You can come and protest all you like, free speech and all that. But the university is not going to give up vivisection research and the students will not be intimidated by you. The vast majority of us simply think you're wasting your time, you'll have no luck getting much support from the students. You'd have a ruddy impossible time trying to get the students on campus to not wear leather or eat chicken, let alone convincing them not to support animal testing.

You can complain all you like about animal testing but how many of you actually have an undergraduate degree in biology or chemistry let alone a masters or PhD? If you are so anti-testing why don't you actually contribute towards finding alternative methods as opposed to simply blandly condemning? Forgive the phrase, but back seat driver springs to mind? It's all well and good trying to shout that alternatives exist but anyone with even the most basic university biology or chemistry background knows that this is NOT true in the vast majority of cases. Yes in some cases alternatives have been found for instance with specific skin irritation testing for cosmetics, but at the end of the day with current technology in vitro techniques cannot yet model a full scale living organism. There are no two ways about that... we do not have the technology to be able to fully replace living animal models yet. It'd be great if we did because at the end of the day contrary to what you try to tell the public the vast majority of scientists do not enjoy having to routinely kill animals, yes there are a minority who over step the line (I have seen the video of a man punching the beagle at HLS on youtube) however they should simply be sacked. It's no good condemning the majority of hard working scientists for the actions of a very tiny minority, the vast majority would never punch a dog for simply struggling or barking. In the same way I'm going to give your local group (WYARG?) the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not responsible for the minority of activists who think it's acceptable to intimidate people by smashing their windows, painting lewd messages, and burning property. I simply ask that you do not tar all scientists with the same brush.

One day in the future I'm sure with further advances we will eventually be able to replace animals, but until then animal testing is what we are stuck with. Incidentally many of the in vitro techniques used for alternative testing actually use cells harvested from animals, so whilst you try to promote the alternatives is it not hypocritical that you are still promoting a method that involves an animal at some point in the line?

In the light of universities in England now coming under the Department for Business Innovation and skills (not the Department of Education) can you tell us where the funding for research at Bradford University is coming from? Is it privately funded or publicly funded? What percentage is privately funded and what percentage is publicly funded? What exactly is being researched at Bradford and who exactly is requesting it and publishing it?

Very well put Bradford Student - I suspect your articulate comment will fall on deaf ears however as the AR crowd are conviction protesters - they are not susceptible to reason.

You are obviously in favour of vivisection from your post, but how can you justify the research mentioned above in this post? Surely, with your qualification in Biological Sciences, you can see there are other ways of conducting this research without the use of animals as a model.

@"Bradford student": I'm going to give your department the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not responsible for the minority of scientists who think it's acceptable to murder animals by smashing their faces, injecting them with poisonous substances and burning their skin.

Intimidating a vivisector is a piss in the ocean compared to what they are doing to animals.

Just a quick look on the net bought up quite a few, very highly scientifically qualified, professors, scientists and doctors who are completely against animal experimentation, based on the scientific facts.

 http://www.curedisease.net/advisors.shtml

Dr Marius Maxwell MD, Neurosurgeon,and neuroscientist.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/18/max

British scientist Gillian Langley, a former member of the British government's Animal Procedures Committee.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Langley

Also several scientists at UK universities have received grants to enable them to carry out non animal based research into human disease.

Forgive my rather short and late replies I have little time at the moment for these things. But will try to reply regardless.

@ Vegan

"Intimidating a vivisector is a piss in the ocean compared to what they are doing to animals. "

So your standpoint simply amounts to the following: "I dislike what you are doing because I do not understand it, thus I am going to physically intimidate you because I think my actions are somehow justified?"

I'm fairly certain you'd be the first one here to complain if I was to attack your property tonight simply for having a differing opinion to mine.

Rather than acting like a hoodlum why don't you propose positive solutions to a scientific debate on the use of animals in research? Why aren't you coming up with alternatives and solutions to the use of animals in research? Your position simply amounts to the Catholic church's attack on Galileo, I don't understand you thus I will attack you non constructively.

@ Open Minded And Unbiased

The scientists opposed to animal research are an absolute drop in the ocean compared to those that accept its use is necessary. Even then most of those who oppose animal research accept that research on animals does have scientific value, indeed Gill Langley has said "I would never claim that all animal experiments are without scientific value." They mostly tend to oppose it on moral grounds which is an entirely seperate argument to the scientific one. Neither Gill Langley nor Marius Maxwell have said that they are able with currently existing technology to replicate full scale living organisms via in vitro or computer methods. That is a fact I'm afraid.

"Also several scientists at UK universities have received grants to enable them to carry out non animal based research into human disease." This is a rather poor argument. Yes they've received grants in order to investigate non animal research, but this does not mean they can apply non animal methods to all forms of research. I'm sure if you investigated it further, the departments that received these grants also continue to carry out experiments on animals still where necessary.

Yes there should be more funding available for alternative research in order to speed its progress up, however until that point I am unwilling to accept that human beings will have to die due to delays in the testing of new drugs because of a rather spurious ban on vital testing practises.

@ Reasonable AR Activist

A couple of points. The original poster has deliberately been selective with what they've posted, and attempted in my opinion to misrepresent the purposes of the research. The poster has not linked us to the scientific studies in question, if they were carried out they'd be available from the University Library or they'd be published in a scientific journal. I question why the original poster has decided to leave the reader in the dark. They make claims that certain things are happening, yet the post no evidence, and and most importantly no proof of context! I easy to mislead people when you are selective with key words. Secondly I question why you did not think to ask this yourself? You must always be critical of claims made without evidence. If I told you the world was flat for example, would you simply blindly believe it? One would hope that you wouldn't.

I'm sure if the original poster was willing to share with us the full papers on the studies in question we could shed more light on it, rather that blindly guessing.

@ Questions

Some of it is publicly funded, other amounts come from private companies, veterinary groups. conservation charities, donations, and medical research charities.

What is being research at Bradford? A whole variety of different things. Different researchers have their own programs as well as commercial work programs. It's not possible to list it here. It's like asking what does every single person in Leeds Hospital do, we'd be here for weeks compiling lists of everything the ins the outs and what not. It'd be easier if you simply contacted the University yourself and made a polite request for information, i'm sure there are contact details available of the website. I'm sure many of the papers actually would be available to view in the University library to read at your own leisure as well. I've never understood why people reserve these questions for the internet, nobody is going to be bothered by you making requests for information or asking to access library resources, so long as you ask politely.

To Bradford student

You tell ‘Reasonable AR Activist’ that they “must always be critical of claims made without evidence” and yet you ‘answer’ my questions giving no evidence whatsoever. Are you completely lacking in self awareness? You say it is “not possible to list here” what is being researched at Bradford but don’t even offer one or two examples to show you know what you are talking about. You might not understand “why people reserve these questions for the internet” but I have reserved them specifically for you since you were the one who came on here and posted your comment first. You even criticise the original post for “making claims that certain things are happening yet post no evidence”. So I am asking you politely, give some examples please to show you apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others. Or are you pompous enough to expect people to simply accept what you say as an act of faith? If so then you are the one who has more in common with the Catholic Church than Galileo in this instance.

When one is making an accusation of wrong doing the onus is on them to provide evidence of the wrong doing. So rather than attempting to construct a straw man now and skirt the issue perhaps you can stick to the original claim at hand, rather than utilising the duck and throw back option.

WYARG has made accusations of abuse, yet they have provided no evidence of said abuse. The onus is not on me to refute their claims that abuse has taken place when they are yet to present a single shred of evidence for the readers here to objectively analyse.

