Animal Testing: Redundant testing, Testing w/o anesthesia

Description of your first forum.

Animal Testing: Redundant testing, Testing w/o anesthesia

Post by Melissa Schillin » Wed, 07 May 1997 04:00:00



That redundant tests are performed, as are tests without anesthesia:
****************************************************************************
Barnard, N.D. 1997.  "Animal research is wasteful and misleading."
Scientific American, February, pg. 276.

Stevens, C. 1984.  "Animal torture in corporate dungeons:  millions of
animals are painfully destroyed during product testing."  Business and
Society Review, Spring, pg. 39-43.

Sternberg, M. 1986.  "Archaic animal experiments." The San Diego
Union-Tribune, May 14, pg. B7.

"Many of us have read about the burning of sheep and other animals at the
Shrine Burns Institute in Galveston, Texas.  An unanesthetized sheep is
first
charred over half of its body; then smoke is blown into its lungs, and
finally
its lungs are filled with water to see how long it will take it to drown."

And that the Draize test is still used :
*****************************************************************
Roush, W. 1996.  "Hunting for animal alternatives."  American Association
for the Advancement of Science, October 11, pg. 168.

"The findings, reported last December in Toxicology in Vitro, were
dismaying:
None of the new methods predicted the eye irritation potential of 59 test
substances as reliably as the Draize test itself. As a result, it is
likely that
the planned 1998 European Union ban on cosmetics containing ingredients
tested
with the Draize will be postponed for at least 2 years, observers
predict."

    The disappointing results also revealed a deeper reality: It is
unlikely
that any single new method will be able to act as a total replacement for
the
Draize test. The study "sent a real note of caution across the
alternatives
community," says senior scientist Rosemarie Osborne of Procter & Gamble.
As Alan
Goldberg, director of Johns Hopkins University's Center for  Alternatives
to
 Animal Testing,  says, "What you get from the Draize test is a very
complex
information set that we should not try to model" using any single in vitro
test.
Rather, groups, or "tiers," of tests may be required, each designed to
test a
specific biological effect or class of chemicals"

 
 
 

Animal Testing: Redundant testing, Testing w/o anesthesia

Post by John Merc » Thu, 08 May 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> [crossposting from rec.pets.dogs.breeds to a proper forum for discussion]
> (and noticing that many of these references as so old as to be compleatly
> outdated)

The newer ones are outdated opinions, not data, too.
Quote:

> In article

> Melissa says...

> >That redundant tests are performed, as are tests without anesthesia:
> >*************************************************************************
> ***
> >Barnard, N.D. 1997.  "Animal research is wasteful and misleading."
> >Scientific American, February, pg. 276.

That one is merely a regurgitation of PeTA propaganda. No science there.

Quote:
> >And that the Draize test is still used :
> >*****************************************************************
> >Roush, W. 1996.  "Hunting for animal alternatives."  American Association
> >for the Advancement of Science, October 11, pg. 168.

> >"The findings, reported last December in Toxicology in Vitro, were
> >dismaying: >None of the new methods predicted the eye irritation
> potential of 59 test >substances as reliably as the Draize test itself. As
> a result, it is >likely that >the planned 1998 European Union ban on
> cosmetics containing ingredients >tested >with the Draize will be
> postponed for at least 2 years, observers >predict."

What AR propaganda conveniently fails to mention is that the Draize test
is used for substances that are hypothesized to be safe. In most cases,
the hypothesis is confirmed, and the rabbits' eyes are not irritated.

Quote:
> >    The
> disappointing results also revealed a deeper reality: It is >unlikely
> >that any single new method will be able to act as a total replacement for
> >the >Draize test. The study "sent a real note of caution across the
> >alternatives >community," says senior scientist Rosemarie Osborne of
> Procter & Gamble. >As Alan >Goldberg, director of Johns Hopkins
> University's Center for  Alternatives >to > Animal Testing,  says, "What
> you get from the Draize test is a very >complex >information set that we
> should not try to model" using any single in vitro >test. >Rather, groups,
> or "tiers," of tests may be required, each designed to >test a >specific
> biological effect or class of chemicals"

Which are likely to use more, not less, animals. Telling you that might
hurt fundraising, though.

--
John Mercer
Scientist
McLaughlin Research Institute