animals against vivisectors

1 2 3 4 avanti

Domenica 20 dicembre 2009 7 20 /12 /2009 19:52

Doctors and Scientists Create New Society to Promote Non-Animal Toxicology Testing Methods

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Inspired by a National Academy of Sciences' report calling for a new toxicity testing strategy, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) announce the formation of a new scientific society to promote the development and use of non-animal toxicological testing methods. This will be the first scientific society in North America devoted to such a mission.

The American Society for Cellular and Computational Toxicology (ASCCT) will provide an organized forum for discussion of cellular (in vitro) and computational toxicology approaches, especially as replacements for animal-based toxicology methods. Through regular meetings and activities, the Society will facilitate the development, acceptance, and routine use of cellular and computational methods by open dialog between industry, academic, advocacy, and regulatory scientists. The Society will strive to include the participation of young scientists to promote their contributions to the field.

IIVS and PCRM were inspired to create the Society by the surge of interest in toxicology since the publication of the 2007 National Academy of Sciences report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategy.

"The strong commitment of American scientists to alternative testing methods is illustrated by the National Academy of Sciences report, increased Environmental Protection Agency funding for non-animal methods, and other recent developments," says Erin Hill, Vice President of Program Development for IIVS. "With several similar societies in Europe, Asia and South America, it is time for North American scientists to meet on a regular basis to share developments in the field."

While the two organizations plan to play an active founding role in the new Society, it is hoped other organizations will enthusiastically support its growth, says Kristie Sullivan, MPH, Scientific and Policy Advisor, PCRM. "We invite scientists from industry, regulatory agencies, and advocacy groups to become involved in the formation of the new society to ensure its success," says Sullivan. "Active participation will create a dynamic forum to share information and accelerate the development and use of in vitro and in silico methods, and help to make toxicology a more human-relevant -- and more humane -- science."

For more information or an interview with Hill or Sullivan, please contact IIVS at 1-301-947-1281.

About IIVS

IIVS is a nonprofit organization wholly dedicated to the promotion of rapid and innovative non-animal testing methods. Founded in 1997, IIVS is recognized as a leading provider of in vitro testing in support of toxicological safety evaluations. Rigorous scientific programs coupled with educational and outreach initiatives have established IIVS as a global leader in the advancement of alternatives to animal testing.

About PCRM

Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.

http://www.pcrm.org/

CONTACT: Erin Hill of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, +1-301-947-1281, ehill@iivs.org

SOURCE Institute for In Vitro Sciences

Di ft - Pubblicato in : Vivisection - Community : DIRITTI DEGLI ANIMALI
Scrivi un commento - Vedi i commenti - Segnala

Lunedì 14 dicembre 2009 1 14 /12 /2009 07:28

Good Reasons to Stop Vivisection!

BatrF.jpg (183×224)

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. -- Professor Charles R.Magel

Vivisection is Useless

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.

`Researchers' often justify vivisection for its effects on human life but - sadly - this has never happened.

Many decades of vivisection practice haven't brought a single practical result; billions of animals die in laboratories and nobody has come up with a scientific proof of usefulness for such experiments.

Animal experimentation is simply a good business: "researchers" can publish large amounts of papers simply repeating the same useless experiments on different animals and under slightly different conditions.

Chemical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries test on animals but these tests are definitely not significant. As an example, cigarettes have been sold for many years as absolutely non dangerous because tests on animals showed there was no relationship between smoke and cancer.

The only significant tests are so stupid to be even more useless: if you burn dogs alive (it happens !) you'll find out they all die, but you don't need to test, everybody can tell you.

Some folks place lipstick on dogs' eyes, then in their mouths and see a suffering blind dog, but still alive. So they can write something like "avoid contact with eyes" and "not lethal in case of ingestion". I think the first suggestion should be given without any experimentation; the second advice is false: lots of substances are lethal for humans, but not for animals.

Tests on animals are just a formality to be legally authorized to sell potentially dangerous products. The real guinea pig is you!