I did not avoid your issue of providing evidence I stated that you should contact the University directly, either email or phone will do and they'll be able to provide you with the most up to date reference lists for reading. Stop being lazy, stop constructing straw men, and simply send a polite email and you will receive the information you want. Why are you so afraid of sending an email to request the information yourself like any other human being would do?

Interesting that you are hesitant to comment on anything else on the post, other than your fabricated straw man that attempts to distract from the real issue at hand.

My humble request is that WYARG presents the so called evidence of abuse for the readers here to objectively analyse. Or do they concede that they do not have anything other than words taken out of context?

No doubt you'll complain regardless so here's a few references for research undertaken at Bradford, since you'll probably still refuse to contact the University yourself.

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/n56721615164786r/

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/r33j205p575tk67l/

 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16757187

Here are few texts that involve experimentation on rodents. There are plenty more research papers, however you can contact the School of Pharmacy for more I'm not doing all of your work for you.

The reason I asked you to provide examples of experiments on this board is so other people can see them as well. After all you are the one who came on this PUBLIC forum so you are not just addressing me personally. For that reason in this context the point is not what efforts I make to find out whether a claim you make publicly is true but whether you provide the evidence or not to back up your claim publicly (something you demand WYARG do). It is petulant to brand someone lazy because they request this of you. Do you feel the same responsibility does not apply to you as you apply to WYARG?

There is no straw man argument, you are not being challenged on something you never said in the first place so don’t let your imagination run away with you! The onus to provide evidence applies to anyone making claims of a serious nature, no one said the onus was just on you to refute them (that’s your own version of the straw man argument!) Are you feeling sorry for yourself? Don’t take things so personally! Being so tetchy at even the mildest challenge to your posts possibly marks you out as someone best suited to a lifetime in an academic institution where you wont have to put up with the irritation of the outside world questioning you and you can wave your degree around as evidence of your unassailable position. Validation for you!

In regards to you claims and showing of the study papers above, you have basically attempted to justify Bradford's research as the usual 'broken record' answer of animal researchers, ie they conduct their experimentation in the animal model to find cures to help humans and there is no other way to do this. However, by doing so (and providing those said research papers) you have proved the point of the anti-vivisection campaigners and, pardon the pun, scored an own goal. "Why?," you may ask - well, let's have a look:

RESEARCH PAPERS LINK 1 & 3:

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/n56721615164786r/
 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16757187

I beleive the sponsor to be GlaxoSmithKline Plc, however am unsure.

The researchers (Fell, Niell and Marshall) have stated "Weight gain caused by some antipsychotics is not only confined to adults but can also adversely affect both children and adolescents. Indeed, olanzapine and risperidone have been associated with extreme weight gain in adolescents even greater than that reported in adults", thus showing through the language used that they know the effects of the stated anti-psychotic drugs in the human model, so in effect the study in rodents was pointless and a waste of funds. These funds could have gone into other research of use, not animal experiments.

Secondly, it is a know fact that a number of anti-psychotic drugs have absurd side effects on patients, which has been shown when the said products were placed on the market for human consumption. So, why is it that they were passed as safe via pre-clinical trials on animals, then are being retested (for the 2nd time) at Bradford on animals? A) The results of the initial animal research should be available, thus more animal lives were wasted, and B) The initial studies in the animal model failed to detect those traits of many GSK, MSD, Roche etc anti-psychotics such as anxiety, further depression and suicide which have been shown when teenage patients have taken them.

Thirdly, all these pharmaceuticals are already on the market, being taken by people this very second. So, we can truthfully conclude that they have been through all the stages of Preclinical (animal) to Stage 3 testing. In order to determine the effects a) in rodents, and b) in humans why have Bradford not just asked the study sponsor for copies of all the said relevant data and thus examine that.

Fourthly, as patients nationwide will be taking the said products, why couldn't human clinical observations be done in order to determine if these drugs cause weight gain? That way, not only could data be gathered in relation to this individual study, but other useful information could be gathered.

