Beagles in Experiments
A friend in SAFE tells me that TV3 will show on 60 Minutes tonight details of a New Zealand animal breeding facility that is one of the largest animal-testing facilities in the Southern Hemisphere.
The facility is thought to have up to 200 beagles being used for research.
SAFE have set up a an online petition, a public forum and a website at www.banbeagleexperiments.org.nz, available immediately after the screening of 60 Minutes. The site is partially available now and looks very slick.
I’m not opposed to all animal use in research, but I think it is a very valid debate about what the extents should be, and how necessary each individual research case is.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
August 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Abused Babies – Abused Beagles – Abused Politicians – Who do we abuse next?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I like beagles.
I don’t like testing being done on animals, but I’m the first to admit it is an emotional thing not a scientific one.
I agree that it should be determined by issues such as what is being tested & why?
What does the animal go through and is it necessary?
are there real alternatives, even if they are more expensive?
You can test as many rats as you like, but beagles….not liking it.
Totally hypocritical I know.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
My personal experience with ‘60 minutes’ and ‘Fair Go’ would indicate the programme will provide viewers with a sensationalist, unbalanced and largely untruthful impression of what is being done in this establishment which no doubt will be compliant in every way with regulatory restrictions and ethical guidelines. You can predict it will be pilloried by the same journalists who lack the gumption to ask government ministers whether their information about John Key came from private investigators.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Next you’re going to tell me the airport sniffer Beagles aren’t drug addicts.
They’re supposed to get that keen for a soft toy.
How many internationally duplicated animal research projects?
August 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
It’s a difficult one – as a dog owner I know how intelligent dogs are and to inflict unnecessary suffering on them makes me sick.
In order to advance medical science to improve understanding for currently incurable or little known diseases I realise that some testing does have to happen but believe this should be as non invasive as possible and not just to prove something that is already known ( but not proven) eg don’t drown a rat in a vat of oil just to prove a density theory.
The sad truth is that the general unwashed will never really know what goes on or the extent of suffering a poor defenceless animal undergoes. I hope more human guinea pigs are used in the future – these people at least have the side effects explained
August 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“I hope more human guinea pigs are used in the future – these people at least have the side effects explained”
Exactly. These tests should be done on voluntary human individuals.
Principally it’s an issue of consent. Bestiality is ethically reprehensible as it involves humans harming animals for their own ends without the possibility of consent. Similarly, an animal cannot consent to being subjected to life-threatening and excruciating tests. It’s absolutely sick.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Fuck, i am owned by 3 yank cockers ,LETS go and cut the balls of the testing labority head, that might get his attention that animal lovers hate bastards like him, TEST on maori child killers ,there heaps of them , one every week
and dont give me that BORING crap that by killing animals we are saving child killers OPPS people, ie poor little kids that could be killed , by people who should be experimented on,CHILD KILLERS again, ps who works there, are there links , protests planned, , wheres this death camp ,RN
August 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
as a dog owner I know how intelligent dogs are and to inflict unnecessary suffering on them makes me sick
A pig is as intelligent as a dog, it really is. The thought of pigs being raised solely to be eaten makes me rather queasy.
I am no vegetarian, but I prefer to eat chicken to the higher animals. Chickens are so thick I have no qualms about eating them. To illustrate their thickness, we were at Raro Fried Chicken in Avarua a fortnight ago, and the stupid things were walking right in the door hunting for titbits, even though their relatives were being served to the customers.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
No doubt this topic will bring the wowsers out, people don’t seem to have too many problems with pig hunting, 1080 poisoning, warfarin rat bait, etc. But the thought of relatively humane medical experiments on cute little puppies with soft brown eyes… Hey, maybe they could use pitbulls instead.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
As an animal lover but sadly not a dog owner (Mum wont allow) Im with red neck as regards testing If I had my way the bastards locked up for the really bad offences would be offered the chance to be tested and hey Id even consider some reduction to their sentence (if they lived).
