Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!columbia!heathcliff.columbia.edu!zdenek
From: zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Animal testing: are results valid for human comparisons at all?
Message-ID: <3899@columbia.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Nov-86 16:05:27 EST
Article-I.D.: columbia.3899
Posted: Sat Nov 22 16:05:27 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Nov-86 04:41:15 EST
References: <3425@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <655@mecc.UUCP> <11244@cca.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP
Reply-To: zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP (Zdenek Radouch)
Followup-To: sci.med
Distribution: net
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 60

In article <11244@cca.UUCP> libby@cca.UUCP (Libby Sackett) writes:
>
>It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing
>for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc.

You are right, we can't absolutely rely on animal testing (although we can
get some useful data out of it). But what's your suggestion for alternative
test objects. Do you want to test on people???

>And as far as household cleaners, and the like.  My great-grandmother in
>Italy was cleaning her house with the same chemicals I am using today:

Your great-grandmother (or my great-grandmother for that matter) lived in 
quite different society. I doubt that she had access to the same medicine,
cosmetic products, household products and other chemicals you can find around
today. I also doubt that she had comparable guarantees as far as safety of the
products is concerned. We don't use ALL of the chemicals used, say, 50 years
ago. We keep using ONLY those that (as far as we can tell) are SAFE.

>bleach, lye, etc.  She didn't need someone to stick lye in a rabbit's eye
>to tell her that it was dangerous stuff and that skin contact should be
>avoided.  And neither do I.

Hmmm... You just simply KNOW it! That's not bad. Here is what you should do.
Write to all the labs that perform animal tests and let them know that you
can tell them if the tested chemicals are safe or dangerous. That way they
can save the poor animals and everybody's going to be happy.

	As always oversimplifying the problem is not going to help us.
I don't think there is a lab that performs animal tests just for the sake
of being cruel to the animals. Our society demands new products, new medicine
etc., and it also demands that these products are safe. Animal testing is
just one of the implications. My great-great-grandmother probably didn't
even know what make-up was, so it would have been OK for her to say "There is
no reason to test these cosmetic products on animals"...

	Have you never used any cosmetic products? Do you want them to be
safe? If yes then what do you suggest as a solution to go for those who want
to provide you with what you want?

	While it's relatively easy to say "forget about all the new cosmetic
and household products", what about medicine? We could talk about "ethics"
forever. Do we want to understand human body? The answer is yes. But what if
the only way to answer a particular question is to cut something that is alive? There are only a few solutions. We can cut people, we can cut something else
(alive), or we have to forget about the original question.
What's the answer now???

I know, you just KNOW the answer.

	Now, I am not advocating excessive animal tests. At the same time
I realize that I'm not a hermit. I am using the products and I want them 
to be safe and I am aware of possible implications. I want to be able to
ask a doctor for help. To say that we can put all the data we have into a
computer and have it figure out what's safe and what not is naive and childish.
To use all the advances of our age and to say that animal tests should be
illegal is just drooling.

zdenek

 zdenek@cs.columbia.edu  or 	...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek