Gothenburg University, in Sweden. To Kill 6 Black labradors , aged 2, medical trial
 

[The two-year-old labradors will be put
down by the end of the month so
scientists can see what effect this has
on their tissue and blood.
More than 84,000 people,
including British comedian Ricky Gervais
and Downton Abbey actor Peter Egan,
have backed a petition calling
for the dogs to be allowed to live.]


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8782646.html

Now its gone Worldwide Public
will they cancel the killings?


Reported on GMBHD itv today.

This sort of thing probably happens all the time in research facilities tbh

Yes but these Dogs
have got Stars and
Public backing them
due to the publicity
it would be wise to cancel the medical test

Which justifies it how, exactly?

It doesn't justify it of course, but not many people who have an issue with this will have no problem with tests on lab rats for instance?

Stop animal testing altogether and pay humans to do it

Yeah agree with this. I think this particular case probably bothers people more because they're cute labs

Couldn't agree more.

It would be more interesting to me to kill a couple of their scientists and find out how they decompose.

This hurts... my dog is a black lab to think she could be suffering at the hands of these trials :nono:

Fun fact - it's why labradors were originally bred.

"Rador" is an old language for "dog", they were specifically bred in labs to be experimented on.

Animals should not be tested on at all,what gives us the right to kill and maim them? there are plenty of vile humans that could be used , it has been said the experiments mostly do not work anyway animals in general have a different structure than us.

It’s sad that a case like this makes the head lines but what about the dogs and cats skinned alive for fur or the dirty bastards that are eating dogs.

In an ideal world it would all be stopped and not just on dogs,people who are cruel to animals are very dodgy people and I would always give them a wide berth.

there are many tests they can do these days without resorting to animal testing. I think the onus should be on the testers that the test is worthwhile and that it cant be achieved by any other means.

It's very sad to hear but what about all of the other animals that are tested on and killed, or killed for you to eat? That's a very small amount of dogs compared to the scale of all of the other animals who are worth as much as dogs are.

Chicken , for Example ,is KFC
or free range
In our nation we do not eat dogs

Dogs mean more to us in the UK


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n-N3S_3711.jpg

They might mean more to you, but it doesn't mean they're lives are worth more than any other animals. :shrug:

I'm not for animal testing in any way, but I also think there are huge issues with paid human testing. For things that are "almost ready for use" and are therefore extremely low risk it's less of an issue, but when it's early testing and high risk, paid testing becomes a real issue because only people who are desperate for money are likely to do it. And it's likely to be in countries where people who are desperate for money are REALLY desperate and saying "no" becomes a less valid choice... and I have some serious concerns about what that ends up looking like.

Basically, it has high potential to transition from "testing on animals" to "testing on poor people" who have used it as a last resort and that doesn't sit very well either.

Everyone eats KFC

This is not about other animals
its trying to save 6 Happy dogs

I mean a chicken's life is apparently worth about £4. Which is pretty horrible, if you think about it.

Animal testing is sadly a necessity in medical research, it's unpleasant and often repugnant but the discoveries can save lives. As TS said, if we kept testing strictly to humans then the poor, the homeless and the vulnerable would become disposable test subjects instead.

It's a bitter pill but one we must accept and swallow.

Yes Dezzy
but now its been "leaked"
and the Dogs photo was on TV news
surely they can save these dogs

Chickens are bred for food. Black Labradors are family bets. Surely you're not saying that a chicken and a Labrador is the same?

“The reason we use animal tests is because we have a comfort level with the process . . . not because it is the correct process, not because it gives us any real new information we need to make decisions.”
Melvin E. Andersen, director, computational systems biology, Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, USA

"Despite claims by the research industry, chimpanzees have proven to be a poor model for human cancer research" states a recent study. Chimpanzee tumours are extremely rare and biologically different from human cancers. The study concludes: "It would be unscientific to claim that chimpanzees are vital to cancer research and reasonable to conclude that cancer research would not suffer if the use of chimpanzees were prohibited..."
ATLA 37, 399-41


“The predictive value of the non-human SHIV-challenge model [primate model of AIDS] is not supported by this experience.”
British Medical Journal 19 November 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2571


“... the only scientific analyses made to date have been critiques that have revealed nonhuman primate models to be of little relevance to human medicine.”
Nature Medicine 14, 1011-1012 (1 October 2008)


A research group headed by Professor Ian Roberts, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has called for an end to animal experiments following an investigation. Their findings, published in the British Medical Journal (28th Feb 2004), show that experiments are not justified and can’t be applied to humans.

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinois.


"Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans...
In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability."
Herbert Gundersheimer, M.D., Baltimore, Maryland, 1988.


"Animal experimentation is fallacious, useless, expensive, and furthermore, cruel."
G. Tamino, Congressman and researcher at the University of Padua, Italy.


"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. …There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."
Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988/89, surgeon of thirty years, West Germany


"I agree that for the benefit of medical science, vivisection has to be stopped. There are lots of reasons: the most important is that it is simply misleading, and both the past and present testify to that."
Professor Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, surgeon and professor of urology at the University of Turin, cit. Ray and Jean Greek, Specious Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2002), p.169.


"The assumption that an animal species can stand as a reliable model for human biological reactions amounts to playing Russian Roulette with the patient's life."
Dr Claude Reiss, DLRM Newsletter, No.9, Autumn 2002.


"It is impossible to evaluate the safety of using animal studies to predict the safety of drugs and chemicals in man."
D. V. Parke, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, University of Surrey, 1 May 1996.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
Dr. G. F. Walker, 1933.


"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health."
Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.


"Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished."
Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.


"Not one single animal experiment has ever succeeded in prolonging or improving, let alone saving, the life of even one single person."
Paper published by Dr. med. Heide Evers, D-7800 Freiburg, 1982.


“What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”
Dr Mark Feinberg, leading AIDS researcher.

"The lack of correlation between toxicity data in animals and adverse effects in humans is well known."
A. Gorman, et al., Comparative Endocrinology (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1983), p.33

"Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals. He has only learnt wrongly through animals.”
Professor Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, surgeon and professor of urology at the University of Turin, cit. Ray and Jean Greek, Specious Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2002) p.169

"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. A. P. Fland, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.71, 1978, pp.693-6

"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. Bjorn Ekwall, Chairman of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory, Toxicolog In vitro, Aug-Oct 1999

"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."
Dr. J. E. Green of the National Cancer Institute Laboratory, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2001, 93:976

"For the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. The chance is of overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used."
Dr. C. Dollery, in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, p.87