Scientists and researchers investigating diseases that afflict humans are trained in research centers in the criminal practice of vivisection, prohibited by law 9.605, of 12 February 1998, when there are substitute methods. In many cases, a vivissecção é o único método no qual a inteligência científica recebe treinamento.

Over the last forty years, biomedical research efforts focused on experiments with "models" obtained at the expense of the suffering and death of non-human animals, used to mirror the diseases produced in a physical environment and human mental. Among these are cancer, the vascular accidents, Hypertension, to hipercolesterolemia, o diabetes, multiple sclerosis, neurological degenerations known as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, the "depression" and other forms of psychological distress. Ratos, mice, dogs, apes, horses, porcos e aves são comercializados no mercado vivisseccionista.

Just to give an example: It has been estimated to be 2, 6 millions of humans suffering from multiple sclerosis around the planet. Medicines obtained from the vivisection of rodents failed. Scientists recognized that the cause of the disease is "environmental", ela contribuindo for different genes, not just a. The medications available today, of microbial origin, not the result of vivisection, but the codification of physico-chemical structure of these (Greek & Greek, Specious Science).

There are those diseases of genetic origin or hereditary, what would be the scientific purpose in insisting on the architecture of the animal model to seek their healing?

Perhaps one can know the answer, looking at the financial interests (real "human benefits"?), in the base game, around and behind the activity vivisector academic and business that it covers. Referring to the price list of companies that provide genetically modified mice for research vivisectors, eg, begin to have an idea of ​​what lies behind the argument of "human benefit", que os vivisseccionistas defensores da legalização desta prática anti-ética usam como escudo para protegerem-se das críticas abolicionistas.

The research on live animals "benefits human interests": the price of a genetically modified mouse, to name just a kind used in vivisection, can range from U $ 100,00 a U$ 15.000,00 unidade dollars. The fixtures for the proper handling of such an animal are not offered for prices comrades. An apparatus for killing, in a "humanitarian", Animals used in the study, disabling them the brain enzymes, cost somewhere around $ U 70.000,00 unit. Devices to contain rats, dogs, cats and monkeys, can cost between $ 4.500,00 a U$ 8.500,00 unit. The "producers" of animals are also part of this chain that forms the "dependence of science in relation to vivisseccção", without which it can not survive today, e à qual a vida e a saúde humana estão algemadas.

In 1999, relatam Greek & Greek, the sale of mice in the United States alcançou 200 million. The other animals reached 140 million. But, the "human benefits" to which vivisectors refer in their public defense of the regulation of vivisection in Brazil, not restricted to what entrepreneurs livestock producers and device manufacturers to contain them in animal facilities and laboratories bill. Also publishers of magazines, newspapers and books are part of the human community "benefited" by vivisection. And, finally, human benefit most spectacular is the turnover of chemical and pharmaceutical industry, a chain of business to which they are linked all pharmacies around the planet and all the people who buy allopathic medicines in the hope of cure or relief from their ailments, and processed foods, cujos componentes levaram os animais a sofrerem o Draize Test e o LD 50.

But, when vivisectors publish articles advocating the legalization of their practice unethical, the killing of animals for inventing models that can mirror human diseases, knowing that each agency has its own environmental reality and there is a medium that can cure the same disease in all subjects, because each develops a peculiarly, the "financial benefits" and "academic benefits" accumulated in all links of this chain are hidden vivisector reader. Nobody publishes, Brazil, one detailed account of the amount allocated by the funding agencies for research vivisector. Therefore, we are not aware of the costs of failure vivisector (AIDS, cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, cholesterol, environmental diseases, more than genetic).

Animal research led the pharmaceutical industry to peak in the last twenty years. Not casually, these last twenty years, multiplied deaths from circulatory failure, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, degenerative neurological syndromes, hepatic cirrhosis and infections. The environmental component of human ills can not be mirrored in the body of rats and mice. At the same time, vivisectors insist on defending the law to legalize their practice, implying the lay public that vivisection is "out" for the healing of human ills. His articles "scientific" are not effective, nor about their peers vivisectors. How could produce effects on human health? 80% Articles published in the journal are cited at most once in other vehicles, and 50% Articles vivisectors are never cited, either in the same, is in other journals (Greek &Greek). The millions of animals killed for such articles are published and their authors in the account for their academic productivity, had their lives destroyed for no other "human benefit", unless the authors give the title of Master and Doctor, ou a concessão de bolsas de produtividade.
These are the real "human benefits" practice vivisector, of which no one can give?

Sonia T. Felipe, Dr. em moral philosophy and political theory pela University of Konstanz, Germany, member of the Bioethics Institute of the Luso-American Development, FLAT; postdoctoral fellow in bioethics with cutout animal ethics, Professor and Researcher, UFSC, Eastern Monographs, dissertations and theses in bioethics, ética animal, environmental ethics, human rights and theories of justice. Author of, Ethics and animal experimentation: abolitionists basics (Edufsc, 2007) and As a matter of principle (Cripple, 2003). Collaborator of Animal Magazine Pensata, www.sentiens.net.

The reductionism as the basis of animal models of fallibility

Besides indefensible under ethically, Once you submit beings sencientes1 the physical and psychological suffering (Singer, 1998; Regan, 2001), the vivissecção2 is a practice that fails in at least one fundamental criterion to be considered truly scientific: predictabilidade.