But please dont hurt the little furry friends.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It’s the unnecessary experiments that cause suffering such aas this taken from a website studyworld
‘It was already known that Strontium 90 is unhealthy before
the beagles died; and the experimenters who poisoned dogs and pigs with
Methoxychlor knew beforehand that the large amounts they were feeding
the animals (amounts no human could ever consume) would cause damage. In any case, as the differing results they obtained on pigs and dogs make it clear, it is not possible to reach any firm conclusion about
the effects of a substance on humans from tests on other species. The
practice of experimenting on non-human animals as it exists today
throughout the world reveals the brutal consequences of speciesism’
couldn’t have said it better –
and another one
But just how often do animal tests predict side effects in humans? Surprisingly, although it is central to the legitimacy of animal testing, only a dozen or so scholars over the past 30 years have explored this question. The results, such as they are, have been somewhat discouraging. One of the scientists, Ralph Heywood, stated in 1989 that “there is no reliable way of predicting what type of toxicity will develop in different species to the same compound.” The concordance between man and animal toxicity tests, he said, assessing three decades of studies on the subject, was somewhere below 25 percent. “Toxicology,” concluded Heywood, “is a science without a scientific underpinning.”
In 1999, the Health and Environmental Science Institute, a Washington, D.C.,-based group that brings together business, academic, and government experts to assess risks in public health, began a thorough examination. Working with confidential data provided by 12 pharmaceutical companies on 150 compounds that had produced a variety of toxic effects in people, an institute-hosted workshop found that only 43 percent of the drugs produced similar problems in rodents, and 63 percent did so in nonrodents. These are not reassuring numbers. (Though they would look better if the institute’s review had included the 90 percent of drug candidates that are screened out by animal toxicity, and thus never even tested on humans.)
Industry, academic, and government scientists agree that science is in need of better animal models for testing drug safety. “Put simply, the inability to predict the human toxicity of drugs is what’s breaking the promise of genomics to drug development,” says Paul Watkins, a North Carolina physician who is advising the institute. The high-tech biology era has seen the discovery of thousands of new targets for pharmaceuticals, but the number of drug failures remains as high as ever. It’s painful for the drug industry when $500 million goes toward developing a drug that then must be scrapped because of side effects that only surface in human trials. And it’s bad for the public as well when a product like Rezulin, Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug, is withdrawn from the market for causing liver disease and deaths after 800,000 patients have taken it.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Experiments are one thing.
But Beagle steaks?
Yumbo
August 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“Exactly. These tests should be done on voluntary human individuals.”
Good luck finding volunteers if it’s got a high chance of death.
Not content with wanting to set our economies back thirty years, nome wants to have a crack at doing the same to medical science.
I don’t know the specifics of this case yet, and you won’t catch me defending all animal testing. I am deeply opposed to animal testing for trivial things, cosmetics etc, but say, if finding a cure for cancer means killing a few beagles….. sorry guys but the puppy gets it!
A human life is worth more than a dog’s.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
red neck: please do not make death threats on the blog.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
FUCK lets experiment on banjos, spleen,or soul ,you know banjo , hes the father of the possible kid killer , hell as i said theres the extensive family out there, to cut up , the body snatchers could be tested , they claim to be the first in NZ , so they are better than dogs to kill ,.Once you get past the lion red, dak and p , good test subjects,opps go around the dpb,plus the unemployed cards , plastic ruin tests, RN
August 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
By 1969 85 percent of new drugs were tested on inmates in 42 US prisons. They volunteered in return for sentence reduction and/or money, if I recall correctly.
But the National Commission for the Protection of Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research took a stand against it, the FDA followed suit and by the early 1980s the practice had stopped.
Now the Institute of Medicince has recommended it be looked at again, provided that “because prisoners face restrictions on liberty and autonomy, limited privacy, and often inadequate health care, they require specific protections when involved in research”. And of course the usual rules about informed consent etc are followed.
We talk about prisoners “paying their debt to society” but of course they don’t. They’re simply locked away and brutalised for a time to “teach them a lesson”. This would be one way those who were willing could genuinely pay their debt, and be rewarded for it.
The Nuremburg Code sets out the principles governing experiments on human volunteers. Provided that was adhered to, why could not prisoners – and other people who wished to volunteer – be used instead?
Possibly because, while some people are altruistic enough to allow themselves to be used to see if a potential cancer cure works, no one is going to line up to have Paris Hilton’s new Eau de Skank poured into their eyes to see what happens. And thus the fallacious “need” for animal experiments will continue to be trotted out, when human volunteers and computer modelling would suffice instead.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I’m not against some testing but whats the bet heaps of experiments etc are thought up so someone can get a PhD or get to present a paper at some great biology nobs conference?
