 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Choose a category:
More Alternatives | High Welfare | Strict Controls | Greatest Benefits | Other
Or, if you cannot find the answer you require, ask us your question...
|
|
Other
|
Even if we share many genes our brains are totally different to animals. How can you find out anything about our brains from animal brains?
There are differences, there are also similarities. Science rarely tries to mimic a whole human disease in an animal. Instead it focuses on one part of the disease that can be seen in the animal (Philip Connolly, CMP)
|
Why do you still need to test on animals?
Mammals are hugely more complex than any non-animal test ever constructed. There comes a point when researchers will need to know what their findings mean in the context of how living creatures function.
We can learn much about disease and how it strikes by observing human patients but there are limitations. For example, there is still no non-animal way of checking that a candidate medicine is likely to reach the right part of the body, in the right concentration and form, for the right period of time, so as to produce the desired effect. It would simply be unethical to test new theories on ill people without some evidence from a living creature that there is likely to be a benefit.
Animal experiments allow scientists to answer specific questions in controlled situations that would be unethical in people. For example, genes and gene mutations are being linked to disease every day. But science will often not know what the gene in question's role is. It is difficult to come up with a strategy based around this genetic insight if you don't know what the gene does. One possibility is to knock out that gene from an animal and observe the effect. This can usually be done in mice. A different strategy is to add extra copies of the gene and observe any enhanced activity. Clearly, neither would be permissible in people
Animal tests are legally required for the development of medicines.
|
Will we ever reach a stage where animal testing is no longer needed? (From Manchester meeting)
I hope so, but it will be a long time off (Nancy Rothwell, brain scientist).
You can never say never, but it's hard to imagine the new technology that would be necessary. (Barbara Holgate, vet)
While it would be wonderful if animal research could be phased out, I would be absolutely amazed if it were. New factors come into play as you scale up from a single cell to organs and from organs to whole organisms like people. (Prof Ray Tallis, clinician)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home 
FAQs 
