<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Animal Testing &#8211; &#8216;Big Business and Human Welfare&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:35:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hart</title>
		<link>http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-217</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newgenerationsociety.com/?p=511#comment-217</guid>
		<description>Anyone who rates the life of an animal over a human is a damn fool. You need to test on animals before humans to make sure what ever is being tested is safe. Simple as that. 

We&#039;re top of the food chain, we can do what we like.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone who rates the life of an animal over a human is a damn fool. You need to test on animals before humans to make sure what ever is being tested is safe. Simple as that. </p>
<p>We&#8217;re top of the food chain, we can do what we like.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: symball</title>
		<link>http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>symball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newgenerationsociety.com/?p=511#comment-33</guid>
		<description>apologies for the bad speeling- I can&#039;t type when angry!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>apologies for the bad speeling- I can&#8217;t type when angry!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: symball</title>
		<link>http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>symball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newgenerationsociety.com/?p=511#comment-32</guid>
		<description>sorry- but you really should address the facts, rather than trotting out all of the old lies the alf keep repeating.

1) Animals ARE similar to humans, rodents less so than dogs or primates- therefore regulations state that drugs are tested first in rodents, then in primates, then humans to ensure they are safe. The ALF have put a strawman argument that the differences make the process useless- this is completely untrue, the differences are recognised and controlled. The testing of animals has never been expected to remove risk completely, but it gives us the information we need to assess the risks in humans so that the risks are minimised to an acceptable level. 

2) Animal research is used because in vitro methods cannot model whole biological systems. In vitro methods are getting better all the time, and they are very good for looking at a particular aspect- such as the biochip on a liver mentioned in the article. However the idea that in vitro methods will be capable of relpacing animal testing is science fiction. In vitro and computer modelling techniqes are far cheaper than in vivo experiments- where it is possible to replace animal testing it will be done as a matter of economics.

3)This is a cost/benefit calculation for our society. the cost to the animals has to be measured against the benefit to humans. the ALF have inflated the costs to animals to ridiculous levels, using anthropomorphic arguments and distorting the facts. similarly they play down the benefits that animal research without any evidence (how does epidemiology tell us anything about biological mechanisms or the effects of new drugs!). If there was a true debate to be had they could simply present their evidence- instead we get gross distortions, false assertations and outright lies in an attempt to swing the percived balance close to parity, where in fact there is a missive benefit to humans for a relatively small cost to animals.


I in no way argue for unrestrained animal testing, I firmly believe that where possible an alternative should be used. There simply is no alternative if we do not want to return to the dark ages of medicine- we have made massive improvements to our lives, we must remember the benefits animal testing has given us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry- but you really should address the facts, rather than trotting out all of the old lies the alf keep repeating.</p>
<p>1) Animals ARE similar to humans, rodents less so than dogs or primates- therefore regulations state that drugs are tested first in rodents, then in primates, then humans to ensure they are safe. The ALF have put a strawman argument that the differences make the process useless- this is completely untrue, the differences are recognised and controlled. The testing of animals has never been expected to remove risk completely, but it gives us the information we need to assess the risks in humans so that the risks are minimised to an acceptable level. </p>
<p>2) Animal research is used because in vitro methods cannot model whole biological systems. In vitro methods are getting better all the time, and they are very good for looking at a particular aspect- such as the biochip on a liver mentioned in the article. However the idea that in vitro methods will be capable of relpacing animal testing is science fiction. In vitro and computer modelling techniqes are far cheaper than in vivo experiments- where it is possible to replace animal testing it will be done as a matter of economics.</p>
<p>3)This is a cost/benefit calculation for our society. the cost to the animals has to be measured against the benefit to humans. the ALF have inflated the costs to animals to ridiculous levels, using anthropomorphic arguments and distorting the facts. similarly they play down the benefits that animal research without any evidence (how does epidemiology tell us anything about biological mechanisms or the effects of new drugs!). If there was a true debate to be had they could simply present their evidence- instead we get gross distortions, false assertations and outright lies in an attempt to swing the percived balance close to parity, where in fact there is a missive benefit to humans for a relatively small cost to animals.</p>
<p>I in no way argue for unrestrained animal testing, I firmly believe that where possible an alternative should be used. There simply is no alternative if we do not want to return to the dark ages of medicine- we have made massive improvements to our lives, we must remember the benefits animal testing has given us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason</title>
		<link>http://newgenerationsociety.com/2009/06/26/animal-testing-big-business-and-human-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newgenerationsociety.com/?p=511#comment-23</guid>
		<description>I’m sorry but haven’t the ALF missed the point? I agree with Dr Roses; that the success of most drugs to cure illness in 30 – 50% of cases should not be seen as a failure in the cases where it does not work, but a triumph for science and human prosperity in those cases where it does work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m sorry but haven’t the ALF missed the point? I agree with Dr Roses; that the success of most drugs to cure illness in 30 – 50% of cases should not be seen as a failure in the cases where it does not work, but a triumph for science and human prosperity in those cases where it does work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

