04/15/15 Ridiculous Experiments on Animals
Testing cigarettes on rats, researching ageing on lemurs, subjecting newborn rats to alcohol fumes? No, this is not a bad joke; these are just a few examples of completely nonsensical experiments conducted on animals which will not save any human lives.
The list of absurd animal experiments, published in science publications in 2014 and 2015, can be found here.
Latest news on steps taken for forbidding testing on animals:
Oxford University: experiments on animals are morally and scientifically wrong!
More than 150 academics, intellectuals, and writers, including a Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee, called for "denormalisation" of animal testing in a new report of the Centre for Animal Ethics of the Oxford University titled "Normalising the Unthinkable". The task force of twenty leading ethicists and scientists concluded that animal testing is morally and scientifically wrong. The report of over 50, 000 words is probably the most elaborate critique of animal testing ever published. It is estimated that 115,3 million animals are used annually around the world for testing. The report says that, "Deliberate and routine abuse of innocent sentient animals, which includes injury, pain, suffering, committal stress, manipulation, trade, and death, should be unthinkable. Yet, animal testing is just that: "normalising the unthinkable". As for injury, pain, suffering, and death, they represent some of crucial moral questions of today." (oxfordanimalethics.com)
The entire report can be found here.
University centre to test chemicals without using animals
The Universities of Pittsburgh and Vanderbilt University have announced the opening of a new centre, which will not use animals for testing chemical toxicity. They will receive a federal grant of $6 million for developing a toxicity test based on 3D-cultivated human cells, rather than the standard use of 2D-cultivated human and live animal cells. The centre is a part of the EPA Tox 21 Initiative established in 2008 to reduce using animals for testing chemicals. By using human cells, the researchers want to avoid incorrect toxicity results caused by different reactions of human and animal cells on a same chemical. (all-creatures.org)
Artificial intelligence to replace animal testing!
Instead of testing on animals, pharmaceutical companies can use the expert system IMPACT-F, the artificial intelligence technology developed by a German biotech company PharmaInformatic. This technology optimises lead candidates in drug discovery and evaluates if a potential drug will be efficiently taken up in humans. IMPACT-F prioritizes drug-candidates based on predicted drug-uptake ("oral bioavailability"). This is important because low drug-uptake can result in high inter-individual variability and increases the risk of side-effects and toxicity. The technology has been used in therapeutic areas such as cancer, diabetes, inflammation, antivirals, and autoimmune diseases. Crucially, IMPACT-F improves drug discovery and development at a very early stage, since only the drug structure is needed to reliably forecast oral bioavailability. This enables pharmaceutical companies to focus resources on prospective drug development projects. (pharmainformatic.com)
New Zealand to ban cosmetic testing on animals!
New Zealand MPs have unanimously voted on the ban on animal testing for cosmetic products. The decision to ban animal testing follows one-year campaigning by the Green Party and animal rights advocates. Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy amended the Animal Welfare Act that is currently before the Parliament. The Green Party's MP Mojo Mathers, who has worked on the ban, said the government would not have supported it without the pressure from the campaigners and that now New Zealand can declare a ban of a "cruel and outdated" practice. Around 90 per cent of cosmetic products sold in New Zealand comes from abroad, so animal rights groups continue their campaigning for a ban on imported products that conduct animal testing. Countries like Norway, India, and EU contries have already banned animal testing for cosmetic products. (au.ibtimes.com)
The absurdity of researching human placenta on mice
The placenta is one of the organs with the highest evolutionary diversity among animal species. Although an animal model that reflects human placentation does not exist, the mouse is the most frequently used animal model for placenta and pregnancy research. At the 11th Congress of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology held in Budapest, scientists discussed the molecular features of the human placenta. In the light of recent findings and a better understanding of interspecies differences, they concluded that the mouse model is often overvalued. Owing to the increasing number of known human-specific factors in human placentation, the scientists consider that many aspects of human placentation can only be understood on the basis of experiments on human cells and tissues in combination with data collections from human subject studies. (sciencedirect.com)
Lawmakers call for animals to be put up for adoption after study
Laboratories that conduct research on dogs and cats would be required to put the animals up for adoption after the research if a bill passes the Nevada Legislature. Democratic Sen. Mark Manendo and two-thirds of other state lawmakers are sponsoring SB261, which was discussed in a hearing in the Senate Natural Resources Committee. Manendo called for the liberation of some of these precious babies from incarceration noting that about 65,000 dogs are used in testing nationwide each year. The bill would require labs to offer animals to a shelter or rescue organisation before euthanising them as long as they are healthy enough to go to a new home. The measure would also require labs to use each animal for no more than two years. (timesunion.com)