Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

News :: Animal Rights

Animal Research--Harmful to Humans--Interesting Quotes

An interesting look at how animal research is not only harmful to animal beings, but human beings as well.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:
'Because the animals are like us'. Ask the experimenters why it is morally
OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are
not like us'. Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.
Professor Charles R. Magel.

Some findings in colon cancer mice, which were very good models, actually
led to clinical trials in humans which resulted in an increase in cancer.
Dr. J. E. Green of the National Cancer Institute Laboratory, Journal of
the National Cancer Institute, 2001, 93:976.

There are many known differences between chimps and humans. Certainly
there are enough differences to make the use of chimps for medical
experiments as if they were human nonsensical. No chimps...have been of
any use in the experiments they were used for...The whole wretched
business (and it is big business) should be stopped and stopped now.
Professor Vernon Reynolds, primatologist and Professor of biological
anthropology, University of Oxford. (Letter 29/02/1996, and foreword in
The Wrong Path, 1996).

?The idea as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in
laboratory experiments on lower animals and are then applied to the
problems of the sick patient. Having been myself trained as a
physiologist, I feel in a way competent to assess such a claim. It is
plain nonsense.? Sir George Pickering, Professor of Medicine, University
of Oxford. As quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical
research, by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 71. Further
quoted, BMJ, 1615-1619, 26 December, 1964.

Researchers' doubts about human research methodologies thus come back to
haunt them. They are faced with a dilemma: they can determine the
relevance of animal research for humans only by testing these results in
humans...
In fact, the differences are so profound that we cannot safely generalize
findings in animals to humans, not even for drugs within the same chemical
or pharmacologic class.
Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996),
pp.23,123.

In 1965, Ciba Geigy [to merge with Sandoz, to later become Novartis]
estimate that of every 20 chemical compounds found safe and
therapeutically effective in animal tests, only one ever becomes a
prescription drug. [ A linguistic spin to say that animal research has a
95% failure rate] As quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in
medical research, by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers
Limited, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 90.
Further quoted, F. I. McMahon, Medical World News, 168, volume 6, 1965

Experiments with animals have yielded considerable information concerning
the teratogenic effects of drugs. Unfortunately, these experimental
findings cannot be extrapolated from species to species, or even from
strain to strain within the same species, much less from animals to
humans.
Dr. S. J. Yaffe, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1980, p.13.

??the LD50 [animal test] is a crude measure of toxicity. There is really
little scientific justification for the test because reproducibility is
not good, it can even vary from day to day, and the results are dependent
on the animal strain used.? Phillip Rogers, Managing Director, Hazleton
Laboratories, 1977, as quoted in quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of
animals in medical research, by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons
Publishers Limited, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page
97. Further quoted, P. Rogers quoted in R. Heywood in The LD50 Test:
Evidence for Submission to the Home Office Advisory Committee, prepared by
CRAE, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation, August,
1977.

Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that
almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection
and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing
suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals.
I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery:
and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one
bit, but I know that it has often led him astray.
Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons
(F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh and England.

?According to one of Britain?s largest contract laboratories, Huntingdon
Research Centre, [now Huntingdon Life Science/ Life Science Research]
?Approximately 90 per cent of LD50 tests which are performed by this
Contract Research Centre, and probably by others also, are purely to
obtain a value for various legislative needs.? And the Director of Shell
Toxicology Laboratory has stated, ?The legislative value of this test [the
LD50] is far greater than is its scientific value.?? As quoted in The
Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical research, by Dr. Robert
Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 98. Further quoted, in R. Heywood
in The LD50 Test: Evidence for Submission to the Home Office Advisory
Committee, prepared by CRAE, the Committee for the Reform of Animal
Experimentation, August, 1977.

Hypertension can be produced in experimental animals in several different
ways, but none of these artificial systems have been helpful in predicting
the action of hypotensive drugs in man. The data cannot be analysed
because so many unjustified assumptions and interpretations have been
made.
E. Paget, Drug Responses in Man, (J.A. Churchill Ltd, 1967), pp.120-121.

