I believe that animal testing is a necessary evil, but it can be done while preserving the animal's dignity.  There is pretty much no way of replicating the interaction of biological systems in a living/breathing model on a computer (one of PETA's suggestions).

I would have to disagree with that (that it is a necessary evil). The PCRM has developed many many teaching methods that can be performed without harming an animal. Being physicians, they walk the walk and talk the talk when it comes to this issue. I do not value my life more then an animals. It's why I'm vegan. Many don't agree with that train of thought...but it the way I choose to live my life...hopefully on the same level as animals. Just because I can out think a cow, goat, pig or monkey, it does not mean my life is worth any more then hers or his.

PCRM link again regarding Medical School Animal Testing and the methods they have developed that eliminate the need for it:
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/meded/

I checked it out, and it's mostly about medical education rather than medical testing.  The section on medical testing suggests that in vitro and in silico testing is as good or better, but it only provides a comparison to rats.  The FDA requires a non-rodent model also.  Maybe the FDA should require more non-rodent models... but that would make testing extremely expensive... in turn pushing up drug costs.

The idea that a computer model would satisfy testing is a little outrageous, because it assumes that scientists know everything (or almost everything) that is going on in the body... otherwise, he/she wouldn't be able to program a particular set of reactions that forms the basis of the computer simulation.  This can't replicate the complex interaction of organ systems.  There are always unforeseen effects (i.e. side effects and off-label drug uses).

Firefightress, I don't mean to single you out... but I've seen the diet argument before (PETA pitches it), and I have to say that it seems a bit unfair.  It's true that we would be healthier if we all ate well (obesity is one of the leading causes of preventable death), but that suggests that a lot of disease is by choice.  Choosing to eat poorly leads to disease... and it's the patient's own fault that he got sick.  That is unfair to those individuals who have suffered a confluence of circumstances beyond their control - gamma rays, some environmental factors, genetics, socioeconomic status leading to poor education.  We need to continue testing on animals in order to develop drugs AND educate people to have better diets.

I checked it out, and it's mostly about medical education rather than medical testing.  The section on medical testing suggests that in vitro and in silico testing is as good or better, but it only provides a comparison to rats.  The FDA requires a non-rodent model also.  Maybe the FDA should require more non-rodent models... but that would make testing extremely expensive... in turn pushing up drug costs.

The idea that a computer model would satisfy testing is a little outrageous, because it assumes that scientists know everything (or almost everything) that is going on in the body... otherwise, he/she wouldn't be able to program a particular set of reactions that forms the basis of the computer simulation.  This can't replicate the complex interaction of organ systems.  There are always unforeseen effects (i.e. side effects and off-label drug uses).

You said:
The idea that a computer model would satisfy testing is a little outrageous, because it assumes that scientists know everything (or almost everything) that is going on in the body... otherwise, he/she wouldn't be able to program a particular set of reactions that forms the basis of the computer simulation.  This can't replicate the complex interaction of organ systems.  There are always unforeseen effects (i.e. side effects and off-label drug uses).

But what you left out was this very important fact:
Do you think that testing a drug on a rat, bunny, dog, etc....can replicate the response that a human will have? In the majority of the tests performed...a human does not have the same reaction to a drug as another species. That is a fact. Look at Vioxx...I'm sure I can research hundreds if not thousands of drugs that have had one result on a rat, or a dog...etc...that performed very differently for a human...most often with dire consequences for the human.

You also did not address the fact that many of the tests conducted on  laboratory animals are done over and over with the same results....results that are known by professors before the actual testing. Do you think those tests should still be done? Can the educator not tell the the final results to his/her students before subjecting animals to more cruelty?

A big point that the PCRM makes is that these test results in laboratory animals do NOT have the same results in humans.

Who are we? Why do many think that other living creatures are disposable to advance our own lives? You may not agree with my point of view...but I do not think we as humans have the right to cruelly test other living beings to advance our own lives.

You stated that the animals you worked on.... or had witnessed.... that were going through testing were treated humanly....an animal living it's life in a cage or crate is not living a humane life :-\ ....nor is it normal for the animal. No matter the test....it's not natural, nor humane for the animal being tested.....in ALL cases involved. Animal testing has for the most part been a complete failure. It's not until certain procedures or drugs are tested on humans that we know the real results. Sad that so many suffer for results so far from being helpful to us humans........ :'(