Before some considerations about the epistemological reasons underlying the poor results from animal models, gostaria de remeter o leitor a alguns contextos e dados que ilustram a afirmação feita anteriormente.

With respect to drugs, eg, despite the huge amount of dead guinea pigs supposed to ensure the effectiveness and test the side effects of new drugs, Greek & Greek (2000, p.117) out that "according to the organization Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, only 1% of new drugs tested in laboratories go to the clinical stage (when tested on human volunteers). Chegam of which the market, many have serious side effects and unforeseen risks. "A review by the American government on drugs launched between 1976 and 1985 revealed that 51,5% them offered unforeseen risks in testing " (Barnard & Kaufman, 1997, p.81). Greek & Greek (2000, p.58) emphasize that, "Every year, tens of thousands of people become ill due to the use of drugs sold legally. Archibald (2005), who argues in the same direction, further states that the side effects of prescription drugs are among the leading causes of deaths in Ocidente3. She cites the recent case of Vioxx – a drug to combat arthritis – that was withdrawn globally in September 2004, after causing 140.000 cases of heart attacks and strokes in the U.S. only. The drug, when tested in nonhuman animals, proved to be safe and even beneficial to their hearts. Another example worth mentioning is that of hormone replacement therapies. Prescribed for millions of women, because it decreased the risk of heart disease and stroke in monkeys, such therapy significantly increased the risk of these diseases in women and also caused 20.000 cases of breast cancer. Archibald cites several other drugs that matam4 and Greek & Greek (2003, p.112-115) also have a long list of drugs withdrawn from the market, in Britain and the USA, on account of its very serious side effects (including death). They point out that the drugs listed represent a small part of total calamity. The complete list is almost innumerable, they say, uma vez que muitos problemas sequer foram relatados.

And why such drugs are ineffective and even dangerous? Because the data from tests with nonhuman animals are chaotic and unreliable. Here is a prime example: "Researchers chose 6 drugs with known side effects in humans. Animal testing correctly predicted 22 collateral effects, but incorrectly presented 48 effects did not occur in humans. And more, animal tests did not predict 20 Side effects that occur in humans. Therefore, animal models have erred 68 times 90. So, in 76% the time, results from animal experiments were wrong " (Lumley and Walker apud Greek & Greek, 2003, p.111)

The animal model is flawed because there are differences, between us and them, the anatomy, physiology, environmental interactions, We types of food ingested, etc., that result in the absorption mismatch, distribution and metabolism of. In addition, Laboratory conditions are more controlled than in life veddasistradas doses and the animals can be much larger than those required to humans, in terms of body weight. Therefore, Apart from the fact that the routes of inoculation of different substances - whether oral, anal, peritoneal, vaginal, etc. – can exert a great influence on the test results, a dosagem pode ser também um fator crucial.

Fano (2000), eg, highlights that many animal tests occur in conditions (dosages, methods, etc.) that have no similarity to real life. In an experiment involving the sweetener cyclamate, the animals received human equivalent 552 soda bottles per day. In two experiments with trichlorethylene (used as an agent in coffee descafeinizante) rats received an equivalent dose 50 million cups of coffee per day. This can distort the results of two ways: can poison the cells and tissues, so severely, enough to prevent carcinogenic response that could occur in other conditions; or you can overload, or change, metabolic processes and cause a carcinogenic response that could not occur, conclui ela.

Furthermore, the metabolic rate of the animals is variable. Laboratory animals are generally smaller than the human and, it, have a much more intense metabolism. Thus, eliminating toxins quickly than humans, which can prevent the toxic effects appear, como observa Fano.

Although vivisectors claim that rats and mice constitute good models for studying diseases and other conditions or ailments that affect humans, there are significant differences between them and us. According to Greek & Greek (2003, p.121), "Rats must breathe through the nose, which can change the shape of the entrance of a substance into the bloodstream; the placenta is considerably more porous than the mice in humans; distribution due to differences in the intestinal microflora, they are much more likely to metabolize a compound veddasistrado orally in an active metabolite, or toxic; acid secretion in the stomach them is continuous, as it occurs in humans only in response to the presence of food, or other stimuli. Rats are also nocturnal animals, susceptible to different diseases of our, also have different nutritional requirements and are unable to vomit. All these peculiarities (anatomical, physiological, etc.) affect absorption, the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of compounds, ou causam reações inesperadas com relação a um composto”5.

Many other issues that affect the data from tests with nonhuman animals could be added here as, eg, the influence of environmental enrichment (see New Scientist article, (173[2333], 09 of mar.2002:11, intitulado “Home comfort for lab animals create problems for researchers”). But, after all, issues that were at the heart of such chaotic results?

Animal models are inaccurate because they are immersed in a practical and mechanistic paradigm, therefore, reductionist, that became hegemonic in our culture. This paradigm is also inextricably linked to a man-centered ethical and Speciesist. The subject-object opposition, basis of the alleged objective description of nature, is another dichotomy that lies at the heart of the formal corpus of knowledge in our society and also in animal experiments. It, becomes an animal model to study, which is analyzed according to its supposed ability to predict or reproduce a phenomenon. Within the mechanistic paradigm that would make sense, treat as it would analyze, understand, or identify, after a certain mechanism to verify how that mechanism (genetic, physiological, metabolic, etc.) could be used to predict other, the body being modeled. It happens that the social and natural phenomena are much more complex than posit the assumptions of mechanistic, which makes this paradigm or inappropriate, at least not, too limited to describe this range of complexity (see Maturana, 2002; Capra, 1996; Bruges, 2004, p.63-120).

