I doubt the US government will ever change their laws on drug testing. Mainly because a longer process = more money for them (the FDA, government workers, taxes, etc.). In the long run, it's more economical in terms of taxes and application fees to NOT find a cure. Just to keep researching and testing.

I find it silly, personally, to test cancer drugs on animals once they have passed computerized models. I find it silly because there are terminally ill people out there right now, who only have MONTHS left to live. A clinical trial like that could be their last hope in survival. It's a risky gamble, but if it works - they won their life. If it doesn't - they haven't lost anything.

I know if I were dying of a terminal illness, and there was a drug in testing that could potentially cure me ... I'd be begging for them to test on me. It's my last shot at life. I'd rather take that shot than just sit around and die in my last 2 months.

Unfortunately, in America, I wouldn't be able to volunteer because of the laws governing clinical trials.

However, I do agree with dienkes88. This study does not prove that animal testing is flawed. But, rather, the researchers themselves are doing a bad job of it. Sounds like the reporter doesn't know how to interpret studies. However, for the record the UK is in the EU. ;)

We're not talking about a panacea here.  It's just a drug that "might" work better than what we have right now.

If I were dying anyway, I'd take ANY chance - no matter how slim.

I don't see why. No one is forcing a terminally ill and dying patient, who has no hope of a cure with the drugs on the current market, to agree to a clinical trial. Volunteering is the key word here.

As I said, if my LAST hope was a drug that only had a 1% chance of working ... sign me up! Because the only other alternative for me is to lie in bed, doing nothing but dying.

I'm all for volunteering. If a person values money more than they value their health (assuming they're not dying of a terminal illness) ... then this is their perrogative.

It would be unethical if companies lied to them about the risks. Risks should be spelled out, clearly, in a way that will make everyone understand. Also, the monetary compensation would be VERY tiny. Thus, making the profit motivation for the people who want to sign up non-existant, i.e. their time put in would not be worth the money they make. Sweatshops would yield better profit. Take away the profit motivation, and you have people who genuinely want a cure to their disease and believe the risk is worth it.

Or, better yet - leave out all monetary compensation. No money at all. This way, the only people who volunteer are those who are aware of the risks, and want to gamble on the odds.

Even, now, with clincal trials ... the risk is huge. People still sign up, and not for the money either. I have a friend in CA who just signed up for a new diabetes drug. He's not getting paid much for it. But, he's tired of injecting himself with insulin daily, and watching what he eats. So, the risk is worth it to him.

As I said, if I were dying, I'd sign up in a flash. I'd do it for free in the hopes that this slim chance may save me. Because, as a terminally ill patient, I would NOT have 20 years to wait. I don't even have 5 years to wait until a drug can go to a clinical trial.

There are countries who go straight to human clinical trials. I haven't heard of any mass human deaths as a result.

Well... I think that might be an overestimation of these newer drugs.  But your point that volunteerism is a crucial point to look at.  I think in such a situation... you're praying on the desperate.  These people are praying for any kind of hope you can give them.  And it wouldn't even be a 1% chance.  With a caner, if you're in end-stage testicular cancer with metastases in the lungs and brain... anything that's strong enough to destroy all the tumors is also going to kill you.  The difference between the current drugs and the experimental drugs aren't going to be these massive improvements.  It's going to decrease mortality from 40% to 30%.  It's going to have fewer side effects, less scarring, etc.  It's not going to bring you back from the brink.  That's what I meant by "we're not talking about a panacea."

Perhaps. However, we never know what the future will bring in terms of medicine and new drugs. So, options should be left open.

I just don't think people should be forced to not volunteer simply because there is some law stating every drug must be tested on animals before clinical trials. Free will, and freedom of choice is something I strongly believe in. If I want to gamble my life on a drug, I should be allowed to do so. Just like if I choose to end my life, instead of suffering through pain for weeks before I die "naturally" ... I should be allowed to do so.

Again, I believe in personal and individual freedom. And that includes the freedom to gamble with one's life.

Actually, I don't support companies who pay their workers unfair wages or have slave labor. I support only those companies who are ethical.

However, I do think it's a bit ridiculous to pay people the American standard wage in a developing country. Wages should be suited to the economy of the place.

This is a valid point. You are right.

My point was mainly that the OPTION to go straight to clinical trials should be there. If there are no volunteers, or not enough, then they can always go down the animal testing route.

You're naming developed countries. They already have all their laws in place. Developing countries, on the other hand, haven't quite gotten all their laws into play yet.

India has drugs out in their market that have not been tested on animals. Off the top of my head, there is their birth control. Unlike the pill in America, it has no serious side effects and has been used with no problems in India for years. I'm not sure if they have mandatory testing on animals now (things change fast in developing countries). But, at the time of this birth control, I know animal testing was not mandatory.

It's illegal in this country (the reason the FDA won't approve it is laughable compared to the side effects on hormonal pills). Some women get it mailed to them from India (illegally) as a "vitamin." My mom uses it. I have used it, before I decided to switch to an IUD.

FDA doesn't like it because it's only one pill per week, and one pack for the whole YEAR costs as much as one American pill pack per month. So, the drug companies wouldn't like that, lol. And, essentially, big drug companies control the FDA.

I know. I studied biology in undergrad and grad. So, I'm familiar with science, lol. 

But, the same can be said about not hearing much on clinical trials without animals. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it's not happening - and with success. And you don't hear about that success because, for some bizarre reason, no one publishes these findings without animal testing. It's a crazy, messed up system. Centrochman (the birth control I spoke about) has been used for years with great success ... and, yet, how many people have heard of it?

I think it's silly to have a law stating that one must test on animals first. The FDA is not all powerful, and all knowing. They've passed drugs before only to recall them a few months later because people were dying. And they've done this, periodically, every few years.

I think people should be able to use their own judgement. No law should stop them from volunteering, and no law should force researchers to use animals. Forget the law, and forget monetary compensation (except reimbursement for travel, gas, hotels, etc.). This way, people volunteer because they want to for reasons beyond money, and they do it knowing the risks. This way, if there aren't enough volunteers ... the option of animals is always there.

All I'm saying is that there should be an alternative to the way things are done now. Things are slow and inefficient now. Let's just stick another option in there, i.e. forgoing animal testing, and see what happens.

Therapeautic cloning is still controversial because the embryos must be destroyed; pluripotent bone marrow stem cells as used as an alternative but they cannot give rise to all cell types. I am also 100% for stem cell research, and would like to see drugs being tested on stem cells, but I don't know too much about the precedure...my guess is that we cannot generalize the sucess of treatment to what has been grown on a petri dish to what develops naturally in our body? No idea......