Ethically Unacceptable

One day the world will look upon research upon animals as it now looks upon research on human beings Leonardo Da Vinci

Even if vivisection could bring significant improvement in medical research and in products safety (but it can't !), it would also be unacceptable. Usefulness is not a justification; otherwise, we should allow experiments on human beings, the only really significant tests.

Experimenters often say that humans are a "superior race" compared to others; humans may be superior to animals, when judging on intelligence, but this is not a justification for killing them. On the contrary, if we are superior, we have to protect and care for those who are weaker.

We should apply to animal the same logic we apply to other people; if you are physically, or mentally superior to another person, you have to help, not kill for your own sake.

Vivisection is Dangerous

Doctors who speak out in favour of vivisection do not deserve any recognition in society, all the more so since their brutality is apparent not only during such experiments, but also in their practical medical lives. They are mostly men who stop at nothing in order to satisfy their ruthless and unfeeling lust for honours and gain. Dr. med. Hugo Knecht

Animals are not the only victims of vivisection.

Vivisection's uselessness has a direct consequence: vivisection is dangerous.

Chemical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries can sell almost everything if they find an animal species immune to the tested product. If you ever wondered why people die for using medical or chemical products considered safe, the reason is simple: every animal species is used in vivisection, so you can prove everything.

In other words, animal testing is an easy way to sell potentially dangerous products with a strong legal disclaimer. Some industries use alternative tests (computer simulations etc.) but they are much more difficult to manipulate.

You may be thinking: "OK, but if they didn't test on animals, there would be even more dangerous products". It's not true; if you don't test on animals, you loose this sort of "legislative immunity" and you are much more responsible about what you're selling.

Moreover, people who are cruel to non-human animals, who cause their suffering and death, are very likely to be insensitive to humans too. On the contrary, people who care for the animals, are very likely to worry for your safety too.

Follow the link at the end of this page, and think that every time you use products tested on animals (medical products, detergents, cosmetics and so on) you are not only contributing to this pain, but you are also placing your life and your beloved's lifes in the hands of people who practice all this. These people are able to slowly kill animals with their own hands, will they care about the people dying far away from them? Why do you think your life should count something for them?

What You Can Do

To forgive and accept injustice is cowardice. Mohandas Gandhi

How to turn informations into positive, concrete actions.

First, you can buy products not tested on animals. Nowaday, it's very easy to find soaps, shampoos, cosmetics not tested on animals. In every country there are lists of `cruelty-free' products: ask to local animal rights organizations or search the Internet.

Examples are:

USA: http://www.leapingbunny.org
UK: http://www.buav.org/campaigns/camp_cosmetics.html
Italy: http://www.consumoconsapevole.org/07cosmetici-d.html and http://www.noi-animali.org/vivisezione/ricerca/index.html

But don't care about advices like `Not tested on animals': they often mean that producer didn't test the end product on animals but may have paid others to do it. Moreover, the single ingredients may have been tested. You have to look at the lists above (or similar lists in your country).

We can also inform others about vivisection's uselessness and danger; when you read newspapers or magazines and find misinformation about these topics, write a letter to state your opinion, and suggest others to do the same.

You don't need to do these things on your own: there are many organizations trying to join efforts against vivisection's crimes.

Further readings: Photographic exhibition on vivisection

Di ft - Pubblicato in : Vivisection - Community : DIRITTI DEGLI ANIMALI
Scrivi un commento - Vedi i commenti - Segnala

Mercoledì 9 dicembre 2009 3 09 /12 /2009 07:32

A Legal Challenge to Animal Research

Animal rights law courses may threaten the use of animals in medical research.

A. US law schools were categorized by whether they have an animal law course, are at an institution that performs animal research, or are associated directly with a medical school. Additionally, the rank of each law school according to the 2008 U.S. News & World Report was included.

Over half of US law schools now have animal law courses, including many in universities with medical and research programs that utilize animals protected by federal welfare laws. Courses that promote standards for humane animal care and welfare are unlikely to provoke conflict, but programs championing animal rights or “liberation” set up adversarial potential on campuses and pose a serious risk to the future of animal research. The use of the law instead of violence and threats, however, should be acknowledged as a forward step.

According to the course catalogues of 203 law schools listed on the website for the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC.org), 111 (55%) teach an animal law course (B). Of 121 student groups throughout US law schools with a focus on animal law and animal rights, 85 are at schools with an animal law class while 37 are at schools without such a class. Accordingly, animal law, through either coursework or student groups, is being addressed at 148 (73%) of US law schools.

Among the top 50 law schools in the country, 36 maintain at least one animal law course in their curriculum. Growth in animal law programs has been supported by contributions from “The Bob Barker Endowment Fund for the Study of Animal Rights Law,” providing $1 million gifts each to Harvard, Duke, Stanford, Columbia, and other universities.¹

Considering the potential influence of these courses on research, the access that law schools have to the perspectives of scientists was measured, and defined by whether the home institution had a medical school or a Public Health Service Approved Animal Welfare Assurance. Eighty-three (41%) law schools have a connection to a medical school and 138 (68%) conduct animal research. Among the 111 schools teaching animal law, 44 (40%) have an institutional connection to a medical campus and 77 (69%) are housed in institutions that conduct animal

B. Overall distribution of law schools with an animal law class and associated with animal research or a medical school.

Under current US law, things are either property or persons. Legal rights for animals require the establishment of personhood; property cannot have rights. US welfare laws view animals as property, but emphasize our responsibility to care for them humanely. The effort to ascribe “personhood” to animals is a central focus of animal rights supporters, since changing public perception of animals is one way to stop their use in food, clothing, entertainment, and research. In some jurisdictions, “pet owner” has been replaced by “animal guardian,” ascribing a different status for the animal. References to animal researchers as “vivisectors” who “exploit” “sentient beings” and practice “torture” and “cruelty” (applied generally to research), also impact the public. In a poll earlier this year (May 7–10),² only 57% felt that animal research was morally acceptable, down from 62% in 2004.

The future may see an attempt to recognize Aristotle’s three categories: things, animals, and persons. Animals may not ultimately enjoy the rights of persons, but the law may become increasingly specific about our obligation to care for them. If, on the other hand, “personhood” for animals is achieved, this status is likely to be in conflict with animal research.

Failure to address developments in the education of law students is likely to have a long-ranging impact on the ability to develop new treatments needed for human and animal well-being.

P. Michael Conn is Director of Research Advocacy at Oregon Health and Sciences University and Oregon National Primate Research Center.

source: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/56167/

Di ft - Pubblicato in : Vivisection - Community : DIRITTI DEGLI ANIMALI
Scrivi un commento - Vedi i commenti - Segnala

Mercoledì 9 dicembre 2009 3 09 /12 /2009 06:41

Dissection Begins on Famous Brain

SAN DIEGO — The man who could not remember has left scientists a gift that will provide insights for generations to come: his brain, now being dissected and digitally mapped in exquisite detail.

The man, Henry Molaison — known during his lifetime only as H.M., to protect his privacy — lost the ability to form new memories after a brain operation in 1953, and over the next half century he became the most studied patient in brain science.

He consented years ago to donate his brain for study, and last February Dr. Jacopo Annese, an assistant professor of radiology at the University of California, San Diego, traveled across the country and flew back with the brain seated next to him on Jet Blue.

Just after noon on Wednesday, on the first anniversary of Mr. Molaison’s death at 82 from pulmonary complications, Dr. Annese and fellow neuroscientists began painstakingly slicing their field’s most famous organ. The two-day process will produce about 2,500 tissue samples for analysis.

A computer recording each sample will produce a searchable Google Earth-like map of the brain with which scientists expect to clarify the mystery of how and where memories are created — and how they are retrieved.

“Ah ha ha!” Dr. Annese said, as he watched a computer-guided blade scrape the first shaving of gray matter from Mr. Molaison’s frozen brain. “One down, 2,499 more to go.”

Dr. Annese carefully dropped the shaving into fluid. The procedure is being shown live online: thebrainobservatory.ucsd.edu/hm_live.php.

“It’s just amazing that this one patient — this one person — would contribute so much historically to the early study of memory,” said Dr. Susumu Tonegawa, a professor of neuroscience at the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at M.I.T. “And now his brain will be available” for future study.

Good fortune and very bad luck conspired to make Mr. Molaison one of science’s most valuable resources and most productive collaborators. Growing up in and around Hartford, he began to suffer seizures as a boy. The seizures grew worse after he was knocked to the ground by a bicycle rider, and by the time he was 26 they were so severe he consented to an experimental brain operation to relieve them.

His doctor, the prominent brain surgeon William Beecher Scoville, suctioned out two slug-sized slivers of tissue, one from each side of the brain. The operation controlled the seizures, but it soon became clear that the patient could not form new memories.

“He loved to converse, for example, but within 15 minutes he would tell you the same story three times, with same words and intonation, without remembering that he’d just told it,” said Suzanne Corkin, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied and followed Mr. Molaison in the last five decades of his life.

Each time he met a new acquaintance, each time he visited the corner store, each time he strolled around the block, it was as if for the first time.

Before H.M., scientists thought that memory was widely distributed throughout the brain, not dependent on any one area. But by testing Mr. Molaison, researchers in Montreal and Hartford soon established that the areas that were removed — in the medial temporal lobe, about an inch deep in the brain level with the ear — are critical to forming new memories. One organ, the hippocampus, is especially crucial and is now the object of intense study.

In a series of studies, Mr. Molaison soon altered forever the understanding of learning by demonstrating that a part of his memory was fully intact. A 1962 paper by Dr. Brenda Milner of the Montreal Neurological Institute described a landmark study in which she had Mr. Molaison try to trace a line between two five-point stars, one inside the other.

Each time he tried the experiment, it seemed to him an entirely new experience. Yet he gradually became more proficient — showing that there are at least two systems in the brain for memory, one for events and facts and another for implicit or motor learning, for things like playing a guitar or riding a bicycle.

In the new brain-mapping project here, set to catalog many donated brains, scientists will have the ability to study areas of Mr. Molaison’s brain at a level of detail that imaging cannot reveal, to solve lingering mysteries about the man and the brain.

Mr. Molaison stunned researchers several times, for instance, by demonstrating that he could hold onto some new memories. He could reproduce exactly the floor map of his house on Crescent Drive in East Hartford, where he lived for years after his operation with his parents.

These and other scattered surprises suggest that Mr. Molaison’s brain, deprived of its central memory hub, recruited other nearby areas to try to compensate, scientists say. Now researchers can begin to study these poorly understood areas more closely. One region, called the parahippocampal cortex, appears to support “familiarity” memory, the sensation that we have seen or heard something before, though we cannot place it.

“We’ve learned a lot about memory, we’re getting close to the fire, and H.M.’s brain will really help us clarify the division of labor in this area for making memories,” said Dr. Lila Davachi, a neuroscientist at New York University.

The dissection, a novel whole-brain technique, is part of a project known as the Brain Observatory and the culmination of a year of frantic preparation. Dr. Corkin arranged for Mr. Molaison’s brain to be preserved and imaged; up until Sunday the laboratory was tweaking its equipment, buying surfboard leashes at the last minute to support some of its freezing hoses.

“W e hope that this project as it grows will catalyze cooperation across many disciplines” to study disorders like amnesia, tremors, and dementias, Dr. Annese said. “But we wanted to kick it off with the most famous brain of them all.”

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/health/research/03brain.html?_r=1&ref=science

Di ft - Pubblicato in : Vivisection
Scrivi un commento - Vedi i commenti - Segnala

Lunedì 7 dicembre 2009 1 07 /12 /2009 01:01

Primate Experimentation in the U.S.

Primate Experimentation in the U.S. on the rise

Primate Experimentation

in the U.S.

The National Picture

The Facts About Animal Experiments

Primate experimentation.. in the U.S. is out of control. All-time high 69,990 primates are imprisoned in US labs for experimentation.. � a five year increase of 31%. An equal amount are held captive for breeding, making the total closer to 120,000. We estimate that funding for primate experimentation.. has also increased reaching $1.6 billion during fiscal 2007. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is responsible for most of this waste. Experimentation.. on primates is funded by several federal agencies including NIH, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense.

