hanoverphist
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2006
- 9,867
- 23
- 76
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I do not have to look things up and my "expertise" is that this is my profession. I have worked as a Study Director and Principal Investigator for preclinical and clinical studies in compliance with FDA regulations (and other studies following SANCO, OEDC, and EPA regulations). I do this for a living. I have written the reports. I have sent off data packages. However to be frank and honest I am not a toxicologist; I do not nor have not dosed or worked with the animals. Rather I have done the bioanalytical work; been on the receiving end of the blood, plasma, tissue, or whatever and have developed, validated, and performed the extractions and analytical testing.
To parrot the question back to you, what is your 'expertise' that you should have first-hand information on this?
Let me also note that in addition to the analytical chemistry work, I have also generated study proposals and been in close contact with clients at pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I am pretty sure I have a better understand about my industry than you do.
Allow me to be arrogant for a moment and state that the shit I do, and have done for 9+ years, is likely the stuff you have to Google up on the internet. If you happen to be in the same job field, then it sounds like you may have had some very bad experiences.
Backtracking a bit, of course the business owners want to make money and enhance their value, but that is with all companies so I think it is sort of irrelevant. Again of course that want to get the result they are hoping for. As scientist we don't always want to spend money and time on some experiment and hope it gives us useless data. Now as an interesting aside, most validation studies are usually performed to try to prove how "bad" the method is so if your method is robust enough when you try to fail it, then conversely it must be a good method.
Of course they get results from research and experiemnts. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous point and if so I apologize.
Anyhow while it sounds great to be able to replace animal testing with some computer model, and I think the fact of the matter is that "we" (as in all of research science) really do not know 100% how every process works in a living being. For example so much stuff is still not understood about RNA, and as such until you can completely understand the entire organism you really can not program software to predict all possibilities. Maybe in the future, but not right now. With that being said there very will may be some information right now that can be learned from computer modeling but not everything.
Furthermore I think you have a misunderstanding about dosing animal models "right off the bat." Sometimes there are non-regulated studies (i.e. the data will not be formally submitted for review, but is rather to get a better background understanding from a scientific point of view) where animals may undergo a dose-escalation study. There is not many ways around this, you have to know at what dose will the drug kill the model. If you do not do this you run the risk of conducting a larger preclinical study and could kill or otherwise make way more animals suffer.
I do not nor have not worked for P&G as an employee. I have worked for what is called a Contract Research Laboratory (CRO); basically we are an industry that is part of the big evil cog in the machine of scientific outsourcing. Well not evil, but I am sure people may think otherwise.
Baked
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2004
- 36,052
- 17
- 81
My thoughts are they should do the testing on people who wanna protect animals from testing. Too bad they're all chicken shits who hide in their hippie caves after they fire bomb research labs, postdoc homes and cars. If they love animals so much, shouldn't they volunteer to be test subjects?
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Not a lot of animals have achieved their GED or even gradeschool equivalent.
It's just not fair to test them. I don't know why people can't see that!
It's just not fair to test them. I don't know why people can't see that!
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
The knowledge I have in this is the availability of the reports and research others have done on P&G as well as Iams. Yes, they did change when people stopped using their products and are now even promoting better practices. Even they themselves admitted there was a problem.
The fact is why would this company do this to begin with and what else will they do/are doing that we don't know about.
As far as my knowledgebase I was a zoology major and I am fairly active in animal charities and current issues. As a scientist you should know how clueless the average layman in understanding deep science topics.
I do think you have a very noble outlook at what research means to most business owners/board of directors though. It's possible the culture at your place of business is different, but I think most here know they are more a 'number' at an employer than a person.
Also I don't think you are acknowledging what the real issues people have with animal testing. It's not the parts where they determine toxicity / mortality / etc. It's the parts where they are causing harm in either housing/care or experimentation.
Another point is most aren't looking to eradicate animal testing, even animal lovers. They are looking to have it done intelligently and practically.