Capra (1996), eg, argues that there are three criteria for a comprehensive description of the nature of life: the pattern of organization (configuration of relationships that determine the essential characteristics of the process); structure (the physical embodiment of the pattern of organization); and the method (activity involved in incorporating continuous pattern of organization). In this view, all living systems are cognitive systems and cognition always implies the existence of an autopoietic network, in other words, the basic characteristic of a living network is that it continually produces itself, she autocria (see also Maturana, 2002). Esse processo de autocriação também influi na capacidade de formar novas estruturas e novos padrões de comportamento.

So, although there are many common features between us and other animals, microscopic differences between our cells and these may lead to gross errors. All species – plants and animals – follow the same design: are formed by the same units DNA (A,T,C,G) which are joined in the same process. But, while the genetic material is the same, the composition, Different arrangements are. Isso faz toda a diferença.

The next context – involving the resemblance between us and chimpanzees – clearly shows the reason rechaçarmos the reductionist argument that such animals are excellent models. According to Greek & Greek (2003, p.49-50), "If we examine the genes that encode proteins that act as enzymes, or provide the basis for structure, or cell movement, the similarity between us and chimpanzees is greater than 99%. The difference is, therefore, the building blocks not, but in how they are arranged and controlled by regulatory genes that control the pattern and growth. So, eg, a single amino acid difference in, between non-human primates and humans, faz com que o HIV não se acople ao mesmo receptor celular em primatas não-humanos”.

This is the "dialectical" nature. And that's exactly what Capra argues, in the previous paragraph (see also Brügger, 2004, p.125-128).

So, the high degree of genetic correspondence that exists between us and such models (as primates and rodents) MAKE sense only, in reliability, within a reductionist view of science. The non-human animals can not be considered as good "causal analog models" (CAMs). According to the philosophers Hugh La-brochure and Niall Shanks (1996) Analog causal model works as follows: X (model) Y is similar to (the object to be modeled) with respect to the properties {a….and}. X has the additional property f. Although not observed in Y, Y is assumed that also has the property f. Then, Z if the drug causes the death of the animal model (eg, penicillin kills guinea pigs), by analogia, kill humans (branch of the Greek & Greek, 2003, p.45). La-Follete e Shanks (1996) claim that "the causal analogical models that would also present common characteristics; connected between the causal features; and no significant disanalogias. And they say that the possibility of disanalogias relevant causal destroys the argument that animal research has direct relevance to the study of human biological phenomena. This is because, until they are done testing on humans, there is no way of knowing whether or not there between us and disanalogias relevant animal model. And there are strong theoretical reasons to expect that there disanalogias relevant causal. Human animals and non-human were subjected to very different evolutionary pressures. The fact that two species have similar biological functional properties gives us no reason to think that they have similar underlying causal mechanisms. Although humans are not "substantially" different from mice, either life forms or 'higher', are different in terms of complexity. Differences between species, even small, often result in wildly divergent responses with respect to stimulus qualitatively identical. Evolutionary differences in the biological systems of humans and rodents, eg, desencadeiam um efeito cascata que resulta em marcadas diferenças em importantes propriedades biomédicas entre as duas espécies”.

Therefore, The presence of small differences at the cellular level, crease as the Theory of Evolution, invalida as extrapolações entre as espécies.

We understand very limited strength autopoietic nature, but we want to exercise dominion over it. I think the issues raised here should, therefore, be part of the debate on the effectiveness of animal models as tools for teaching and research. That's because the professionals who make use of them are, in theory, and scientists are producing knowledge, além de estarem formando uma legião de seguidores de seus preceitos cientificamente questionáveis.

Although today it is no longer possible to deny the influence of the factors highlighted here – concerted with each other which can produce a completely new and unexpected fact, with which the scientist has to deal – the epistemological foundations underlying such processes, still represent a question considered too abstract. However, accepting that there is an interdependence between variables that can not be isolated and studied separately, or quantified in terms of influence, part of the essence of the scientific method – the same mechanistic – to a lesser extent. This is a much deeper issue and crucial than it may seem, it implies truly understand that knowledge is always an abstraction built in the strict sense of the term. And some abstractions, or metaphors, são mais adequadas do que outras para descrever determinadas realidades.

Thus, except in cases in which animal models have been rigorously validated (but this implies the death of millions of them!), the correct data, apparently obtained from animal models, are, actually the result of coincidence and chance, or clues provided by other research fields. Not reflect the result of a truly scientific endeavor, since it does not require a detailed knowledge of the complex mechanisms involved in the processes studied6. Such arrangements seem to reflect nothing more than a small percentage of successful attempts and mere, it, not differ significantly from other situations such as hit rates in basketball hoops, eg, por parte de pessoas que não dominam tal esporte.

Urge, therefore, us to make a careful reflection on the maintenance of this paradigm anchored on values ​​anthropocentric and speciesist. It is not reasonable to say that it is impossible to do without animal models when there is not a systematic investment (not in education, or in research) no use of alternatives, whether substitute or alternative techniques in the broad sense (as clinical databases, epidemiological and other information sources).

Finally, is to say that the criticism of animal models are part of a greater critical respect the views of health and disease present in medicine that has become hegemonic, based intervention or prevention. Such a view is part of a paradigm that privileges solutions "pharmacological" and "techno"-logical, as indeed is the dominant perspective in our culture (emblematic example is the treatment / cure proposed for "climate change" now underway). And, again, a falta de visão sistêmica jaz na base de todas essas questões.