August 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Animal experimentation is tightly controlled with ethics approvals required and declarations around methodology and suffering needing to be reported and monitoring. There’s a regular report produced on the number of animals (by species) being tested on and the amount of suffering the animals have experienced. Bear in mind, “animal testing” can include experimentation that might involve very little by way of discomfort or pain. It’s not all electrodes in the brain.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Save the beagles. Save the rats. Testing on politicians though. Hmmmm, worth some consideration.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
In the 2005 report, over 11,000 rodents were declared to have suffered very severe suffering. No “other domestic mammals” had this level of suffering. But 11 “other domestic mammals” were exposed to severe suffering. I love dogs and am opposed to them being experimented on. But I think you need take a consistent view on this. Surely animal animal suffering – regardless of whether its rat or a cuddly beagle is wrong?
August 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I can’t speak for the 11,000 but the few rodents that make their way into my home experience very very severe suffering.
On that basis, and wanting to be consistent, I can’t bring myself to condem those that do in the name of science what i do in the name of a rodent-free residence.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
some 380,000 thousand animals are experimented on each year..
dead duck ..and adolf..
are talking absolute crap..
the specifics of the sufferings of these animals would horrify any tinking/feeling human..
i’m just off to bob dylan..
(c’mon..!..dpf gloats regularly about his gaddings about..
and hey..!..it is bob..!..eh..?
when i get back..or 2morrow..i will dig up the exact stats for you..
and the definitions of the different degrees of pain they are ‘licensed’ to perform..
from moderate..to ’severe’..
many are duplications of experiments already carried out..
and all these animals..no matter the degree of suffering they have endured..
are killed by the ‘experimenters’
those devils in white coats..
it is all the horrors ..and more ..of the old psychiatric hospitals..
and like that..
done out of sight of all of us..
and the ‘ethics’ committee ‘authorising these horrors..
are sick fucks..
and the people committing these horrors on defenceless..beautiful animals..
coldly..and as their days’ work..
are..in my opinion..
some of the sickest fucks that live amongst us..
they are drenched in blood and suffering..
and i fucken loathe them..
and it is with pride that i note that my first political ‘action’..ever..was a spontaneous liberating of a dog from a courier van..that was taking it to the railway station..to be sent to wellington..
to be experimented on..
she lived a long and happy life..
(bob calls..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Surely animal animal suffering – regardless of whether its rat or a cuddly beagle is wrong?
No. It is not surely the case. This is a value judgment. Some will disagree with you. Please recognise and respect that.
I think many people would embrace animal testing if it were their child’s suffering that it alleviates.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
VirginBlogger, the report you quote gives the answer. Animal testing rules out a bunch of drugs that are then never tested on people (90% in your quote). Of the remaining 10%, the animal testing didn’t predict the human response. Presumably there was no or minimal animal response, so we are talking about drugs that didn’t impact animals but did impact humans.
Doesn’t this all stand to reason? We filter out the ones that have bad issues by using animals, then we do controlled human trials on the rest. Who here would really put their hand up for some drug company doing a test on them without having testing on any animals first? How would you know that you wouldn’t drop dead 2 seconds after ingesting it? That couldn’t possibly be a reasonable way to do things.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
‘Surely animal animal suffering – regardless of whether its rat or a cuddly beagle is wrong?’
Yes, of course it’s wrong. 4,000,000 animals have endured endless suffering at the hands of these heartless cruel experimenters who think they know best.
When will a journalist of two ask the hard questions of the cruel and heartless social experimentors who call themselves Labour?
August 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
tell me phil, do you wear leather shoes?
August 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
David – the link to the petition site from the post don’t work.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
This was an interesting if not somewhat sensational documentary on the use of beagle dogs in medical testing in New Zealand. A vet has set up a facility for doing final stage pre-clinical testing which, in order to get drugs into phase I clinical trials must usually be done in mice, rats and dogs as a minimum requirement. It is almost mandatory that if you want a drug to make it to market it is approved by the US FDA.
The vet who runs the establishment gave a good balanced case for humane animal experimentation. The usual protagonists argued that it is not acceptable under any circumstances and there were highly sensational clips of cruelty from a UK establishment ten years ago.
Having worked closely with scientists for more than thirty years I have never seen any cases of cruelty. In fact the reverse is true and they tend to be very careful about the welfare of their animals both for moral and scientific reasons. My research involves the 3 Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) and computer modelling but it is definitely not enough and animal testing is necessary for both regulatory and scientific purposes.
In NZ due to the highly vocal animal rights lobby, new laws have imposed a highly bureaucratic regulatory environment where cruelty is now extremely unlikely. This has escalated the costs of animal test enormously and damaged our international competitiveness to a certain extent. However, no regulations will ever be enough for the hard core animal activists.
