A number of supports to testing on animal assert that animal testing is devoted to improvement of human society. Andrew (2001) of the most popular research organization in UK claims that researching things through animals is clearly important to test safeties for especially medicines in a recent interview with BBC News.On the other hand, in same article (2001), Sarah from BUAV argues “for every 20 possible drugs regarded as ‘safe’ using animal studies, only one will pass clinical trials. That is success rate of 5%.” There are a few successes in laboratory on animals. Furthermore, as there are different systems between human and animals, there will be negative effects to human despite good results from tests on animals. The Young People`s Trust for the Environment (YPTE) explained that unreliability of animal experiments can affect disastrously people. It illustrated the unreliability with an example of fialuridine. The fialuridine is a drug which it was no problem with animal testing. It caused serious liver diseases and it also killed five people among fifteen volunteers. Other two`s liver was transplanted because of the drug.
This is fantastic! I would never have thought to explore the 'unreliability' of animal testing in blogging about it. Actually, I thought the reason for the immoral persistence of scientists to test on animals was based on the reliability of such testing; surely if better methods exist then compliance with an indignant public should atleast be considered as these could be adopted with little or no loss to particapating facilities.
ReplyDeleteYeah you are right. k
ReplyDeleteSo many supporter who are against animal testing claims a lot of alternatives currently.