Notes:

1. Sentient beings are those capable of experiencing pleasure, pain, alegria e outras sensações e emoções.

2. The term vivisection has the meaning of "live cut". É empregado para designar a realização de operações ou estudos em animais vivos para observação de determinados fenômenos.

3. The former are: cancer, Heart Disease and Stroke (cerebrovascular accidents).

4. Some drugs are cited by Archibald Baycol, a Rezulin, Propulsid, Opren, Eraldin.

5. There are important differences between males and females, e entre linhagens e resultados de diferentes instituições.

6. Como os chamados “laços de realimentação” e outros mecanismos que podem atuar de forma auto-referencial nos modelos propostos.

Bibliography:

ARCHIBALD, Kathy. Animal testing: science or fiction? The Ecologist, May. 2005: 14-17.

BARNARD, Neal & KAUFMAN, Stephen. Animal research is wasteful and misleading. Scientific American, February. 1997. 80-82.

BRÜGGER, Paula. Animal models. In: Animal Friend - Reflections on interdisciplinary education and environment: animals, ethics, diet, health, paradigms. Florianópolis: Contemporary Letters, 2004: 63-120; 125-128).

CAPRA, Fritjof. The warp of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Trad. Newton Roberval Eichemberg. Sao Paulo, Cultrix, c1996.

Fano, Alix. Beastly practice. The Ecologist, flight 30 (3), May, 2000: 24-28

GREEK, Ray C.& GREEK, Jean S. Sacred cows and golden geese – the human cost of experiments on animals. Foreword by Jane Goodall. New York/London: Continuum, 2000.

GREEK, Ray & GREEK, Jean. Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans. London, New York: Continuum, 2003.

LaFOLLETTE, Hugh & SHANKS, Niall. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. London: Routledge, 1996.

MATURANA, Humberto R.& VARELA, Francisco J.. The tree of knowledge - the biological basis of human understanding. 2Ed. Trad. Humberto Mariotti and Lia Diskin.São Paulo: Palas Athena, 2002.

REGAN, Tom. Defending animal rights. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001.

SINGER, Peter. Ethical Practice. 2Ed. Trad. Jefferson L. Camargo. Sao Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1998.

Paula Brügger é bióloga, Professor of the Department. of Ecology and Zoology of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), former member of the Ethics Committee on Animal Use – (CEUA), Master in Education and PhD in Human Sciences – Society and Environment. She is author of the books “Education or training environment?”, which is the 3rd edition, and “Animal Friend - Reflections on interdisciplinary education and environment”. Currently coordinates the educational project “Amigo Animal”.
E-mail: brugger@ccb.ufsc.br

As science progresses? The great theorist of the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn, the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, contends that it advances by leaps, this is, does not progress by cumulative. He recognizes two kinds of science: a ciência normal e a extraordinária.

Kuhn investigates the concept of paradigm, a worldview that guides and structures the scientific investigations. The paradigm includes all: of the, the dominant theory, philosophical principles that she nearly, as concepções metodológicas e procedimentos padronizados.

Normal science is science day-to-day, scientist do that, plunged in its paradigm, discards all that its concepts can not solve. So, anomalies and novelties that come on your way up are eliminated in order not to undermine the foundations of the science model in which the scientist is inserted. Ultimately, the scientific community “search” under the dictates of their paradigm. It aims to frame him all phenomena facing. Those she can not fit, ela desconsidera e segue no seu modus operandi cotidiano e repetitivo.

However, the accumulation of defects, this is, problematic cases that the paradigm does not solve, eventually give rise to periods of crisis. As “anomalies”, by threatening the paradigm in its own grounds, are critical moments because the agreement gives rise to division, the formation of groups seeking other theories and other essentials. In this critical period, Kuhn dá o nome de ciência extraordinária.

The change of a paradigm is a revolution, and science progresses only by paradigmatic revolutions, this is, synthetically: science progresses only when anomalies are remarkable, when they shake the normal scientist of his monotonous task and procedures within the closed paradigm. So, crisis, emerge an idea, a theory that will revolutionize science, Finally we will introduce, um novo.

The relationship with the case of Conscientious Objection intended by Róber Bachinski is evident. Rober fez express yourself anomaly, this is, it represents the legion of students who become disenchanted with the courses they dreamed and thought with which to value life. Róber and it is a lot. Just see the amount of people that come leaving their testimonials on the websites that published the news of his victory in the injunction which guaranteed the right not to kill to study. Students who say they have given up because they sought to attend Veterinary save lives and learned how to make sausage. Queriam salvar animais e aprendiam a transformar animais em comida humana com controle sanitário.

Of course we are here in the field of education and not the science itself. However the teaching takes place within the dominant paradigm, e os professores são os cientistas normais por excelência.

Everyone has had the experience of a teacher dared, creative, answering. But most of us know many teachers accommodated, repeaters semester half of the same class, same methodologies, even the same jokes when we are lucky to meet a humorous. As we also know colleagues who want to repeat, we want the world to follow and as always was, porque é mais cômodo e porque acham ótimo estudar na mesma cartilha dos pais e dos avós.