New Zealand’s international competitiveness is essential to prevent us slipping further down the OECD ladder, especially relative to our historical competitors such as Australia. Although the reasons for this are many, public resistance to the establishment of biotech industries does not help. New Zealand could have a highly competitive and successful pharmaceutical industry. We have the talent, we have a lot of the infrastructure but it looks like we may again see our competitiveness slip due to political expediency and over-regulation.
We don’t need any more university departments, quangos or CRIs What New Zealand needs now is a layer of lean green competitive private industry between the government (CRIs, universities) and the export and consumer sectors. This will allow our well trained, talented and highly motivated scientists and technicians to move easily between public and private sectors, stimulate growth in wages and conditions and encourage them to stay here for the long haul.
New Zealand is at a crossroad, despite the good economic conditions of the last 10-15 years. We can choose to be part of the first world economy where we are able to afford the level of universal health, education and social services we have come to enjoy, or continue to slip down the OECD ladder ever closer to the third world.
We live in a democracy, so the choice is up to us.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:05 am
krazykiwi asked if i wear leather..
the answer is no..
i don’t eat them either..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(fuck bob was good..!..
our seats were in the middle of the front row..
whoar..!..)
August 28th, 2007 at 12:10 am
hey !..kevin at ak uni..!
fuck off ..!..vivisectionist..!
may you fucken rot in hell..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 28th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Thank you Kevin. Just as I thought. There was no story, so they invented one.
Oh and phil. I love animals too. Like Whaleoil, my preference is medium rare.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
yes adolf..we have noticed..over the years’..
how you seem to have some sort of twisted pride in your (mainly aberrant) views.
what else is new..?
(and citing whale-blubber as your ’source’/authority..?..priceless..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Kevin at AK Uni has a very onesided view of the animal research regulations. Not surprising really as he admits he is involved in animal research himself. The closer your career is to animal research the less you see eh kevin?
The “highly bureacratic regulatory environment” Kevin talks about goes like this . . .
All animal researchers are required to have approval from an animal ethics committee made up mostly of researchers from their own organisation. The committee will have a few token external members, like an animal welfare representative from the local SPCA who is forbidden from reporting back to the SPCA or making any findings public. They also have a “public representative” from the local council, again, totally anonymous and forbidden from reporting back to the public. The meeting minutes are all secret, the membership of the committees are mostly anonymous (especially the “independent” and “public” representatives).
The animal ethics committee system was criticised by the Ombudsmens office as being secretive and open to abuse due to their being dominated by internal members of the research organisations. It is these committees that are in charge of deciding whether each experiment is justified. No one else, certainly not anyone independent from the research organisation, has any current information on what research is being done, let alone has a say over whether it is justified.
Kevin ends with ”We live in a democracy, so the choice is up to us”
It would be nice if we did have a choice Kevin, but we don’t. The whole animal research system is propped up with taxpayers money, but we as taxpayers have no say in what’s goes on, we are not allowed to know the facts and we are expected to trust the animal researchers to regulate themselves (with our money).
We are expected to take their word for it when they say they are saving ‘countless children’s lives’ while feeling awful about it, but unfortunately its necessary to spend tax money on secret experiments with no benefit to anyone except the guy getting paid to do them
That is not democracy Kevin, we do not have a choice and the animals certainly have no choice. If you and your vivisector mates are so certain that what you are doing is ethical and worthwhile, why don’t you let us see what is going on? Why don’t you publish the details of the ethics committee meetings, and why don’t you allow an informed debate?
Animal researchers are scared of open debate because they know they will lose
August 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I wonder how many people who object to testing medicines and drugs on animals reject the treatments derived from such testing when they themselves are in need of them due to illness or injury? I’d say about…None.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
You’d be exactly….Right!
August 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am
There are Buddhist monks who refuse to take antibiotics as these kill living organisms inside them.
A cancerous tumour is also alive in a sense, growing and reproducing, but I doubt any of those who oppose animal testing would refuse to have one excised from their own body in order to allow the cancer to live. Of course, a foetus has the potential to be a full human being, but I am pretty sure many of the ‘anti-vivisectionist’ brigade are happily pro-abortion.
If these experimentts weren’t being carried out on sweet fluffy dogs but cockroaches the PR outrage they can generate would be minimal.
This stance is based on a ’science bad, doggy cute’ level of analysis.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“This stance is based on a ’science bad, doggy cute’ level of analysis.”
Which is why I always donate to the Malagan Institute street appeal each year.
BTW – How do you do those block quote thingies when quoting someone else?
August 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
In reply to Mike S, I am opposed to vivisection because it doesnt work.