Scientists at Proctor and Gamble, have stated, ?It has not been possible
for us to use the results of rabbit studies to predict accurately the
actual irritation that might occur in humans after accidental exposure.?
As quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical research,
by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 103. Further
quoted, E.V. Buehler and E.A. Newmann, Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology,
701-710, volume 6, 1964.

Nonhuman primates offer the closest approximation to human teratological
conditions because of phylogenetic similarities...
However, a review of the literature indicates that except for a few
teratogens (sex hormones, thalidomide, radiation, etc.) the results in
nonhuman primates are not comparable to humans.
B. M. Mitruka, H. M. Rawnsley, and D. V. Vadehra, Animals for Medical
Research; Models for the Study of Human Disease (New York: Wiley, 1976)
pp.467-8.

?Comparative trials by the UK?s Huntingdon Research Centre with six
species?mice, guinea pigs, mimipigs, piglets, dogs and baboons?revealed
??considerable variability in irritancy response between the different
species.? The greatest differences were found with the more irritant
substances. For instance, and antidandruff cream shampoo caused sevre
irritation in rabbits but only mild irritation in human volunteers. In
baboons there was virtually no irritation at all.? As As quoted in The
Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical research, by Dr. Robert
Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 104. Further quoted,
R.E. Davies, et al, Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 371-381,
volume 23, 1972.

A great deal of time and effort has been expended discussing the most
suitable species for teratology studies, and it is time that a few
fallacies were laid to rest.
First, there is no such thing as an ideal test species, particularly if
the intent is to extrapolate the results to man.
A. Palmer, 'Design of subprimate animal studies', in Handbook of
Teratology, ed. by J. Wilson and F. C. Fraser, vol. 4 (New York: Plenum
Press, 1978), p.219.

?[A] study, published by Pfizer?s David Salsburg, found that ??the
lifetime feeding study in mice and rats appears to have less than a 50 per
cent probability of finding known human carcinogens.? On the basis of
probability theory, Salsburg writes, we would have been better off to toss
a coin.? As quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical
research, by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 105. Further
quoted,
D. Salsburg, Fundamental & Applied Toxicology, 63-67, volume 3, 1983.

Vivisection is dictated by convenience, not science. It is a strange,
unrealistic mind that accepts a genetically engineered moron as a replica
of human physiology, or at least one that pertains to it.
It may be a feat of engineering. but it has no place on the meaningful
study of human disease, and its treatment, for it bears even less
resemblance to us than its unfortunate predecessors do.
Dr David Johnson, MRCS, IRCP, MF (Hons.), D.(Obst.), RCOG.,
'Animal-orientated medicine: The be-all or the end-all?', DLRM Newsletter,
No.11, 2004.

?On the basis of animal tests another antiarthritis drug Surgam was
promoted as giving ?gastric protection?, a considerable advantage over
similar drugs, which can damage the stomach. But clinical trials showed
that Surgam was just like the other drugs and the company, Roussel
Laboratories, a subsidiary of Hoechst [who later merged to become part of
Aventis], were found guilty of misleading advertising and fined 20,000
British Pounds. According to a report in the Lancet, expert witnesses for
both sides ??agreed that animal data could not safely be extrapolated to
man.?? As quoted in The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical
research, by Dr. Robert Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 113. Further
quoted, J. Collier and A. Herxheimer, Lancet, 113-114, 10 January, 1987.

?A girl had suffered eye damage after using a shampoo. Applying the
Draize test the US government?s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found
the shampoo was indeed an irritant and went to court against the
manufacturers. But the Northern District Court of Ohio ruled in favour
[sic] of the company partly because the FDA failed to show that results
from rabbit eye tests can be transferred to human beings.? As quoted in
The Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical research, by Dr. Robert
Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 114. Further quoted, D. Pratt,
Alternatives to Pain (Argus Archives, 1980)

?In the case of Depo-Provera, a long-acting contraceptive produced by the
Upjohn Company, the manufacturers argued that the United States ban on its
product should be lifted because animal tests proving it dangerous were
misleading. Depo-Provera causes cancer in beagles and monkeys but the
company believes neither of these animals provide a good model for
assessing the dangers in people. And Britain?s Committee on Safety of
Medicines, referring to the harmful effects in monkeys, states that the
??relevance of this to man has not been established.?? As quoted in The
Cruel Deception?The use of animals in medical research, by Dr. Robert
Sharpe. Published by Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, 1988. Page 114. Further quoted, Washington
Post, 11 January, 1983 & BMJ, 1426, 15 May, 1982.

