Animal-testing lab to be set up in Malaysia

This came in the news today: http://www.mmail.com.my/content/32184-animaltesting-centre-be-set-malaysia

I have long petitioned against animal-testing, ever since I first found out about it in my school-days, and I continue doing so in my public talks now. 

It is because of animal-testing that I decided I will not use any skin-care or cosmetics on myself since I was in my teens.  If you’d just google for pictures on how rabbits are trapped in stereo-taxic devices to test cosmetics, you might want to give up those creams and powders too.  Or, opt for brands that are not tested on animals.  But for me, I’d rather just not use them.  The cosmetics industry has long been associated with animal-testing. 

Many people are aghast by the cruelty in animal-testing, yet they continue using (supporting?) the products that are tested on animals.  My take on this is – if it’s not necessary, don’t use.  Go natural.  And grow old gracefully. 

Apart from the very fact that animal-testing is extremely cruel, results from the testing done on animals are also not replicable on humans because we are biologically different from most animals.  This applies to our medicines and drugs.

Here’s a write-up from the British Medical Journal, 2007:

ANIMAL TESTING: A terrible suffering, and it tells us almost nothing

Around 3 million tests were carried out on animals in the UK alone in 2005 in the name of medical research and a new study suggests that most of it was needless suffering.

Researchers studied six separate animal trials, and found that none of the results were replicable in humans.

In two of these, corticosteroids for head injury helped the problem, according to animal studies, and yet were of no benefit when they were tested on humans, while a heart drug that was extremely effective in animal studies actually made the condition worse in humans.

The research team, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, also found that many animal studies were poorly prepared, and most ignored even the basic parameters for proper scientific testing.

They also point out the very obvious fact that the biological differences between animals and humans are often so great that any results become meaningless.

Meanwhile, groups such as FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) continue their good efforts to convince scientists to use organs, tissues, cells grown in culture and even mathematical modelling instead. Even most drug companies agree that animal tests are useless, but form a necessary part of the licensing process.

Solution?  Change the requirements for a drug licence.


(Source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 334: 197-200).
 
 
For the testing of medicines, here are two better options:
 
1.  Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_structure-activity_relationship
 
2.  Cultured human tissue
 
Both the above give more accurate results than animal-testing. 
 
We should be moving ahead with times and using technology in wiser and more compassionate ways.  Animals should not be made to suffer due to our needs. 
 
What goes around, comes around. 
 
Other countries are moving away from animal-testing. 
Why are we starting?