There are tons of write-ups that you should be aware of in the industry...either you are turning a blind eye or simply are only focused on what you have experienced day to day.
The fact is why would this company do this to begin with and what else will they do/are doing that we don't know about.
As far as my knowledgebase I was a zoology major and I am fairly active in animal charities and current issues. As a scientist you should know how clueless the average layman in understanding deep science topics.
I do think you have a very noble outlook at what research means to most business owners/board of directors though. It's possible the culture at your place of business is different, but I think most here know they are more a 'number' at an employer than a person.
Also I don't think you are acknowledging what the real issues people have with animal testing. It's not the parts where they determine toxicity / mortality / etc. It's the parts where they are causing harm in either housing/care or experimentation.
Another point is most aren't looking to eradicate animal testing, even animal lovers. They are looking to have it done intelligently and practically.
There are tons of write-ups that you should be aware of in the industry...either you are turning a blind eye or simply are only focused on what you have experienced day to day.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
he read an activist "web site"/he talks to other people like himself. we know how even a keel animal activists are on eh
lolhe's had a bug up his butt about this in more than one thread trying to convince people that iams just tortures animals for the joy of it, and pays for the privileged.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,864
- 31,359
- 146
testing on animals is absolutely essential for medical and scientific research. PETA can go fuck a nut for not volunteering their own worthless selves to provide this valuable testing in lieu of the animals.
Deplorable types of testing are more related to the cosmetics/consumerist industry testing, but this is mostly non-existent these days iirc.
Deplorable types of testing are more related to the cosmetics/consumerist industry testing, but this is mostly non-existent these days iirc.
I'm for it, but then again I'm one of those burnt people who gets a thrill (and a paycheck) out of torturing little animals:beer:
As much as I love pets and animals, I'm much more concerned with overseas testing on populations in 3rd world countries.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he read an activist "web site"/he talks to other people like himself. we know how even a keel animal activists are on eh
he's had a bug up his butt about this in more than one thread trying to convince people that iams just tortures animals for the joy of it, and pays for the privileged.
I don't get WTF you are trying to accomplish...you were pro for eating cats in one thread.
Your last point I have never made or implied, I have only mentioned the facts on those two companies.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
I'm referring mostly to the completely useless tests that could easily be done in other ways, or on humans. Medicine should be tested on humans, if they're for humans. If a medication is for an animal, then it should be tested on said animal. Of course, the medication should be done by people who know what they're doing, so that there is a very slim chance of anything going wrong in first place. You don't just mix a bunch of chemicals together, give it to a dog, and see what happens.
You do realize that before anything gets tested on an animal, it goes through a battery of in vitro tests (aka cell cultures)? However, in vitro assays don't fully mimick a whole organism which is why you have to test in something that is more than just one cell type. I can tell you from experience that something that works great in tissue cultures does not allows turn out that way in animals, while a drug may work as planned on the target organ it can have severe side-effects in other organ.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
I approve of this sentiment 100%.
I can draw the line at killing bunnies to see how often they scream. However, if you have a drug you want to make sure won't kill a person, test it on 1000 rats and see how many are dead the next day. I have no problem with that. In 2 days that population of rats could be rebuilt.
hahaha!
"Don't hurt the animals, hurt the people that save the animals! Kill PETA!"
I'm for testing on animals. Gotta test the things somehow and there is already an overpopulation of them anyway.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Red, you're making yourself look more clueless in each post in this thread. i.e. you sound like a PETA member parroting what you were told, but with really no clue how or why these tests are conducted. Also, in addition to what was already pointed out to you in a reply, are you implying that the chemistry of other animals is completely different than from humans? Are you aware that many of the drugs which help humans are also used to help animals?
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
Just stop.
You know not of what you speak and it is quite obvious. As an aside, chemicals just aren't mixed together and given to a dog - or any animal - just to "see what happens." Contrary to what you may think experiments are typically well designed with an idea of what the outcome should be.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter