Why we use Animals in Medical Research

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Speaking of Research is a campus-oriented organization, which seeks to get students and scientists to speak openly about the importance of animal research in the development of lifesaving medical treatments.

Tom Holder, spokesman of Speaking of Research, was a key member of the UK movement “Pro-Test”, which helped win the British public over on the issue of animal testing.

In this video, Speaking of Research challenge some of the misinformation that is spread around by animal rights groups on the subject of vivisection.

The presentation was filmed at a Speaking of Research talk at Oregon Health & Sciences University.

For more information, go to:


Linda Yarrow says:

I can see the logic of this. If, for instance, alcoholics can be viewed as people who drink like a fish, then fish can act as models for alcoholism. It's a contrived connection which will allow you to board the research grant gravy train. Great for getting little Dexter and Felix through college without having to think hard for a living.

natija08 says:

In my opinion many scientists who experiment on animals are only afraid to loose their jobs if experimentation on animals would be banned.
This are egoistic motives.
I saw undercover videos which clearly show how brutal and cruel and often totally unnecessary those experiments are.
Open your labs to the public, let the public see what you are doing and in a few weeks all testing on animals will be forbidden because they are so cruel.

Fred Finizzi says:

one animal or a million animals they all deserve to live their natural lives unmolested.

justjanexxx says:

Somehow I think that the argument is not that of your specieism, but rather, that all beings, lesser included, posess some inherent value to which it is necessitated that as an advanced human species, we must respond responsibly

misspinkpunkykat says:

Just because some medicines were developed using animals in the past, it doesn't mean we should or even need to do so today.

MalcolmRichards8 says:

Fleming administered penicilin into the spinal canal of a patient who was close to death in order to MAGNIFY its effectiveness in the shortest span of time. Although the procedure went against medical convention, it worked. His patient recovered. The death of Florey's cat, which underwent the same procedure, would have 'informed' Fleming not to proceed. Prior to this event, data from rabbit experimentation led Fleming to shelve penicillin as a systemic antibiotic. The data were wrong.

Tom Holder says:

Florey's cat died because he injected penicillin directly into the spinal cord – not the method used to administer in humans (it can cause damage to the nervous system). Florey also tried a similar method to a friend who was very lucky to survive – in reality the death of Florey's cat probably saved many people by warning him against spainal injections.

MalcolmRichards8 says:

shelved the drug for all time.Penicillin was resurrected as a potential antibiotic when Fleming injected the drug into the spine of a seriously ill patient.It was a case of do or die .Because the results of such a procedure were unknown,Florey tried it out on a sick cat.Fleming's patient improved; Florey's cat died.Animal experimentation produced a rat's nest of conflicting and contradictory data which,as Fleming himself has stated, could have resulted in the loss of penicillin as an antibiotic.

MalcolmRichards8 says:

Like all vivisectionists, you cherry-pick sets of animal data to suit an outcome in humans. This is why so many retrospective studies are conducted. It's 'evidence' generated after the human trial to 'prove' the veracity of animal experimentation as a predictive mode of science. The fact is, Fleming's experiments on rabbits indicated to him that penicilllin could not be used as a systemic antibiotic. This delayed the introduction of penicillin, at best. It could have, as Parke has stated,

Tom Holder says:

Fortunately, no one "blindly accepts" any results – you work it through. Had they tested the early product in humans they would have killed them. Does that mean humans are a bad model? No!!
Penicillin works in most animals and we understand why the few exceptions don't work. Chain and Florey did some great work in vitro, but they also did some crucial steps in vivo – had any of these steps been missed we would not have penicillin.

MalcolmRichards8 says:

Fleming was there, you were not. Had he and other researchers blindly accepted, as you evidently do, animal experimentation as a predictive mode of science (that one type of animal can model another) penicillin would not have made it to the point where it could be purified for use by the general population. Fleming meant what he said. As for Chain and Florey, their research produced a purified product from a knowledge of basic chemistry and a utilization of cell cultures in vitro.

Tom Holder says:

But Chain and Florey DID do a mouse safety protection test in 1939 (11 years after it had been discovered, but ignored for human use). It was only after the overwhelming results of this experiment, and further animal experiments, that it was moved to humans.
Early failed experiments in animals was due to early instability of the purified serum (which would have also killed humans in that form)

MalcolmRichards8 says:

father's life, could have been lost to medicine due to the misleading results of experiments on animals. His views and those of Fleming were published in the journal ATLA 1994, 22:207-209. I quote: ''My former teacher, Sir Alexander Fleming, in his late years, chided me, saying 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.'

MalcolmRichards8 says:

Your version of events is correct. My father was wounded by a Japanese soldier in the Burma campaign during WW11. He was sent to a field hospital where he underwent surgery, and was given penicillin. He was among the first to receive it. Some decades later, I was able to talk to Professor Dennis Parke, a former student of Fleming, and the scientist who introduced this antibiotic to British field hospitals, about my father and penicillin. I was surprised to learn that what had helped to save my

Tom Holder says:

I think you're confused. Penicillin WAS shelved until it was used on mice. Penicillin works on most animals – the exceptions are the few which have gram positive intestinal flora (like guinea pigs) which it will kill. Remember that Florey and Chain shared the Nobel Prize with Fleming because of their work with animals.

Chuck Fiorentino says:

This guy has his facts all wrong. Just with penicillin alone. Animal studies showed it to be ineffective and the drug was almost shelved completely until a doctor used it on a pt as a last effort, only to find that it was a very effective antibiotic with humans. The idea that you can translate what you see in animals to people is just really bad science and the United States is YEARS behind other countries in non animal means of discovering medications.

Write a comment