The new minister for approving animal experiments is anti-vivisection

I hadn't heard that broomsticks. Thanks for posting it. What an interesting appointment!

Here is a link to this article.
www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/17/scientists-fear-for-animal-testing
This is a potential disaster for UK medical research and the status of UK science. I like mice, but there really is no other possible route to investigation for most lines of medical-related enquiry. If we are ever to have better treatments for cancer or Altzheimer's the animal experiments need to continue.
I am not in favour of experimenting on primates except in the most extreme cases.
My view on anti-vivisection campaigners is that they should put their own bodies on the line to volunteer, regularly, for the safety-testing of drugs. But I wonder if any of them would volunteer to do this, if the drugs had never been given to an animal first?

Testing drugs on animals is not vivisection. Vivisection is surgery.

I agree with what jess has said. People who don't want potentially life-saving new drugs to be tested on mice should volunteer themselves, and then when *their child gets a horrible illness, they'll "have faith" in the medicine.

There is a lot more to animal testing than medical research though Jess, with many very scientifically dubious and inhumane tests going on every day. Hopefully this man will bring some long needed balance. I can't imagine he would have been appointed if he was going to adopt a blanket ban on animal testing. There'd be no point in having him if that were the case would there? There could simply be a blanket ban.

yes quite so bags.
He doesn't sound like someone in favour of balance to me. Interesting variant on the meaning of the word "liberal" Mr Clegg (see article). Doe this reflect Libdem policy then?

I can't see anything wrong with what he is saying.

"The Home Office is about to launch a document which will highlight ways to reduce numbers of animal experiments in this country and I fully endorse it. This is not going to be an immediate revolution, but I believe we are already making progress in finding substitutes for animal experiments. One day, those will lead to us being able to ban them. I believe that day is coming."

Doesn't sound as if he intends to ban animal experiments overnight. I think the response of those involved in research is rather hysterical to be honest.

If he can stop all the futile, pointless experiments which have nothing whatsoever to do with medical research then I say more power to his elbow. Unfortunately I think the hysterical reactions will continue and he won't stay in office long.

Which futile and pointless experiments are those nightowl?

I'm not against experiments on animals if they are necessary but one of my overriding memories of seeing a newspaper article was the photo on the front page when they attached the head of one dog to another [it's the stuff of nightmares].

It is experiments like that which make people want to ban the use of animals completely, and they stick in the mind once they are publicised.

Problem is, many things can be tested on a few cells, or a bit of tissue from a human donor or a creature which is already dead, but sometimes it is vital to see how something interacts with a living organism.

No-one can experiment without a licence. Perhaps they should be granted more stingily.

Yes well that would count as vivisection tegan and would not happen in this country. Unless it was via the assistance of photoshop.
The vast majority of experiments on mammals are lab mice, very many of whom as special genetic strains. They are warm and well fed and nary a cat, an owl or a grandparent with a trap to frighten them.
There are tight controls in place such as ethics committees.
Increasingly small tropical fish are used in basic research. www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/15/zebrafish-human-genes-project

I am not in favour of banning proper research using animals, but even when drugs have been tested on animals, the effects on humans can't be foreseen.
Does anyone remember this?
"TGN1412 (also known as CD28-SuperMAB) is the working name of an immunomodulatory drug which was withdrawn from development after inducing severe inflammatory reactions in the first-in-man study in London in March 2006........
In its first human clinical trials, it caused catastrophic systemic organ failure in the subjects, despite being administered at a supposed sub-clinical dose of 0.1 mg per kg; some 500 times lower than the dose found safe in animals. Six volunteers were hospitalized on 13 March 2006, at least four of these suffering from multiple organ dysfunction. Tentative opinions from an as-yet uncompleted inquiry suggest that the problems resulted from "unforeseen biological action in humans", rather than breach of trial protocols, and the case therefore has had important ramifications for future trials of potentially powerful clinical agents."

Oh is that the one where people were paid to test them and some of them were students? I'd forgotten about that. It was awful .

Yup - safety trail. Fortunately a very, very rare occurrence due to all the pre testing on animals. The drug was a monoclonal antibody. Several of them are now being used to great effect in certain cases of cancer etc.

As is thalidomide. And we have to find new antibiotics soon. At the end of the day all drugs are really tested on people because it's only when lots of people have taken something that some problems will become apparent. [I still worry about statins]

Some experiments on animals are done over and over again, because commercial competitors won't share information, and potentially dangerous drugs/materials are tested at huge levels - say 1000% more than would normally be used.

Recently, I read a newspaper article which reported that pigs are being blasted with horrible weapons to check the effect of such weapons.

Surely there's nothing wrong with at least looking at where the use of animals for experimentation can be reduced.

In a perfect world only vital experiments on animals would be conducted and only once. All the scientists involved would be committed animal lovers as well as medical personal and would take endless pains not to cause suffering. This isn't a perfect world. People who conduct experiments become hardened (self defence, you'd have to )and unnecessary and repeat experiments are done.
I'm not against all animal experimentation. As people have said on this thread it is essential, sadly, but it needs to be minimised in my opinion and regarded as a last resort only used when tissue samples etc cannot be.

www.alltrials.net Ben Goldacre's campaign to force companies to publish results of all the trials carried out.

There are a great many species used in animal testing in this country besides mice. Not that mice do not deserve kind and humane treatment but so do the guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, cats, and primates that are used widely in the UK. There is a large establishment very near to here where animals are bred for research purposes and where animals are used to test any number of things for large multinational companies.

Examples of the kinds of futile experiments I was thinking of Jess are those to test household cleaning products, garden insecticides, chemicals, and many household products that are already in use but still being tested. I do not think even a mouse deserves, amongst other things, to have the skin shaved from its back so that toxic chemicals can be applied in order to monitor it's reactions over several days or perhaps weeks. Just how many more household products do we need? If the Coop can manage to acquire BUAV accreditation for all its products why on earth do any other companies need to carry on testing on animals.

I wish I shared your faith in the standards adhered to by researchers Jess. This article gives some information about life in these laboratories. It refers to conditions in existence as recently as 2011.

savetheharlanbeagles.com/all-about-harlan/

My grandmother believed that prisoners serving life [when life meant life] should participate in drug research instead of dumb animals as a way of paying back their debt to society.

Not just mice. Whatever you may think of the need for the experiments, lets be clear about the species used.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425965/EXCLUSIVE-Outrage-as-major-UK-charity-uses-donations-to-fund-vivisection-tests-on-dogs

Oh and pet food is also tested on animals. And not in a nice, fluffy, 'which flavour do they prefer' type of way, but in a 'let's feed them in laboratories then let's kill them and cut them up to see what their organs look like type of way'. Is that essential animal testing? Personally I think it's like something out of a horror story.

www.uncaged.co.uk/iamsexpress.htm

Whilst I would like experiments on animals to be done only when absolutely necessary, I certainly wouldn't wish prisoners to be forced to participate in drug trials.

Signed the petition janeainsworth. It seems to benefit everyone, people in all countries and test animals used in repeat tests.
I support the Humane Research Trust too.