For parents and grandparents are teaching today too bothered. And his disciples, some, also. You can see the same sites listed before the level of these colleagues to express their discontent with the ruling. Focus away from the action to the plaintiff, trying to discredit him, offend. The amazing thing is that this decision does not affect, ela tão somente garante o direito do aluno postulante de não participar de experiências que ferem seus princípios de reconhecimento dos direitos animais.

Róber is the anomaly of normal science. But look here, anomalia no sentido kuhniano, this is, it shows that the current paradigm is not realizing an ethical dilemma that is becoming more important. And this ethical dilemma begins to be representative of many. The Court recognizes. The Court finds articles on codes that support conscientious objection, this is, the right of a student to postulate replacing deaths of animals in practical classes. The society, through hundreds of NGO, mobilizes to defend this right. Ultimately, the crisis is established. For those who fail to understand the crisis as a driver of progress of science, the moment is serious, é luto. For those who conceive the crisis and the emergence of growing challenges that will lead to the heel of science, é momento de celebração.

As normal science tries to fit into the paradigm phenomena facing, Also University (where they both studied Thomas Kuhn and which theorizes about aspects of moral life and diversity, otherness, diversity) Róber tries to frame the model of desensitization, que é como se chama a faculdade de não ligar para o sofrimento alheio em nome da ciência.

It's time the old paradigm to the new place, a new model of science that takes into account the ethical objections that, Fortunately with regard to animal rights, present at the entrance of the XXI century. At least until the next crisis…

E-mail: naza@portoweb.com.br

Text already published on the website of the Group for the Abolition of Speciesism in Porto Alegre – GAE – http://www.gaepoa.org/

The movement to end animal experimentation is not an irresponsible move, how they want to make it seem many scientists interested in the continuation of animal experimentation. There is a movement that is opposed to science and human health, but a movement that seeks a transformation in scientific approach, de forma a priorizar a saúde da população em detrimento dos interesses econômicos de grupos restritos.

Position against animal experimentation is seeking serious science, correct. Defenders of science-based animal testing argue that scientific advances occur when human diseases are induced in experimental animals. However, despite the time and billions of dollars invested by the taxpayer, os resultados obtidos desses experimentos não se aplicam ao ser humano.

This is because genetic differences that determine each body responds differently to different treatments. These differences become even extrapolation of data between human populations difficulty. Indeed, drugs developed at the expense of human experiments are effective only for 30-50% population. For the rest of the population are nothing effective or dangerous drugs, já que podem produzir efeitos colaterais graves.

Animal models, beyond these blatant facts concerning their own biology, also have the added problem of being healthy animals. The diseases need to be induced in these animals, and many scientific resources are specifically intended for this. But how can we trust these models with induced disease, when they ignore the origins of our own diseases?

Extirpating the pancreas of a dog can induce the animal a state similar to diabetes. But the disease is diabetes more than a pancreas that does not meet its function. The human being develops the disease by the action of certain genetic and environmental factors, and we only know this because clinical and epidemiological data have shown us that. Somente através do trabalho em cima desses fatores poderemos pensar em combater o diabetes em seres humanos.

No dogs will be forced to inhale the equivalent of smoke 1.000 cigarettes to obtain data on the effects of smoking in humans. It is obvious that only the observation of the smoking population can produce reliable. The induction of cancer in animals by applying drugs will not answer for the cause or the treatment of cancer in human populations. This would not apply even to veterinary research, because one thing is a domestic dog developing cancer naturally, e outra completamente diferente é que esse câncer lhe seja induzido.

While these examples may seem simplistic, they reflect well the defense line on which rest those fighting to end animal testing. We are not a religious sect trying to kick the medicine and all its advances. We want to advance medicine and to do based on correct assumptions, free system hooked, da formas como se encontra.

Sérgio Grief, Biologist group Vedder, in São Paulo (SP), Master in Food and Nutrition, co-author of the book “The True Face of Animal Experimentation: Your health in danger” and author of “Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals in Education: responsible for science”.

(Sent to Animal Pensata for editing in volume in November 2007)

Proponents of animals, favorable to the abolition of the use of the animal model to study the cure of human disease, Contrary to what Petry says André, are not “obscurantist zoofílicos” que querem fazer parar toda pesquisa científica na área da saúde e medicina humana.

André Petry seems quite “blind and obscured” by his own egocentric view, and possibly not yet had time to read anything that has been published in recent 30 years about the need to change the paradigm to another vivisector more in line with scientific and technological advances of mankind enlightened. What are the arguments that support the position nothing “obscured or medieval”, two abolitionists?

The first, is that human health is the health of a living species, whose biology, physiology and psychology is very similar to many other living species that inhabit the planet earth. It is true. On behalf of this, abolitionists argue that one can not ethically justify the use of live animals in painful and lethal experiments, because no sentient life is replaceable by another, or the species itself, or any other kind. Being alive is the only grandiose and wonder for each of the sentient beings. Take the lives of hundreds of millions of sentient beings to test drugs invented to deal only with the symptoms of the disease produced in humans, justifying that ultimately destroyed their lives have no inherent value to some beings decimated, that value exists only in relation to what humans can do by taking advantage of their vulnerability, is not ethical argument. That argument does not hold up ethically, porque não poderia ser usada validamente para justificar o uso de seres humanos em condições vulneráveis em experimentos semelhantes.