I am pro science, therefore I am opposed to force feeding chemicals to beagles and calling it a safety test. Any medical doctor will tell you that differently species react differently to different drugs You don’t go to a vet when you are sick and you don’t take your cat to your doctor. Less vivisection and more science please.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Goodness, doesn’t this inspire you to think laterally, Kiwi entrepreneurs
The Chinese will eat anything that walks swims or flies.
How easy an ad campaign (I even smell a subsidy) in China to introduce them to NZ Possum. Of course, that’s actually like Rus Crow in reverse but the Aussie won’t mind.
If every Chinese whose name starts with W ate possum once a month, well NZ possum problem solved and no 1080 to sully the clean green image.
I can but dream.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Sorry David , , we wont do terminal testing on dog killers .i should have made it clearer,, but they will have sweet high singing voices, from the directer down to the animal tortures in their labs(IF I WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE MY WAY with a sharp knife) , these animal abusers wear clean white dust coats and are so educated , but with no souls, Did i make a death threat,not me , THEY ARE THE ONES KILLING DOGS ,opps sorry for shouting, , a wee bit pissed of
August 28th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“Animal researchers are scared of open debate because” there are a small number of disturbed people out there who will break the law to get their own way and we want to protect our staff and property.
In new Zealand we have a very high ethical standard for animal experimentation. Many other countries don’t have those laws and are in direct competition with us. YOU MR GG will not refuse the treatment when the chips are down.
So because of YOU these experiments WILL be done. We can do the well here UNDER OUR HUMANE REGULATIONS and develop our industrial capacity or they can be done bad overseas and the money will devlop our thrid world competitors economies.
Rational New Zealanders, please – YOU CHOOSE…………..
August 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
hey ..!..kevin at ak uni.!
fuck off..!..poxy vivisector..!
you are a cruel/inhumane torturer of defenceless animals..
360,000 of which are tortured..(and then all killed!)..each year..
you are fucken evil personified..
you sick fuck..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Of course …youcan just eat a dog for the hell of it.
To show philu whose boss.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
1. Oh Come on Kevin, thats pathetic. your average Judge or MP gets more death threats than a vivisector and they don’t hide behind closed doors and refuse to justify themselves
2. The only people who keep going an about “NZs high ethical standards” are the same people who refuse to tell us what is going on in the labs. NZs animal research regulations are designed to protect vivisectors not animals. the system is set up so that any experiment can be approved as long as you fill in the right forms. Part 6 of the animal welfare act specifically excludes any researcher from cruelty prosecutions as long as they get approval from an ethics committee (which meets in secret and is run by their mates). There are no ethical standards or strict regulations, stop talking rubbish Kevin
3. As I said before I like science and I like that we have high tech medicine. Animal research is fraudulent rubbish that has nothing to do with medical progress, and a lot of scientists and medical professionals agree, check out http://www.curedisease.net for examples
August 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I believe it wrong to mistreat an animal for any reason.
My belief is basically the old if u have killing chains u will have wars…
for the respect for life is diminished
and u will have beagles petrified of the white coats, pleading for help with their eyes..
I believe it wrong to mistreat an animal for any reason.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I cannot believe that the beagle killer , (im saving the world by testing on them)isnt known .This dog killer if he was a straight up MAN, would say i own the acme dog testing and killing company registered, with share holders from all around New Zealand, ,is this firm so secret that it isnt known, come on David , it must be known
August 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I have no idea what phil u’s preoblem with duplicated test is, but
this is just bizaree:
Mr G:1. Oh Come on Kevin, thats pathetic. your average Judge or MP gets more death threats than a vivisector and they don’t hide behind closed doors and refuse to justify themselves
Most of the people who make threats to judges and MPs are just venting thir spleen or trying to feel big. On the other hand the antivivisectionist movement contains zealots who do, in fact, engage in arson and other
criminal acts.
I’m reminded of an anti-GE protestor I met at an ERMA hearing earlier
this year who was whining that Crop & Food were conducting their GE experiments in a secret location. When I pointed out that they were
probably concerned that revealing its location would lead to vandalism
she responded that “someone had to do something”. She genuinely thought that she and her friends should know where the trials were being conducted so that they would know where to send their vandals.
3. As I said before I like science and I like that we have high tech medicine. Animal research is fraudulent rubbish that has nothing to do with medical progress, and a lot of scientists and medical professionals agree, check out http://www.curedisease.net for examples
Thats just nonsense. Animal research is not fraudulent rubbish. Unfortunately most antivivisectionists have little understanding of science beyond what they read in newspapers. The website is flaky.