Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site spectrix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets,sci.med
Subject: Re: Animal testing: are results valid for human comparisons at all?
Message-ID: <198@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Nov-86 17:51:45 EST
Article-I.D.: spectrix.198
Posted: Mon Nov 24 17:51:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Nov-86 03:25:53 EST
References: <3425@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <655@mecc.UUCP> <11244@cca.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 49
Xref: mnetor misc.consumers:294 net.veg:608 net.pets:2112 sci.med:319

In article <11244@cca.UUCP> libby@cca.UUCP (Libby Sackett) writes:
>
>  
>>>	Take the following two examples.  By a structure-function
>>>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe.  As a matter of fact,
>>>it is perfectly safe - in rabbits, and in humans beyond 20 weeks gestation.
>
>>>	Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound.
>>>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable.  Rats
>>>and certain strains of mice can literally eat it by the pound, but just
>>>a few millionths of a gram will kill a guinea pig (or is it a gerbil).
>>
>
>It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing
>for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc.  There are lots
>of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at 
>results like the above.  "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can
>we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?"  "Uh...I can't say."

The US FDA says: "if a drug causes cancer in rats, we're not gonna certify
it for human use".  Remember Saccharin?  Because, if a chemical does 
do something nasty to animals, it'll *probably* do something equally 
nasty to human beings.  And "probably" is good enough.  And it's evil
(to use your terminology) to perform tests in that scale on human beings 
to find out for sure - Hitler's Germany did such testing.

And, in the case of things like Saccharin, it's extremely difficult to detect 
that a drug is doing nasty things.  Saccharin, (If I remember correctly) was 
guessed at being capable of causing a couple of cancers per *million* people.  
You want to do testing on humans on that big a scale?  How?  Or (as they do 
with rats) extremely high dosage testing for several generations?  If doing 
this testing on animals is unethical - what's doing the same on human beings?  
Don't give me any nonsense about tissue cultures or computers.  They simply 
*won't* catch problems that subtle.

OF COURSE, killing thousands of animals to determine that Chlorox is corrosive
is stupid and cruel.  But blanket condemnation of all animal testing is 
equally so (to the people suffering from the conditions the drug is being
researched in the first place).  Fortunately, most Universities have ethics 
committees that review test plans before allowing researchers to perform 
tests on animals or people.  Perhaps the cosmetics industry should be forced
to clear test plans with a government body that evaluates testing for
reasonability.
-- 
Chris Lewis
Spectrix Microsystems Inc,
UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis
ARPA: mnetor!spectrix!clewis@seismo.css.gov
Phone: (416)-474-1955