CONCLUSION:
Researchers at the University of Bradford were to lazy to go out and gather the information needed to conduct this experiment using non-animal methods and found it easier to sit there poisoning a rat in a lab. WYAR claim that the experiments at Bradford on animals are pointless - I agree.


STUDY PAPER 2:
 http://www.springerlink.com/content/r33j205p575tk67l/

This one, in abstract terms, was to measure the influences of various chemicals on mental illnesses, mostly focused on schizophrenia. The 5-HT receptor is seretonin, the substance in our brains which holds a major influence on mood, and a lack of 5-HT can cause certain symptoms relating to schizophrenia, eg depression and sudden mood swings.

Due to this study also being conducted at GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Harlow animal research facility, I would say it was more likely than not that they are the study sponsor of the research at Bradford. Already this raises concern due to the lack of independance involved in the study, ie Bradford will want to continue retaining funding from GSK Plc so will please them with results, thus causing a bias scenario. GSK are a large producer and pump millions in marketing into anti-psychotic drugs. If an independant organisation, such as the NHS or WHO had funded the study, maybe it would then be more independant.

So, back to the study. In other words, it was investigating the influence of seretonin and the glandular disfunction of 5-HT on mental illness, focusing on schizophrenia. It is already known that seratonin plays a major function in mental illness, thus the research was partly-pointless in primary aim. But say it did have some point - could the researchers (McLean, Neill of Bradford, Woolley, Thomas of GSK Plc) have conducted the said experiment without the use of animals? Well, yes - quite easily.

Non-invasive brain scans, or clinical trials, could have been conducted on sufferers of schizophrenia, or hospitals could have even produced the said scans to the researchers. These could have been compared between the various stages of schizophrenia sufferers against that of somebody with a normally functioning seratonin gland, thus giving the results needed without animal testing.

Again, it was down to the pure laziness of Bradford vivisectors that this was not done.


BRADFORD STUDENT - GET BACK TO SCHOOL!

but I have just conducted my own non-animal study in relation to papers 1 and 3 - no cost (other than an internet connection) and a few minutes.

The drugs tested to see side effects on weight gain:

RISPERIDONE (MFR - Janssen Cilag, followed by Teva Pharmaceuticals) has been associated with minimal to moderate weight gain, with one study finding that 26 to 38 percent of participants on the drug experienced weight gain -  http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/7/842#SEC2

Whoops, those researchers didn't use animals! Submitted in 2002, compared with 2009 of the Bradford vivisectors. Looks like they could have done that study without animals being used. Conclusion - WYAR are completely right in their critique of Bradford University and UoB most certainly do waste research grants.

Other side effects, not taken into account by Bradford and which Pre-Clinical trials did not detect:

Side effects

Common side effects include severe anxiety, akathisia, sedation, dysphoria, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, low blood pressure, muscle stiffness, muscle pain, tremors, increased salivation, and stuffy nose. Risperidone has been associated with minimal to moderate weight gain, with one study finding that 26 to 38 percent of participants on the drug experienced weight gain.[

Occasionally breast tenderness and eventually lactation in both sexes may occur[citation needed]. Many antipsychotics are known to increase prolactin because they inhibit dopamine. However, risperidone is known to increase prolactin to a greater extent than most other antipsychotics, such as quetiapine. Over 40 pituitary neoplasm cases have been reported worldwide. It is thought that once risperidone raises prolactin, it may cause prolactinoma, a benign tumor of the pituitary gland. Tumors, in general, aren't considered reversible. Medical therapy (dopamine agonists) may help reduce tumor size and restore normal reproduction and pituitary function, but if unsuccessful, surgery or radiation treatment may be required. This condition may recur if the patient is switched to a different antipsychotic. Risperidone has been known to cause increased thoughts of suicide.

Risperidone can potentially cause tardive dyskinesia (TD),extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS).Risperidone may also trigger diabetes and more serious conditions of glucose metabolism, including ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar coma.