The second argument of animal advocates (erroneously called by André Petry of “Zoophylic”, right would say zoophiles, Greek zoo = animal, e philia = amor), not based on the assumption “stop in the name of science vermin”, in other words, interruption of any scientific research, but the abolition of any research that wants to be considered scientific but still make use of live animals as a model for testing of chemicals and drugs that multiply not only unnecessarily around the planet, always promising to cure the ills human ever to be cured chegam, but lethally, to induce the scientific community to believe that, to be similar bodies nonhumans and humans, from the standpoint of physiological structure and in many cases neurological and mental, também do ponto de vista da estrutura molecular esta semelhança se repita.

It is not true that the metabolic perspective are equal any two living organisms. If an organism is endowed with a central nervous system organized, Hormones are produced, be aware of events that affect positively or negatively, this is, has emotions, This organism is similar to, but by no means is equal to another body with the same characteristics. Not only sex, age, species, lineage, status in the social group are features that significantly change the perceptions of an individual sentient (does not matter here if this guy is a rat, a pig, a horse or a human), but, beyond these variables a million or millions of other trace a network impossible to be scanned in each individual pet used as a model or prototype for testing of pharmaceutical and chemical industry. Each individual produces a chemical itself, similar to the pairs of the same species, but infinitely singular. No two exactly alike metabolic processes, although similar patterns do is to recognize individuals in the same age, sexo e linhagem.

The millions of other interferences must take into account, from the kind of confined in the same peer group loans to serve as guinea pig, by sounds or noises produced or subtracted from the environment in which the animals are caged as they are used for the experiments. The smell of humans can not perceive odors that permeate a room for experimentation, from the smell of the shampoo used by student, until your deodorant, Nail Polish, makeup, fabric of their clothes, shoes, and other odors from your body. Multiply this by 10 or 20 persons entering and leaving the laboratory everyday, we ate two days before, now or in the cafeteria… was washed their hands, or not, after paying snack and touch the money stinky… ah! still has the stench of their portfolios, sweaty and handled for years, their pockets, in which lay and take hands dozens of times a day… and the smell of their handbags, of its material science, Ink in which the article was just printed… the products used for disinfecting the environment, this, when such concern exists… the smell of the cages, the floor, the walls, the chemicals used to make drinking water coming from the tap, the smell of the mat on which all cleaning feet … if they do, before entering the laboratory, and odors that entram below the door, on windy days, of chuva, dust and heat… and the smell of new clothes that are using three or four… the smell of sex that just do before coming to work vivisector, and the smell of their hálitos infectos with smoke, alcohol, fried, refrigerants and parts of corpses that just eat the last meal… Many smells to upset the smell of mice and rats, Cats and dogs as if they were caged in pairs shoes in boxes in which evil can move. Each smell of these triggers on their bodies metabolic reactions thousand, over which the researcher has the lowest control. Therefore, there is no such the “control variables”. Therefore, what the researcher thinks that ensures control variables in their research is only apparent, is little or nothing, When it comes to beings who have 300 milhões de células olfativas a mais do que as nossas próprias.

The vivisector have the pride to tell the public that their research is scientific, because all the variables under its control experimental. Lie. Not. And look, I refer here only to one type of stimulus that completely alters the physiology of the animal sentient super-olfativado. I have not spoken sounds. But there are so variable in quantity and “without any control”, a vivisection lab, carrying the body of animals to produce unique chemical, in reaction to what they hear without being able to decode: the sound of water flowing into the walls, the pipes embedded. Sounds that vivisector not hear, even with an ear “superior” when your guinea pig. She is also the sound of electricity, which also passes through pipes embedded in the walls. Also these sounds horrible and stressful the vivisector not hear, even having a biological superiority over all other species. But, no laboratory vivisseccionista, only researchers are deaf, not just noise unbearable that these are only perceived by the ears very sensitive, the same ears tormented 24 hours a day with these and other deafening noises that do not exist in the natural environment of the animals used in vivisection. She is also the noise of computers, air conditioning, Printer and keyboards, the sounds of metal objects manipulated in the experiment, the sound of falling on the ground or on metal bases. It has the sound of the voices of 10 or 20 vivisectors entering and leaving the lab talking, laughing, crying, laughing… gadgets and their ears stuffed with MP3, and their cell phones, bips, e Ipods…. and the sound of cars out there, the buzinas, das trovoadas, and the sounds of the upper deck, do inferior, drawers are opened and closed, of open and closed cabinets, metal doors or not, key in the lock past, Door latches handled, closures of purses and bags open and closed, de equipamentos sendo ligados ou desligados.

These three, yet, temperature variation, air humidity, the amount of chemicals that the water company has just put to “treat” after that withdrawal of water from the contaminated water was being serviced… and the unbearable odor of the food served, always the same brand and nutrients that are only needed for vivisector, not for the welfare of the animal sentient. And has the touch of the wielder, e já não preciso descrever o que fazem ao animal em seguida.

I made just a tiny list of the variables that affect the metabolism of an animal sentient, and the results that lead to misleading levels. This list does not reach 1% everything that an animal used as a live model realizes. Which control the vivisector has on these variables and other? Even though all sentient animals are of the same lineage, of the same age, of the same sex, the intensity of their perceptions, similar to what occurs in humans, varies from individual to individual, and even an individual of a sudden, ou de um dia para outro.

A third argument leading abolitionists to oppose the use of live animals in science, is precisely the loss of time that such a model has represented to scientific advance, it is that science really wants to find the cure of human ills and not just drugs to be consumed and surrender profits to the pharmaceutical industry, moreover, uma das mais poderosas ao redor do planeta.