Experiments with animals have yielded considerable information concerning
the teratogenic effects of drugs. Unfortunately, these experimental
findings cannot be extrapolated from species to species, or even from
strain to strain within the same species, much less from animals to
humans...
Dr. S. J. Yaffe, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1980, p.13.

Unfortunately many anti-epileptic drugs show marked pharmacological
differences between animals and man.
Meijer, et al, Discoveries in Pharmacology, vol.1, Psycho- and Neuro-
Pharmacology, (Elsevier, 1983), p.454.

To the 2.6 million people around the world afflicted with multiple
sclerosis, medicine has offered more frustration than comfort. Time after
time, researchers have discovered new ways to cure laboratory rats of
experimental induced encephalomyelitis, the murine model of MS, only to
face obstacles in bringing the treatment to humans.
Dr. Gibbs, Experimental and Molecular Medicine, 1999:31:115-121.

The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the
mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply did not
work in humans.
Dr. Richard Klausner (NIH Director), Los Angeles Times, 6 May 1998.

What is the value of routine tests in animals for prediction of chemical
teratogens? The correlation between known effects in laboratory animals
and clinical adverse effects in very low.
Dr. K. S. Larsson, et al, The Lancet (Letters), 21 August 1982, p.439.

We had basically discovered compounds that were good mouse drugs rather
than good human drugs.
Edward Sausville, associate director of the division of cancer treatment,
National Cancer Institute, in Science, 7 November 1997, p.1041.

Knowledge deriving from animal experimentation is never entirely
applicable to the human species.
Professor Rene Dubos, Pulitzer prize-winner and professor of microbiology,
in Man, Medicine and Environment (Praeger, New York, 1968), p.107.

Most of the work on brain research has been done on cats and monkeys. It
is risky to extrapolate such data to the human brain.
Scientist W. H. Wheeler, Science Digest, November 1972.

Moreover the limited predictive value of animal models of CNS [Central
Nervous System] disease is also a challenge. Often disease phenotypes
cannot be directly mimicked in animals (e.g. hallucinations) and even
where there are correlates (e.g. sleep, pain, movement), the triggers used
to mimic disease are often based on poorly understood mechanisms or
existing pharmacology.
Dr J. C. Barnes and Dr A. G. Hayes, 'CNS drug discovery: Realising the
dream', DDW (Drug Discovery World), Fall 2002, p.55.

The crucial issue is not whether animal experiments are scientifically
necessary, but that the experiments themselves are 'bad science', looking
at questions to which no-one needs to know the answer and so crudely that
the results are meaningless.
Dr J. Lefanu, Sunday Telegraph, 23 November 1997.

[Animal models] may not offer an uncomplicated straightforward means of
discovering preventable causes for the majority of human cancers, and at
the very least it certainly does not seem likely that they can offer a
reliable means of estimating quantitative human hazards.
Journal. Nat. Cancer. Inst., 1981,6:1215.

The extensive animal reproductive studies to which all new drugs are now
subjected are more in the nature of a public relations exercise than a
serious contribution to drug safety.
Prof. R. W. Smithells, in Monitoring Drug Safety, ed. Inman, 1980, pp.306-313

The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal
toxicity data is somewhere between [just] five and twenty-five percent.
Dr. Ralph Heywood, director of Huntingdon Research Centre (now Huntingdon
Life Sciences), cited Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man
(Quay, 1990), p.57.

Animals apparently do not handle the drugs in exactly the same way as the
human body does.
Dr. Tyler Jacks of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Science, 7
November 1997, p.1041.

Extrapolation from the animal mode to humans, represents something of a
leap of faith.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (Washington DC, Office of the
President), 1 February 1979, p.14.

I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be
abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific
discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and
cruelty. The whole thing is evil.
Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic. New York Daily News, Mar.
13, 1961.