OLANZAPINE (MFR - Eli Lilly & Co, tested by AstrZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) - Study released 2005 -  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/health/psychology/20drug.html?_r=1

Side effects:

As with all neuroleptic drugs, olanzapine can cause tardive dyskinesia and rare, but life-threatening, neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

Other recognised side effects may include:

* Aggressiveness
* akathisia inability to remain still
* dry mouth
* dizziness
* irritability
* sedation
* insomnia
* urinary retention
* orthostatic hypotension
* weight gain (90% of users experience weight gain[citation needed]) (see below)
* increased appetite
* runny nose
* low blood pressure
* impaired judgment, thinking, and motor skills
* impaired spatial orientation
* impaired responses to senses
* seizure
* trouble swallowing
* dental problems and discoloration of teeth
* missed periods
* problems with keeping body temperature regulated
* apathy, lack of emotion

Metabolic effects

The Food and Drug Administration requires all atypical antipsychotics to include a warning about the risk of developing hyperglycemia and diabetes, both of which are factors in the metabolic syndrome. These effects may be related to the drugs' ability to induce weight gain, although there are some reports of metabolic changes in the absence of weight gain.[citation needed] Of all the atypical antipsychotics, olanzapine is one of the most likely to induce weight gain based on various measures.The effect is not dose dependent. Olanzapine may directly affect adipocyte function, promoting fat deposition.There are some case reports of olanzapine-induced diabetic ketoacidosis.Olanzapine may decrease insulin sensitivity though one 3-week study seems to refute this.It may also increase triglyceride levels.

Despite weight gain, a large multi-center randomized National Institute of Mental Health study found that olanzapine was better at controlling symptoms because patients were more likely to remain on olanzapine than the other drugs. One small, open-label, non-randomized study suggest that taking olanzapine by orally dissolving tablets may induce less weight gain, but this has not been substantiated in a blinded experimental setting.

>> "Intimidating a vivisector is a piss in the ocean compared to what they are doing to animals. "

> So your standpoint simply amounts to the following: "I dislike what you are doing because
> I do not understand it, thus I am going to physically intimidate you because I think my actions
> are somehow justified?"

I understand exactly what vivisectors do. I have a scientific background myself. Presumably you think murderers should be stopped from murdering. Couldn't your attitude be like "I dislike your murdering, thus I am going to physically intimidate (arrest, imprison) you because I think my actions are justified"? What's wrong with that? If any of us think something is wrong, we want to try to stop it. We might disagree on exactly what is wrong and right, but you can't criticise us for trying to stop what we think is wrong.

> I'm fairly certain you'd be the first one here to complain if I was to attack your property tonight
> simply for having a differing opinion to mine.

I would complain because I think you were wrong to abuse animals and use that as a justification. Don't animals have a right to complain that vivisectors are attacking their physical being (not even just their property) simply because they want to, not even for a differing opinion?

> Rather than acting like a hoodlum why don't you propose positive solutions to a scientific
> debate on the use of animals in research?

I think abusing animals is the act of a hoodlum. Trying to protect those animals by attacking the people that abuse them is the act of a compassionate person.

I don't think this is a scientific debate, it is a moral debate. It's like if someone were torturing humans for science I wouldn't try to argue about how the science is wrong, I would just say it is morally wrong. The positive solution is to stop abusing animals.

> Why aren't you coming up with alternatives and solutions to the use of animals in research?

I'm sure people are clever enough to find out things without abusing animals. It just shouldn't be an option to do it in the first place. If someone were experimenting on humans you wouldn't ask them to find "alternatives" before they stop, would you? Well, consider that to us, experimenting on animals is just as horrific.

> Your position simply amounts to the Catholic church's attack on Galileo, I don't
> understand you thus I will attack you non constructively.

It's nothing like that. I'm an atheist. I understand exactly where you are coming from, I just disagree with your morality. It's quite simple: you think it's acceptable to torture animals in the name of science and I don't.