Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!gagen
From: gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets
Subject: Re: Re: Animal testing for Cosmetic and Household Products
Message-ID: <307@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 15:35:08 EST
Article-I.D.: bgsuvax.307
Posted: Fri Nov 21 15:35:08 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Nov-86 08:07:07 EST
References: <3425@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <762@ulowell.UUCP> <674@watmum.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Bowling Green State University,OH
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath soc.women:1085 misc.consumers:283 net.veg:1001 net.pets:2851

In article<674@watmun.UUCP>, Stephen M. Vorkoetter writes:
> Companies do NOT breed test animals.
> If they weren't born, they wouldn't be used for testing. 

Test animals are used for very specific purposes.  The Primary reason
that test animals are breed specifically for research is to insure that
all test animals are as genetically similar as possible.  This insures
that differences in response between the animals exposed to the experimental
compound and the unexposed animals IS due to the test agent rather than
to genetic differences between animals.  For this reason, genetically
identical animals are often used to test the toxicity, carcinogenicity
(cancer causing abillity), and mutaginicity(abillity to cause genetic
changes) of experimental drugs.

In our labs animals are treated with dignity.  Although I, personally,
dislike the UNNECESSARY use of animals for testing, I feel that it is
far better than the alternative.  There are some questions that can
only be answered with the used of animals.  I would far rather have
an animal die because of exposure to a toxic substance than to have a
single human die because the toxic effects of that substance remained
uninvestigated because of lack of testing within the animal system.

Kathi Gagen
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio 43402

gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP
....osu-eddie!bgsuvax!gagen