Besides reading and researching the subject myself....my ex-wife's grandfather (whom she was raised by along with her grandmother...a former professor at Columbia University) was a highly noted pathologist from NYC....
One who ran one of the premier cancer study clinics in the world. He has been published over and over and his work is still taught to this very day by medical institutions around the world. My own brother is a highly respected surgeon who is in the same field as an uncle of mine...he who is probably one of the most respected in his field (he teaches as well...they both do). They also both agree that the studies they have done in the past.....on lab animals (which they no longer do)....produced very different results in humans. Why testing of animals continues....who knows....but you must admit...a lab rat....a dog....or a pig....is NOT a human...nor will the results of testing a drug on any of them over and over produce the same exact results in a human. Testing drugs on human cells and tissues produce far better results over the long run....or so I've been told... ;)

But what you left out was this very important fact:
Do you think that testing a drug on a rat, bunny, dog, etc....can replicate the response that a human will have? In the majority of the tests performed...a human does not have the same reaction to a drug as another species. That is a fact. Look at Vioxx...I'm sure I can research hundreds if not thousands of drugs that have had one result on a rat, or a dog...etc...that performed very differently for a human...most often with dire consequences for the human.

You also did not address the fact that many of the tests conducted on  laboratory animals are done over and over with the same results....results that are known by professors before the actual testing. Do you think those tests should still be done? Can the educator not tell the the final results to his/her students before subjecting animals to more cruelty?

A big point that the PCRM makes is that these test results in laboratory animals do NOT have the same results in humans.

Who are we? Why do many think that other living creatures are disposable to advance our own lives? You may not agree with my point of view...but I do not think we as humans have the right to cruelty test other living beings to advance our own lives.

You stated that the animals you worked on.... or had witnessed.... that were going through testing were treated humanly....an animal leaving it's life in a cage or crate is not living a humane life :-\ ....nor is it normal for the animal. No matter the test....it's not natural, nor humane for the animal being tested.....in ALL cases involved. Animal testing has for the most part been a complete failure. It's not until certain procedures or drugs are tested on humans that we know the real results. Sad that so many suffer for results so far from being helpful to us humans........ :'(

Besides reading myself....my ex-wife's grandfather (whom she was raised by) was a highly noted pathologist
who ran one of the premier cancer study clinics in the world. My own brother is a highly respected surgeon who is in the same field as an uncle of mine....who is probably one of the most respected in his field (he teaches as well). They both agree that the studies they have done in the past.....on lab animals (which they no longer do)....produced very different results in humans. Why testing of animals continues....who knows....but you must admit...a lab rat....a dog....or a pig....is NOT a human...nor will the results of testing a drug on any of them over and over produce the same exact results in a human. Testing drugs on human cells and tissues produce far better results over the long run....or so I've been told... ;)

You bring up a ton of good points.

I have to point out, though... that animal testing isn't the be-all-end-all.  There are a lot of drugs eliminated in preclinical trials.  Then another huge batch eliminated in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials.  I've read about a University of Pittsburgh researcher who tries to get 3 drugs into preclinical trials per year just to get one drug to the market in 10 years.  There's just a huge elimination process... only PART of which is animal testing.  It's just a stepping stone to human testing... precisely because a pig is not a human.  That's why every drug requires clinical trials too.

As for the tests that are repeated... do you mean in medical education?  It might not be necessary, but you have to think about forms of knowledge.  Plato's analogy of the divided line is a great way of envisioning this (I had to brush up a bit at MIT's Internet Classics Archive): "let there be four faculties in the soul-reason answering to the highest, understanding to the second, faith (or conviction) to the third, and perception of shadows to the last."  It is possible to argue that not performing some of these experiments would result in the lower forms of understanding.  However, I do agree that some of it is a little excessive.  I have performed a number of dissections that I believe were pretty useless...

Are you sure that all animal testing has been a complete failure?  All of them went through preclinical trials AND clinical trials in humans.  Your example of vioxx isn't a failure of animal testing... it's a failure of human testing too.  Vioxx went through clinical trials just like any other drug.  In order to determine the longterm effects, you'd have to do longitudinal studies over several years - which is problematic due to the drug patent situation (drug patents don't last long enough for pharmaceuticals to find value in long term studies).  It's really really horrible and depressing, but there has to be an economic incentive.  You can't just trust people to be altruistic.  :(

We also have a lot of drugs that never made it to clinical trials, because they failed in animal models.  I mean... I can bring up examples for my side of the argument too: the researcher whose lab I worked in is a well-respected immunologist and transplantation surgeon.  His opinion is that animal models (especially primate models) are an absolute necessity in his research trying to determine a protocol for longterm graft survival.  On top of that we have antibiotics... and treatments/vaccinations for diseases that 50 years ago would have been fatal.

Animal testing is definitely not the be-all-end-all.  It's just a stepping stone.