Hull vivsection puppy farm given green light

[Shaker]

I don't normally share links to petitions - there are so many of them, for one thing - but this is so foul that I couldn't keep it to myself. The government have approved the creation of a puppy farm near Hull for the breeding of animals for medical testing - full story here:

http://news.sky.com/story/1519982/controversial-puppy-breeding-farm-gets-go-ahead

A petition calling on the Prime Minister to think again can be found here - please sign and pass it around if you're on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. There are well over 300,000 signatures so far:

https://goo.gl/1p1bQ8

[BeRational]

I don't normally share links to petitions - there are so many of them, for one thing - but this is so foul that I couldn't keep it to myself. The government have approved the creation of a puppy farm near Hull for the breeding of animals for medical testing - full story here:

http://news.sky.com/story/1519982/controversial-puppy-breeding-farm-gets-go-ahead

A petition calling on the Prime Minister to think again can be found here - please sign and pass it around if you're on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. There are well over 300,000 signatures so far:

https://goo.gl/1p1bQ8

What sort of medical testing are we talking about?

[Shaker]

The Sky article merely says "drug testing."

[BeRational]

The Sky article merely says "drug testing."

That certainly covers a multitude of sins.

If it is for some new make-up I am dead against.

If it is in some way crucial and cannot be done another way, and will result in some deadly disease being beaten, than I am reluctantly of the conclusion that it is required.

[Shaker]

The Sky article merely says "drug testing."

That certainly covers a multitude of sins.

If it is for some new make-up I am dead against.

It won't be for that - that was banned in this country years ago, IIRC.

[Rhiannon]

Testing for cosmetic purposes is now banned in the EU. Knowing the difference between my dog and myself - he gets poisoned by grapes and chocolate, I don't - I'm not convinced that drugs tested on dogs are safe for use in humans.

That's the practical argument and the clincher as far as I'm concerned, for those who cannot see the abhorrence of it.

[Shaker]

Testing for cosmetic purposes is now banned in the EU. Knowing the difference between my dog and myself - he gets poisoned by grapes and chocolate, I don't - I'm not convinced that drugs tested on dogs are safe for use in humans.

That's the practical argument and the clincher as far as I'm concerned, for those who cannot see the abhorrence of it.

Quite.

[BeRational]

Testing for cosmetic purposes is now banned in the EU. Knowing the difference between my dog and myself - he gets poisoned by grapes and chocolate, I don't - I'm not convinced that drugs tested on dogs are safe for use in humans.

That's the practical argument and the clincher as far as I'm concerned, for those who cannot see the abhorrence of it.

But the people doing the testing must think that it is, and they must have the evidence to back this up I would have thought.
Whatever people like you and I are convinced of has little bearing if we are not qualified.

I do not like the thought of it, but why do they think it is necessary and what are they testing for?

I do not have enough information to form an opinion really.

[Rhiannon]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201212/fact-testing-drugs-animals-does-not-work-help-humans

The UK is still in denial when it comes to animal testing.

[Rhiannon]

More here.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/28/taking-lab-rats-seriously-the-case-against-animal-testing/

Animal testing is its way as flawed as creationism. It's old school based on outdated assumptions about the differences between humans and other animals.

[BeRational]

More here.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/28/taking-lab-rats-seriously-the-case-against-animal-testing/

Animal testing is its way as flawed as creationism. It's old school based on outdated assumptions about the differences between humans and other animals.

So why do you think others think it is useful?

If the evidence that is is not is so compelling.

[Rhiannon]

Because they make money off the research, and off selling the drugs produced? It's very difficult to sue and successfully win.

And no doubt there is a belief among many that they are 'doing right'. Not all scientists move forward in their thinking.

[Harrowby Hall]

A couple of points.

First of all, the use of "vivisection" in the title is misleading and rabble rousing. Surgical procedures for experimental purposes on live animals can only be done with the specific consent of the Home Secretary and using appropriate anaesthesia. Vivisection is a term which implies no anaesthesia and wanton cruelty. That is unlawful in Britain. The present case is to breed animals for use in drug testing.

There are certainly cases where non-human animals are not good models for products to be used on humans, but for most mammalian species there is generally sufficient similarity between physiological systems to make the tests valid. There is always the possibility that drugs tested on dogs may, in future, be used to cure illness in dogs.

No sensible person can be other than concerned and worried by the prospect of animals used in clinical research - and this brings me to my second point.

If it becomes impossible to do this kind of research in Britain, then the research will still be done. It may well be done somewhere where the controls on humane treatment of animal subjects do not exist. The animals will not be protected by the laws which exist in Britain. By refusing the opportunity for this work to be done here you may be condemning a far greater number of animals to real, sustained cruelty somewhere else.

Should it really be a case of not in my back yard, I don't care what happens elsewhere?

[Shaker]

It should be a case of not in anybody's back yard.

[Rhiannon]

Agree with Shaker. How can we ask others to treat animals well if we don't? We'd be labelled as hypocrites, and quite rightly so.

[Hope]

I do not like the thought of it, but why do they think it is necessary and what are they testing for?

I do not have enough information to form an opinion really.