Most human diseases habits that are produced by humans have only. The abolitionists did not preach the end of genuine scientific research on human health. They advocate the end of the use of nonhuman animals as the object of these researches. When, after all, Scientists agree to the fact that one can only know the etiology of human diseases by studying the human clinical? What the abolitionists want is that all the money invested today around the planet in an animal model is invested in real scientific research aimed at studying the etiology of human disease. Não precisa usar humanos como cobaias em experimentos bárbaros.

Over 50 years of drug testing in animals and in humans are sufficient to have data on reactions to all drugs sold worldwide since the late 60 twentieth century. Just build a database with all the results so far, with all medical reports obtained from the use of these drugs invented million and used human guinea pigs around the world without those guinea pigs even have the notion that, what their doctors just like to announce the latest drug to cure their diseases, is actually an experiment that they may be harmless, ou mortal.

The abolitionists are not medieval obscurantist [if the average age was obscurantist, although doctors were the kings, to open frogs, pigeons and dogs to examine their viscera and respond to the sovereign or not about curing their diseases. The abolitionists did not support this medieval practice, on the contrary, advocate the end of it!]. On the contrary. Humans are aware of the waste of human intelligence, which today is only trained to prescribe legal drugs with the wall of his workroom a diploma of medicine. What is being done with the intelligence of young people who enter a medical school in order to help humans to remove their ills and heal their diseases? Prescribing drugs, although legal, young doctors just are killing the kidney, liver, the stomach, a bexiga, the blood of many of their patients, efeito do uso de medicamentos testados largamente em animais.

A fourth argument abolitionist refers to more lethal and chronic diseases that affect mankind: cardiovascular, pulmonary, digestive and urinary tract, psychic, back pain, cancer, neurological degenerations… curable with abstention, for a few months, of all animal products [read, Foods that Fight Pain e The Food Revolution].

But, million mice and rats are killed every year for a drug to be invented to cure humans triglycerides, hypercholesterolemia, lack of calcium, excess uric acid, hypertension, diabetes, and so on. Vivisectors want they want to do for those who suffer from these diseases believe that soon, logo, uma droga será comercializada para livrá-los dos males que eles mesmos inventam com sua dieta errada.

But, if the doctor did not prescribe any drugs, if you look at his patient and says: Dois months for want “test” yourself on the following milk-free diet, eggs, butter, yogurt, meat, fish, chicken or any of its derivatives… this doctor will be dismissed from the clinical. After all, for which he was awarded a diploma, if it is not to prescribe to patients legal drugs placed on the market?

The World Health Organization has made public the medical reports that warn of the need to redesign the human diet [leia The Food Revolution, e Diet for a New America, de John Robbins]. But, scientists want that millions of animals die in their hands until they have managed to invent drugs that humans do not have to give up anything you usually eat, por mais tóxico que isso seja para seus organismos.

At all, even if you found a drug to cure high cholesterol, this drug certainly trigger other evils. These, again, require vivisection, so that the scientist could find a new drug to rid patients who had used the previous evils it produces. The cadeia is expanding to infinity. This is precisely what we are already. What vivisectors do not want to realize is that this story does not only lead to success, mas é responsável pelo seu fracasso.

The majority of maladies including humans suffering, today, or had existed for more than 5 centuries, or no more than 2 anos honey, or resulted from the use of chemicals tested in animals and placed in food, bebidas e medicamentos.

Animals do not have any guilt of our choices. They do not benefit from our advantages. They do not have to answer the questions that scientists should be seeking to answer the math, with computer simulations, com raciocínio sobre os dados já disponíveis ao estudioso.

The abolitionists, to defend animal liberation of their condition of enslavement, advocate the release of the scientists that mesh and lace desatina. We do not think that vivisectors are wicked and cruel. We are just men and women “unhappy”, in the Aristotelian sense of the term, mean, are rational beings, they know what is expected of them, for their “excellence”, but are condemning yourself to do exactly the opposite of what is expected of them. This is the concept of unhappiness in Aristotelian ethics: know what is expected to, e fazer o que leva ao contrário do resultado esperado.

Animal liberation is human liberation, the liberation of the mind and human intelligence, so you can finally lend itself to more refined purpose for which should have been improved: seek to know, without taking the life of beings vulnerable. This is the intelligence that we hope to see flourish in biomedical science. But the obscurantist vivisectors do not want to become so intelligent that other, since learned to obscure his intelligence revolving viscera of animals vulnerable, instead of the hone-, creating mathematical models and computer and research methods in human non-invasive, after all, the recipients of such commitment, or not?

And, finally, is not to be accepted and defended by “the community” vivisseccionista, the practice becomes vivisector, then, ethics. If André Petry is not obscured by his rage against the abolitionists, must remember that human history files of the greatest episodes of acceptance by a majority barbarities, while a minority anticipate ethical criticism to such customs or traditions. It was thus, in the Roman Empire, with the forced fights between gladiators and animals; so with the enslavement of Africans, against whom no one dared to raise his voice, and who did, Brazil, was sentenced to hanging; was well, with the National Socialist European empire in the twentieth century, not only with a whole country forming the most supportive, including the “community of physicians and scientists” conducive to such practices; so with the exclusion of women, the inquisition, dictatorship and consumption that will lead our planet to death. The truth is not necessarily on the side of stronger, there is only the force. Who challenges the dominant moral tradition is attacked as obscurantist. Just do not say clearly what kind of light illuminates vivisection. A “curing diseases” human, unfortunately, not. The abolitionists are not illuminated by this light, they are, By another: Peace for all animals live their own good, in their own way, no arrests, unfettered, without torments. Just being alive to suffer bad times. Não precisa nenhuma inflição de novos tormentos.