Facts incontrovertible in the [animal] laboratory are applied to clinical
medicine in a manner quite unwarranted. The best examples are the
indiscriminate use of hormones and the ready acceptance of the biased
blurbs of [animal] research propagated by commercial travellers.
Dr. Ffrangcon Roberts, British Medical Journal, June 16, 1945, p.848.

I cannot over-emphasize the fallacies inherent in the efforts to apply
directly to man the results of animal experiments in the field of
hormones.
The testimony of Don Carlos Hines, MD, before the Delaney Committee of the
House of Representatives, January 31, 1952.

Animal models have fallen short of reproducing the human disease,
particularly in mimicking the spontaneous and persistent air obstruction
that characterizes asthma.
Dr K. F. Cheung, 'Usefulness of animal models in asthma research', in
European Respiratory Review, 1995, 5:29, p.184.

Encouraging results in rodents have been found in countless cancer studies
which ended up failing in humans.
Forbes, 28 December 1999, p.190.

?Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on
laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 89 compounds moved into
clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer
activity and only 12 appeared to have a ?substantial clinical role.?
Actually, these so-called ?new? active agents were not so new: they are
analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans.? As
quoted in Animal Experimentation?a harvest of shame by Meneim A. Fadali,
M.D. Hidden Springs Press, Los Angeles, California. 1996. Page 25.

?[On teaching surgical techniques on animals] the shameful practice was
banned in Britain in 1876.? As quoted in Animal Experimentation?a harvest
of shame by Meneim A. Fadali, M.D. Hidden Springs Press, Los Angeles,
California. 1996. Page 157.

?although the primate geometry is the most similar to man?s, it is
significantly different in anatomic soft tissue distribution and skull
morphology. This can present several problems when scaling the test
results to human levels. Ultimately, these sifferences lead to
complications in the very complex phenomena of head injury.? As quoted
in Animal Experimentation?a harvest of shame by Meneim A. Fadali, M.D.
Hidden Springs Press, Los Angeles, California. 1996. Page 170. Further
quoted, Husholtz, G.S.; Melvin, J.W. and Alem, M.M. ?head Impact Response
Comparisons of Human Surrogates.? Presented at the 223rd Staff Car Crash
Conference, San Diego, California, 1979.

?For many years Dr. Roger Ulrich was inducing aggression in animals by
causing them pain. Awakened?he recanted and abdicated. In a candid
letter to the American Psychological Association Monitor, March 1978, he
confessed, ?When I finished my dissertation on pain-produced aggression,
my Mennonite mother asked me what it was about. When I told her, she
repied [sic], ?Well, we knew that. Dad always warned us to stay away from
animals in pain because they are more likely to attack.? Today, I look
back with love and respect on all my animal friends from rats to monkeys,
who submitted to years of torture so that like my mother I can say, ?Well
we knew that.?? As quoted in Animal Experimentation?a harvest of shame
by Meneim A. Fadali, M.D. Hidden Springs Press, Los Angeles, California.
1996. Page 178.

?The trouble with the animal experimentation debate is that it
drives people to be anything but reasonable. Even the most rational can be
heard coming out with deeply dubious statements - such as claiming that
animal experiments are vital to medical progress.? As quoted in the
Telegraph, November 17, 2004, ?Animals? make poor guinea pigs in drugs
tests? By Robert Matthews. Article can be viewed at:
www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml

?A coterie of NIH officials who of course funded the work of virtually all
the panel members, took note of everything that transpired in the meeting;
when I suggested that larger cages had to be a top priority, I was met
with a hail of criticism about how expensive it would be. The head of one
HIH funded lab, summed up this position, ?If they increase cage size, I?ll
turn half my monkeys into dog food.? As quoted in Next of Kin?my
conversation with chimpanzees by Robert Fouts. Perennial Currents
(September 1, 1998). Page 376.

In August of 2004, FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford, noted that animal
research has a 92% failure rate when applied to humans, by stating that
quote, 8% of pharmaceutical drugs that pass through animal research
methods, make it to Phase 1 an 2 clinical trials.? As quoted in BioMed
Central, dated August 6th, 2004. www.biomedcentral.com/20040806/03
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software