Very good find, Catherine! I hadn't seen this article before. I felt tempted to "sticky" it, but wasn't sure where to put it apart from the current section.
Yes, you draw attention to a vital point: animals do not have the same bodies as humans, put very simply. They get different diseases to humans, and react differently to treatments. Their diets are different, too.
One example of the stupidity of relying on animal experiments was, of course, thalidominde. That tested OK on animals - but malformations resulted in humans. I won't go into details, as we have discussed that issue in previous threads.
The animal experimenters shout loud when they get an occasional success, but the countless failures get hushed up - except in cases like the article you have cited. A failure rate of 99.6% is, sadly, not that uncommon.
As we have also discussed previously, tissue culture is now widely used in experiments, thus avoiding the use of animals. Use of human tissue cultures means that results are much more likely to work. The trouble is that, whilst many researchers have moved on, some resolutely refuse to abandon use of animals. "We've built these large expensive laboratories with hundreds of cages; we can't give it up....." This attitude can be seen, for example, in the different approach of Cancer Research Wales (only funds cancer research without use of animals) and Cancer Research UK (uses animals).
The sad thing is that most people just don't know. They emotionally raise money for cancer research (e.g. they know a person ill with cancer), but do not go into how the money will be spent. All it takes is a little research and the money can still be spent on cancer research, but without the pointless suffering of animals.
Yes, you draw attention to a vital point: animals do not have the same bodies as humans, put very simply. They get different diseases to humans, and react differently to treatments. Their diets are different, too.
One example of the stupidity of relying on animal experiments was, of course, thalidominde. That tested OK on animals - but malformations resulted in humans. I won't go into details, as we have discussed that issue in previous threads.
The animal experimenters shout loud when they get an occasional success, but the countless failures get hushed up - except in cases like the article you have cited. A failure rate of 99.6% is, sadly, not that uncommon.
As we have also discussed previously, tissue culture is now widely used in experiments, thus avoiding the use of animals. Use of human tissue cultures means that results are much more likely to work. The trouble is that, whilst many researchers have moved on, some resolutely refuse to abandon use of animals. "We've built these large expensive laboratories with hundreds of cages; we can't give it up....." This attitude can be seen, for example, in the different approach of Cancer Research Wales (only funds cancer research without use of animals) and Cancer Research UK (uses animals).
The sad thing is that most people just don't know. They emotionally raise money for cancer research (e.g. they know a person ill with cancer), but do not go into how the money will be spent. All it takes is a little research and the money can still be spent on cancer research, but without the pointless suffering of animals.
