🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11244@cca.UUCP>, libby@cca.UUCP (Libby Sackett) writes:
>   My examples:
> >>	Take the following two examples.  By a structure-function
> >>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe.  As a matter of fact,
> 
> >>	Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound.
> >>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable.  Rats

> It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing
> for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc.  There are lots
> of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at 
> results like the above.  "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can
> we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?"  "Uh...I can't say."

	As much as I hate to be involved in run-on discussions, I also
hate to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.  The logical leap that
Libby Sackett makes in response to my examples is essentially 
unjustified.   There is a long experience to suggest that most chemicals
that are harmful in a proper animal model are in fact harmful to humans.
Furthermore, interspecies differences in reaction provide an insight into
the mechanism and action of compounds.  It is the converse that is not
true: just because something is safe in animals does not mean it is
safe in humans.   However, anything harmful to animals should be
considered harmful to humans until proven otherwise (and frankly I
don't think the effort to prove otherwise is generally undertaken).
	One can never completely eliminate animal research.  There
is some, admittedly, that is redundant and unneccesaary, but one
cannot generalize. One cannot generalize!


-- 
			      Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91)
				!philabs!aecom!werner
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
   "If you've heard this story before, don't stop me. I want to hear it again."