Comments on: How Science Can Save Cute Animals From Corporate Killers

By: thebeautybrains

thebeautybrains — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34:00 +0000

Sharyn, and one might also suggest that using an article published in a non-scientific magazine like The Ecologist is not really research. Research involves looking at many sources which back-up the things they say with references. It also involves citing unbiased sources.

The article you site makes some excellent points, most notable that animal testing isn’t 100% effective. It isn’t and it can lead to erroneous conclusions.

But it makes many statements that are not supported by facts.

For example, “A 10-year international study proved that human cell culture tests are more accurate and yield more useful information about toxic mechanisms than traditional animal tests.” Where is the reference to this 10-year study? Who conducted it? Where was it published?

The reason to ask is because it flies directly in the face of conventional wisdom. In fact, in the EU they are trying to ban animal testing for cosmetics (not pharmaceuticals) and even they don’t yet accept alternatives to animal testing because they haven’t shown to be as predictive.

You are correct, people should do the research. But don’t rely on single sources and organizations with clear biases.

By: Sharyn

Sharyn — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:03:01 +0000

To those who would say, "But animal testing keeps human beings safe!", I would say, do the research. According to animal testing, arsenic isn't poisonous, but aspirin is deadly. See this article from the Ecologist.

By: Brigit

Brigit — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:39:00 +0000

This kind of testing does not make any sense to me. If they wanted to test for neurotoxicity caused by nutrasweet there are many more effective and cheaper assays out there (mostly using cultured nerve cells and transformed cells). Additionally, potential neurotoxicity would be caused by the metabolites of the sweeteners, not the sweeteners themselves. That is an example of bad reasoning skills and bad research.
The POM one is also bad science. Did they 1st prove that some active ingredient in the juice could cause the inhibition of PDE or another enzyme involved in blood vessel dilation? Which ingredient, then? Can this be proven in vitro? in cell strains?
Just a fraction of all the active compounds found or synthesized by researchers in academia and pharmaceutical companies ever make it to the animal research stage. In vitro and in vivo studies in cells have to be done prior to animal experimentation. There are regulations that ensure this, as well as committees that enforce this regulations (at least in academia). Are these companies free from government regulation regarding animal research?

By: thebeautybrains

thebeautybrains — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:34:09 +0000

People test products on animals to ensure that they can be safely used by people. Would you want to use a product on a baby that wasn’t first shown to be safe to use?

No one likes to do animal testing. There just haven’t been acceptable alternatives. Scientists are looking for alternatives but nothing is accepted quite yet.

By: jenni

jenni — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:00:33 +0000

gee why do people test beauty products on animala