Your views on animal experimentation are backward and offensive - what gives humans the right to experiment on animals?? You are one of those scientists that puts his career over compassion.

I so agree well done zara

People like him make me ill.

relatives have the right to makee there own choices.

animal testing for medical reasons i reckon is ok...but for makeup etc it is uneccessary so i dunno - maybe we dont need it.

Jen is right - the choices your relatives make are their own - I can't influence them. Johanstein or whatever you're called - your views are SO pro-animal testing that it is offensive - you do not need to be so brutal, we all get your point, but why should we all agree with it just because we're scientists?? I bet you're one of those types that cause arguements in an empty room. What do you think of Heat magazine??

lol zara that was spot on. I think jo is the type of person who can't live without arguing.

crystal I have the same views as you. Its very difficult to get the right balance. I only take drugs if I realy need to in order to avoid animal tested products. We can't turn back the clock be we can try and progress look into alternatives.

I still think we should use pedophiles.

"I do however actively refuse drugs that have recently been introduced to the market."

Crystal, I respect your opinion and freedom of choice on this matter but I find it hard to understand your reasoning behind the above statement? Why boycott recent drugs when all drugs have been tested on animals at some stage of development? If anything, newer drugs probably involve less animal work that older drugs did thanks to the influence of technology (computer modelling of likely target molecules, cell culture, in vitro-in vivo correlation work, clinical trial simulation etc.).

If it's any comfort, your GP will very likely offer you older drugs as a first line therapy anyway as they will be off patent and hence available as a cheap generic version. :o)

yeah def use pedophiles

thanks crystal I will have a look at that :)

Sure, I agree that it's all about being able to make your own choices and doing your best to follow a life style that you feel comfortable with and if that works for you then great.

Personally, I don't see the difference between a drug tested on animals 10 years ago and one tested on animals last year, other than the fact that the more recently developed drug is likely to have involved less animal testing (due to improved technology) and under much more stringent regulations too.

Hi Crystal

Yes, it is nice to have a proper debate :o)

Re: new vs older drugs
When a drug has been licensed for treating a human medical condition, there is no further need for continued animal testing. Testing on animals is done at a very early stage to establish the drug's basic pharmacological effects and to examine potential acute and chronic toxicities. Once the drug has been approved for human use (following successful phase 1 (first time in man studies) and then proven efficacy in patients), then any further development (dose optimization for example) continues in humans.

Continued in next post…

As for the leather belt/shoes analogy, surely that is like someone deciding to become a vegetarian and then finding a beef lasagne in the freezer a week later and eating it anyway, because else it would be a waste? I appreciate your point that using stuff you already have has no effect on demand (and hence, doesn’t encourage further manufacture of leather based goods), but would you feel the same about someone with a old fur coat in their wardrobe? Would it be acceptable to wear that?

NB not trying to ‘catch you out’ here, I think there is a big difference between a pair of leather shoes (which I would wear) and a fur coat (which I would never wear) in terms of ethical acceptability, but really they are effectively both animal skins? I guess it’s like you say, you have to do your best and find what you are comfortable with.