. Perhaps the animal lover in you will choose a career path that will allow you to research alternative methods, or maybe you will lobby for animal rights. Or, maybe you’ll just look at the label before you buy your next household product, just to make sure it wasn’t tested on a defenseless animal.
Truly understanding animal testing requires knowing some background information. Numerous laboratories all over the country use animal testing methods. Personal care and household products makers, colleges and universities, drug and chemical manufacturers, and state and federal regulatory agencies own and operate these torture facilities, er, i mean laboratories. These labs usually acquire the animals by two ways, either through USDA licensed Class A or Class B dealers. Class A dealers sell "purpose-bred" animals. This means the sole purpose for the animals' life is experimentation. Afterwards, they face termination. Class B dealers supply “random source” animals. Class B dealers obtain these animals through auctions, “adopting” them from shelters, or even stealing them from backyards while their unsuspecting owners aren’t home. Class B dealers sell animals to researchers by word of mouth, or even publications like Lab Animal magazine. Seriously. A whole magazine is dedicated to this. After the animals reach the labs, researchers subject them to various experiments. Animals are cloned, bred for organs, addicted to drugs and alcohol, purposely deafened or blinded, made to suffer strokes, and many other horrible abuses. Who funds this glorified animal abuse? Funding can come from private individuals and foundations, donations solicited from the public, industry money, and the biggest contributor: the federal government.
Now that you know the back story you probably already recognize the inhumanity of animal experiments. However, many problems associated with animal testing most people don’t even consider. For one thing, animal testing methods are outdated. Some tests used today are as much as eighty years old. Despite their age, these tests were never formally validated in multiple labs. So basically, scientists keep using these tests, even though there is no precedent that says they actually work. Actually, results from animal testing do not necessarily predict similar results in humans. Scientific evidence shows that even the most common animal tests poorly indicate human effects. For example, in two hundred and eighty one cases of accidental human exposure to household products, investigators with the US Food and Drug administration discovered that rabbit test results predicted human responses correctly less than half of the time. This means that for more than fifty percent of the time, rabbit test results were not similar to that of human results. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but that's not exactly trustworthy research, is it?
Other options do exist. Alternatives to animal testing cost less, and have more efficient outcomes. Just one example is testing non-genotoxic cancer risks. The animal test assessing cancer risks cost $700, 000. The in-vitro test cost $22,000. I may not be a rocket scientist, but even I know that the animal test costs almost 35 times more than the in-vitro test. Also, since most toxicity tests were first put to use long ago, a number of advances in biology and biotechnology have occured. Advances include those in tissue engineering and robotics, which have introduced the ability for in vitro testing. Computer-based engineering technologies include in silico testing. One example of an alternative method available for use involves human skin, leftover from surgeries or donated cadavers, which can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical will penetrate the skin. This option is not detrimental to animals, or living humans. This is just an example of one alternative that could generate more relevant data, and reduce the amount of time, money, and animals involved in scientific testing.
Luckily, someone out there noticed the numerous disadvantages of experimenting on animals. After recognizing the need for alternatives to animal testing, the cosmetics industry now experiments with different methods. Previously, a ‘rabbit Draize test’ was used to evaluate eye irritation of cosmetic ingredients. Research by the industry, as reported in the article "A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing", led to the development of several alternatives. Bonus! These alternatives were approved via formal validation. So far, no single in vitro alternative has completely replaced the rabbit Draize eye test, but the cosmetics industry is working on it, as they have done for the past decade. These alternatives provide valuable evidence that animal testing is not the only option for assessing the safety of ingredients and finished products. The cosmetics industry demonstrates a prime example of how some manufacturers are working to introduce alternative testing methods. So, here's some advice for those aforementioned Botox users: get some wrinkle-cream.
Ultimately, the fact that animal testing is costly and often produces wrong results is reason enough to use other methods in scientific research. Technological advances will surely keep introducing newer and better alternative testing methods. The cosmetics industry is one example of how it is possible to use alternative methods to correctly predict products’ safety. The only obstacle now is to clear animal testing completely out of laboratories. Many people show their support for non-animal testing by only buying products that are cruelty-free, or giving only to charities that do not experiment on animals. Hopefully, reading this has made you aware of the inhumanity of experimenting on animals, if you weren't before. Perhaps the animal lover in you will choose a career path that will allow you to research alternative methods, or maybe you will lobby for animal rights. Or, maybe you’ll just look at the label before you buy your next household product, just to make sure it wasn’t tested on a defenseless animal.
No comments:
Post a Comment