Do we actually know that the medical testing is for human medicines.  Could it be for canine medicines?  I grant that this is unlikely but do we know for certain that the dogs so bvred aren't used to test canine medicines as well as human ones?  Perhaps NAVS would prefer that all medicines were tested on humans - who/whatever they are designed for.

[Harrowby Hall]

It should be a case of not in anybody's back yard.

But it won't be.

If the research isn't done here it may be done somewhere where nobody gives a flying fuck for the cruelty being inflicted.

And the drugs will still appear ....

[Harrowby Hall]

Do we actually know that the medical testing is for human medicines.  Could it be for canine medicines?  I grant that this is unlikely but do we know for certain that the dogs so bvred aren't used to test canine medicines as well as human ones?  Perhaps NAVS would prefer that all medicines were tested on humans - who/whatever they are designed for.

My guess - and it is only a guess - is that drugs produced specifically for human use will always be investigated for their suitability for veterinary use and vice versa. They are, after all being made by the same companies.

And all drugs intended for human use will be tested on humans ... eventually.

Do you recall, a few years ago, there was a story about half a dozen paid volunteers who became dangerously ill after being given a test dose of a new drug? These were healthy, fit men taking part in a drug trial. The drug itself had successfully completed animal trials.

[Hope]

Do you recall, a few years ago, there was a story about half a dozen paid volunteers who became dangerously ill after being given a test dose of a new drug? These were healthy, fit men taking part in a drug trial. The drug itself had successfully completed animal trials.

Yes I do.  In fact, more recently, my brother-in-law - a medic - took part in some similar trials and became extremely ill.  In another case, a friend of mine who is battling cancer was given a very virulent form of drugs which, it turns out, has seen a number of its recipients die from non-cancerous problems.  In his case, his bowels imploded; he has so far been stabilised but we are still waiting with bated breathe.

[jeremyp]

I'm not convinced that drugs tested on dogs are safe for use in humans.

That's the practical argument and the clincher as far as I'm concerned, for those who cannot see the abhorrence of it.

Testing on animals is only one step.  They don't test drugs on rats and then say "yes it's fine to sell it to humans now". 

One reason you can be sure that animal testing is still necessary is the fact that we still use it.  Nobody likes the idea of testing on animals.  If nothing else, it is very expensive.

If it comes down to saving a few dogs or saving the life of me or my loved ones, I'm sorry, the dogs lose.

[Shaker]

One reason you can be sure that animal testing is still necessary is the fact that we still use it.

Anybody who normally appears to think as logically and as rationally as you purport to should easily be able to see everything that's wrong with that statement.

If it comes down to saving a few dogs or saving the life of me or my loved ones, I'm sorry, the dogs lose.

Not that it ever comes down to a few dogs over a few arbitrary humans; it never does. It's never a few dogs (or rats, or guinea pigs, or rabbits ...); it's dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, then - by now - millions of them.

I'm more than happy to sacrifice your life and the life of your loved ones to save these few dogs. Nothing personal about this; my loved ones as well, come to that. I've been around both dogs and people all my life. The dogs deserve a long, full and happy life; the people, being people, are just a bunch of cunts, my so-called loved ones included, and are entirely dispensable. As the great Mark Twain once said - a great anti-vivisectionist, champion and defender of non-human animals -, heaven is by favour and not merit; if it were the other way round your dog would be in and you would be out. Which is as it should be.

If it was ever as facilely simplistic as your scenario - people or dogs -, I'm straight down to the Co-Op for two tins of Pedigree Chum and a packet of Schmackos. Sorry and all that (in the non-sorry way in which you used the word).

[Rhiannon]

From Wiki.

Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education—particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle. They are used as models for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States.[94] The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report shows that 67,772 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in 2013.

The awful thing is that I'd want my loved ones to have access to the best medical advances too. But just because I want something that doesn't make it morally right.

[Rhiannon]

And it should also be remembered that vets and welfare experts all oppose puppy farms on welfare grounds and campaign to ban them. These puppies are going to suffer poor treatment from birth, and their mothers will suffer unnecessarily too.

[Harrowby Hall]

...  These puppies are going to suffer poor treatment from birth, and their mothers will suffer unnecessarily too.

I don't think that this will be the case.

It is certainly true in the generality of puppy farms, but this one - because of its function - will be an exemplar of good practice. It will be rigorously inspected and be expected to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. Animals which in any way are substandard will not be acceptable for research.

[ProfessorDavey]

From Wiki.

Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education—particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle. They are used as models for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States.[94] The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report shows that 67,772 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in 2013.

The awful thing is that I'd want my loved ones to have access to the best medical advances too. But just because I want something that doesn't make it morally right.

You can check out all the details of numbers of animals used in research in the UK via the Home Office. This is because no research can be performed without the researchers acquiring three separate licenses and part of that licensing approach is a requirement to report the numbers of animals used, and these are collated to produce annual statistics.

So in the latest figures about 3000 dogs were used, which represents less than 1% of all the animals used in research, the overwhelming majority of which (over 98%) are mice, rats or non mammalian species (e.g. zebrafish).

The licensing approach requires researchers to use species with the lowest neurophysiological level appropriate for the research. So you won't get a licence to use a dog if the research can be done on a mouse, and you won't get a licence for a mouse if the research can be done on a zebrafish. And you won't get a licence at all if the research can be done without using animals.