Skip to Main Content

National Research Council: Animal Testing Is Deeply Flawed

Written by PETA | June 17, 2007

Of course, they could have just asked us. But this recent finding by the US National Research Council is very good news for animals suffering in laboratories. According to the study,

“Recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans. …The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinised, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing.”

I guess research councils take longer than the rest of us to figure out that animals just don’t work the same way as humans, but it’s great to see that they’ve finally figured it out. You can read The Daily Telegraph‘s take on the study here, and for those of you with a more academic disposition—or just a whole lot of time on your hands—the full study is available here.

Sign the Pledge Against Animal Testing

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • I love my country but I hate its corrupt government ,in every way ,but for allowing animal exparementatons I am furious

  • Anonymous says:

    this is unbelivable… sickining stuff

  • Maddison says:

    Oh how cruel why can’t we leve them alone they aren’t hurting anyone

  • chriustian says:

    STOP ANIMAL TESTING i’m doing a dabate on animal testing

  • rojo says:

    shadows I don’t put heavy crap on every site just the one’s that I don’t feel are right. I’m sorry if it’s too deep for you but we’re talking about important grown up stuff. I presumed people visited this site for discussion and contemplation not amusement. Mike there is not doubt that many animal experiments failed to mirror human response but what alternatives existed other than going straight to human testing with exactly the same effects. Computer models were rudimentary at that time if indeed they existed at all. I am no way saying animal experiments should continue if they don’t have to. But they did have to in the past at huge benefit to mankind.

  • Tanya says:

    Amen to Lynn from Baltimore! Why don’t they use some of these criminals that perform these terrible crimes? They deserve it and they are closer to our genetic makeup then these poor animals are unfortunatlybut no they would rather be cruel to these defensless animals and give these criminals free health care and education!

  • Lynn says:

    This is CRAZY!! Please Please Please STOP!! I wish they would use child abusers and prisioners that harm little children and murder people go thru these experiments!! HMMMM now that is a great thought isn’t it?? Lynn Baltimore

  • Anonymous says:

    “Why had we become so dependent on animal tests in the first place?” Responding to a public outcry regarding drug safety after the Thalidomide tragedy the U.S. Congress passed the previously unpopular KefauverHarris Act in October of 1962 which among other things mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical testing to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. The FDA has interpreted these preclinical standards as a call for mandatory animal testing. This interpretation expressed the will of the bill’s sponsor Senator Estes Kefauver but was based on a misunderstanding of the science behind drug testing. The politician mistakenly argued that thalidomide had never been tested on animals and that it was this lack of animal testing that had led to its disastrous clinical use. In fact extensive animal testing had failed to predict any hazards from thalidomide and the drug was made available to doctors largely because of the existing animal data.

  • stasya berber says:

    this is just sad why had we become so dependent on animal tests in the first place? worse is how findings on animal tested products are usually thrown out because they also hve to be tested humans too

  • Canaduck says:

    Andrewthat’s just the point. Animal testing is flawed therefore when people undergo whatever proceduremedication etc it makes THEM sick too.

  • Mike says:

    The inventor of the polio vaccine Dr. Sabin stated under oath before the US Congress that the polio vaccine was long delayed because of misleading results in nonhuman primates “…the work on prevention of polio was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.” More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias heart attacks kidney failure seizures respiratory arrest liver failure and stroke among others. GAOPEMD9015 FDA Drug Review Postapproval Risks 19761985 Methoxyflurane Flosint Zelmid Momifensine Amrinone Clioquinol Eralsin Opren Zomax Methysergide Isoproterenol Suprofen Surgam Selacryn Perhexiline Domperidone Mitoxantrone Carbenoxalone Clindamycin Linomide Eldepryl Rezulin and many other drugs tested successfully on animals but caused problems sometimes lethal with humans. Other drugs that may have greatly benefitted humans have been scrapped due to unfavorable animal results.

  • shadows says:

    rojo there are other methods than vivisection and animal experimentation above all should more money be available for alternative methods! people spend sooooooo much money for nonsense also big and international societies and governments! instead of funding war industry or space programs it should be urgently requested to spend the funds for alternative research programs! and there is enough literature existing regarding this subject but slowly i start to think that you are an illiterate or you want to make us believe that you don’t get the thing on every site you put a heavy shit!

  • rojo says:

    It all revolves around “recent advances” and “potential to”. Up until recent years what choices have we had. Many owe their lives and well being to the contributions of animalspolio and other vaccines as well as organ transplantation experiments. It’s great animals won’t relied upon in the future but we can’t denegrate their past usefulness with I told you so attitudes.

  • Andrew says:

    Ah well rather the animals than me.

  • Mallory says:

    Stop the madness animals have rights too!!3

  • Kim Segal says:

    Please stop this horrendous cruelty towards animals.

  • animalfriend says:

    please also check out the famous book ‘the naked empress’ a history of medical fraud by hans ruesch one of the greatest antivivisectionists alive!

  • Scott says:

    finally at least thats one less thing that causes animals suffering

  • Michael says:

    This is offtopic but I just saw an amazing presentation Ingrid gave against violence. You can find the video here httpwww.peta.orgfeatnonviolence.asp On the same page is a link to another video Ingrid Newkirk Speaks Up for Animals.

  • hugo pottisch says:

    Wow! This is mindboggling and almost unbelievable.. somebody bite me! I cannot wait to see the implications for Europe’s Chemical Testing Initiative REACH that deploys old and obsolete methods. Web Site httpec.europa.euenvironmentchemicalsreach.htm Over 40 million animals are set to be tortured to death despite the fact that more efficient cheaper and faster testing methods are available today. If you live in Europe please email them and inform them about this paper! Email entrreachec.europa.eu My favorite quote from the Executive Summary is “Over time the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced and possibly even eliminated someday… Resources are always limited and current toxicitytesting practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. Thus some resistance to the vision proposed by this committee is expected. However the vision takes full advantage of current and expected scientific advances to enhance our understanding of how environmental agents can affect human health. It has the potential to greatly reduce the cost and time of testing and to lead to much broader coverage of the universe of environmental agents. Moreover the vision will lead to a marked reduction in animal use and focus on doses that are more relevant to those experienced by human populations . The vision for toxicity testing in the twentyfirst century articulated here is a paradigm shift that will not only improve the current system but transform it into one capable of overcoming current limitations and meeting future challenges.” PS I Let us not forget but forgive the past as long as the WWF remains as flexible as the NRC? Remember http://www.wickedwildlifefund.com PS II I love the mood and attitude of this blog besides being informative! Good stuff Jack!

Connect With PETA

Subscribe