Widespread Suffering

Many different species of primates including macaque monkeys, squirrel monkeys, baboons, and chimpanzees are experimented on in many different ways. Macaque monkeys are used most often, with baboons second and squirrel monkeys third. Isolation is severely stressful to primates. In fact, 10% of isolated primates are so severely stressed that they begin to engage in self-injurious behavior. Many different psychological experiments also stress primates severely. Many primates suffer terribly inside labs across the U.S.

Harvard � 2100 primates imprisoned; 55% infant mortality rate; over 300 primates in solitary confinement; many exhibiting signs of pathological behavior.

University of California, Davis � 7700 primates confined, records for 400 monkeys revealed 403 traumatic injuries, 143 amputations, along with 387 wounds, 221 bites, 70 abrasions, 171 lacerations, and 40 fractures. Experiments confine primates to restraint chairs and use water deprivation.

Wake Forest � imprisons over 1000 primates; monkeys are socially isolated, deprived of sleep and subjected to addiction drugs.

University of Wisconsin Madison -- (UW) imprisons approximately 1500 primates. Primates escape from cages severely injuring other animals. Other monkeys suffer with brain abscesses due to the bolting of devices into the bones of the skull.

University of California, San Francisco � Over 100 primates incarcerated; government documents reveal primates deprived of water for as much as 22 hours per day. Monkeys lose over 15% of their body weight and self mutilate in neurological experiments.

Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research � imprisons over 5700 primates; recently cited for beginning post-mortem dissection of a baboon that was not yet dead.

University of Washington, Seattle � Over 2200 primate imprisoned. Recently cited for performing unapproved surgical procedures � one researcher entirely removed the head of a primate.

Johns Hopkins University � confines over 800 primates; monkeys are used in drug addiction experiments and brain mapping projects which force electrodes directly into the brain of conscious animals.

University of Minnesota � imprisons over 180 primates; drug addiction experiments during which primates are so stressed that they rip out their own hair while screaming; other monkeys are deprived of water and socially isolated.

Charles River Laboratories � Recently cooked 32 primates to death due to heating malfunction; also improper handling of primates resulted in the injury & amputation of fingers due to negligence.

Vanderbilt University � Dozens of primates used in brain mapping experiments; one illegally deprived of water and used in brain-scraping procedure without anesthesia.

University of Michigan � over 300 primates incarcerated; 42 used in painful experiment involving dipping the tail into 131 degree water without any pain relief; monkeys spend decades in drug addiction studies, isolated from members of their own species and connected to metal spring arms.

Many diseases and conditions plague the primates that are held captive within laboratories, such as: meningitis, pneumonia, encephalitis, hepatitis, and gastric bloat. Monkeys often lose fingers, toes, and tails through amputation.

Common experimental practices include depriving primates of food or water so that these things become effective rewards. In some instances, the primates may receive water for only an hour or two per day, or are deprived of as much as 20% of their regular food intake.

The use of primate restraint chairs is also common, with confinement reaching as much as 104 consecutive hours. These devices are highly stressful for normally active and mobile primates. In brain mapping experiments many devices are literally bolted onto the skulls of primates, and electrodes are fed directly into the brain. Intravenous catheters are surgically implanted in experiments with addictive drugs. These devices can lead to serious infections, and other potentially fatal conditions.

Government Waste

Most primates are not used in experiments that study the diseases that kill most Americans. Projects that study primate psychology, alcohol & addictive drugs, brain-mapping, and sex in primates far outnumber studies involving heart disease or cancer. Repetition is rampant among NIH-funded projects. Currently, the National Eye Institute funds 57 projects that use primates in brain-mapping. These duplicative experiments waste over $110 million every five years. Many of these projects continue on for decades wasting millions of tax dollars each year and victimizing primates for an entire lifetime.

What you can do to help:

1. Read, copy, and distribute this fact sheet.

2. Write to your federal legislators to request a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded primate experimentation...

The Honorable (name here)
U.S. House of Representatives..
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-234-3121 - www.house.gov

Senator (name here)
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-234-3121 - www.senate.gov

3. Send as large a tax-deductible donation as you can afford to Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN) to support this campaign.

Source: SAEN
Posted By: One Voice