I discussed with a group of youth from CPCBA youth group the ethics behind animal testing for products.

Overall we decided that it was not ethical based on what the bible says... However, we did see a need for it on overly dangerous medicines and other products that the consquences could be fatal.

We think that animal testing should remain legal and it is useful but, it should be limited.

Thanks for raising the important subject of animal testing. The public has been led to believe that it is possible to test products for human consumption on animals. In reality this is not possible due to species difference and is in fact a legal, not a scientific device. See http://www.safermedicines.org/quotes/te ... city.shtml http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/i ... -guesswork

To wit; "More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time." Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133. (That is a failure rate of 97.5%)

Dr Sharratt, British Petroleum "As an index of acute toxicity, this (LD50) is valueless."

D. Lorke, Institute of Toxicology, Bayer, AG "…even if the LD50 could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is hardly possible."

"The predictive reliability of this technique has been questioned and its use on living animals has been criticized." (Beecham Products Research Dept.)

"…the rabbit eye is structurally and physiologically different from the human eye." (Johnson and Johnson)

"As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
"The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
(Sandra Davies, M.D., Columbia, Maryland.)
"The results of these (animal) tests cannot be used to predict toxicity or to guide therapy in human exposure."
(Christopher D. Smith, M.D., Longbeach, California.)
"The data produced by these tests don't keep harmful products from being sold."
(Ellen Michael, M.D., Beverley Shores, Indiana.)
"After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
"As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)

So why does it continue? Legal protection is one reason. Inertia, lack of awareness of real scientific methods, easy availability of lab animals etc are others.

"Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless."
- Dr James D. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14 1964.

"Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty of suffering animals against the gain of humanity spared from suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not to mankind."---The 1963 Report of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Expert Committee on Drug Toxicity

Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans…In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability."

92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals according to the US Food and Drug Administration (2004) Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products.

Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."

The book "Lethal Laws" by Alix Fano is a thorough indictment of the failure of animal 'tests' to protect us.

Also see www.vivisectioninformation.com www.safermedicines.org www.mrmcmed.org www.speakcampaigns.org www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr www.pcrm.org

I am a beginner about your Animal Testing. Also I don't understand about your animal experimentation facts. So, My advice to you write more briefly about it.