SCIENTIFICALLY
FLAWED
Animal toxicity tests are crude, subjectively assessed and the results can vary depending upon the species, age, sex and condition of individual animals. One international study that examined the results of rat and mouse LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) tests for 50 chemicals found that these tests were able to predict toxicity in humans with only 65% accuracy.
THE REAL
REASONS
Animal tests were crudely developed as long ago as the 1920s and became commonplace in the 1940s. Scientists are familiar and comfortable with the animal-based techniques they have been using for years. It is always difficult to change the status quo. Companies continue to test on animals for legal protection.
TOXICITY
TESTS
Chemical toxicity (poisoning) testing on animals involves subjecting animals to different levels of potentially toxic substances via different routes of exposure in order to assess how and in which way they are affected. Many products are tested to see if they will cause damage to the skin or eyes.
ANIMAL
TESTING
The true cost
of beauty.
‘Models’, ‘test systems’, ‘research tools’, ‘products’; euphemisms for animals. They are called anything but living, feeling, sentient creatures.
AGAINST
ANIMAL
TESTING
ANIMAL 'MODELS' ARE
NOT PREDICTIVE
Open up a rat, a dog, a pig and a human and you will find much the same terrain, but with many intricate differences. It is precisely these differences which have an impact when it comes to assimilating drugs. For example, rats, the species most commonly used in vivisection (1), have no gall bladder and excrete bile very effectively. “Many drugs are excreted via bile, so this affects the half-life of the drug,” explain Ray and Jean Greek.
... A GAME OF CHANCE
Dr Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University, goes further: “In the opinion of leading biostatisticians, it is not possible to transfer the probability predictions from animals to humans. At present, therefore, there exists no possibility at all of a scientifically based prediction. In this respect, the situation is even less favourable than a game of chance.”
TESTING ON ANIMALS ONLY AFFECTS BIG BUSINESSES
- by Dr Ray Greek MD
Many people are morally opposed to experiments on animals, even if they are of supposed medical benefit. Such people are often portrayed as wishing to sacrifice medical progress to avoid animal suffering. The government and the media dismiss their concerns by labelling them ‘anti-science’: a convenient, but totally false, stereotype. But what if there were no medical benefits from experiments on animals?
ANIMAL 'TEST SYSTEMS'
- by Jessica Sandler
Dr Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University, goes further: “In the opinion of leading biostatisticians, it is not possible to transfer the probability predictions from animals to humans. At present, therefore, there exists no possibility at all of a scientifically based prediction. In this respect, the situation is even less favourable than a game of chance.”
ANIMAL FREE
ALTERNATIVES
In the case of cosmetics, the manufacturer could choose ingredients that have been used for a long time, and so are likely to be safe. If the chemical is a new one, the first test could be the QSAR computer analysis to predict its likely irritancy.
ALTERNATIVE TESTS
Many different in vitro (test tube) systems have been suggested as alternatives to animal irritancy tests. The following are only a few examples.