Sonia T. Felipe, Dr. em moral philosophy and political theory pela University of Konstanz, Germany, member of the Bioethics Institute of the Luso-American Development, FLAT; postdoctoral fellow in bioethics with cutout animal ethics, Professor and Researcher, UFSC, Eastern Monographs, dissertations and theses in bioethics, ética animal, environmental ethics, human rights and theories of justice. Author of, Ethics and animal experimentation: abolitionists basics (Edufsc, 2007) and As a matter of principle (Cripple, 2003). Collaborator of Animal Magazine Pensata, www.sentiens.net.

Our lives and well-being do not depend on animal experimentation. Animal experiments only enshrine the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and associated, allowing drugs put on the market are not always safe for people. Experimentos em animais são conduzidos para amenizar as responsabilidades de laboratórios que lançam no mercado produtos que mais tarde poderão vir a prejudicar seres humanos.

For example, if the shampoo should not burn the eyes burned the eyes of a girl, this is seen as inevitable; Tests performed on eyes of rabbits show that the product is safe. And who can prove that cigarette smoking is associated with a disease, when animal experiments show inconclusive results?

After going through all the tests 'required', Animal, and to be put on the market, many drugs need to be collected. That's because its adverse effects begin to manifest in the population, often severe form. Animal tests can not predict these effects, and this is industry knowledge, mas há uma necessidade de que eles sejam conduzidos para prevenir a indústria de futuros processos.

If all tests deemed necessary by the legislation are carried out on animals industry disclaims responsibility. People who come to die due to the use of a drug become fatalities. Números aceitáveis frente aos possíveis benefícios do medicamento.

The science of using laboratory animals is not good science, not only because it victimizes innocent animals, but because the results they also produce damage to human. This methodology leads to error, the delay, the erroneous data, the misinterpretation, the inconsistency and waste of lives. The abolition of vivisection is not something to be thought about for the future, it should be something of the past, urgent e. The use of animals in experiments is an error that has spread in science and that has not been sufficiently questioned. Cabe à sociedade como um todo se mobilizar no sentido de extingui-la.

Luis de Andrade Martini is a psychologist and professor of psychology course graduate of the Institute of São Paulo Seat of Wisdom, onde também exerce as funções de supervisor de estágios e orientador de pesquisas científicas.

If a researcher propose to test a drug for the elderly using as a model girls twenty years; or test the benefits of a drug to minimize the effects of the menopause as a model using male, certamente haveria um questionamento quanto à cientificidade de sua metodologia.

This is because it is assumed that girls are not models representative of the elderly population and that boys are not the best model for the study of issues relevant to women. If this is logical, and we are dealing with the same species, why accept it as a scientific test drugs for the elderly or for women even in animals that belong to the same species?

Why accept that the cure for AIDS is in testing drugs on animals that develop this disease even? And even if they did, as mean that the disease in these animals behave in the same way in humans? Mesmo livros de bioterismo reconhecem que o modelo animal não é adequado.

Experimental data obtained from one species can not be extrapolated to other species. If you want to know how a species reacts to certain stimuli, a única forma de fazê-lo é observando populações dessaa espécie naturalmente recebendo esse estímulo ou induzi-lo em certa população.

Induce stimulation coming up in the problem of ethics and scientific nature. First question: is it true, is it my right to get individuals and stimuli that induce them naturally were not focusing on them? Second question: is it scientific, if the body receives a stimulus-induced, differently to how it naturally would, he is a representative model of a real situation?

Mice are not humans in miniature. Applied drugs in rats do not give us evidence of what happens when humans consume these same drugs. There are some similarities in the functioning of the systems of mice and men, of course, we are all mammals, but these similarities are parallel. One can not ignore the differences, the many variables that make each species unique. These differences, minor they seem, são tão significativas que por vezes produzem resultados antagônicos.

Tests on rats do not serve either to evaluate drug effects in mice. That's because despite apparent similarity, Both species have very different metabolic pathways. Metabolic differences are not hard to find even within the same species, it is assumed that the drugs on the market are effective only for 30-50% da população humana.

In practice what happens is that a mouse can get a dose of a substance and metabolize it so that she biotransforme into a toxic compound. The toxicity kills the mouse, but in humans this drug could be innocuous, who knows the answer to a severe illness. On the other hand, o teste em ratos pode demonstrar a segurança de uma droga que no ser humano se demonstre tóxica.

Hundreds of drugs tested on animals were approved and placed on the market for use by humans and had to be taken a few months after, because they have been identified adverse effects to the population. If the animal research could really predict the effects of drugs on humans, these events would not have occurred. Thus, can infer that research using animals as a model not only benefits humans, como também potencialmente os prejudica.

The health model we advocate is one that values ​​human life and animals. The interests of the pharmaceutical industry and research institutions that profit from animal experiments do not concern us. Buscamos por soluções reais para problemas reais.

The biggest improvements in public health were through successive changes in the lifestyle of the populations. There is a strong correlation between our health and the lifestyle we lead. If our lifestyle is this way or that, this reflects in our health. It is clear that diseases are reflected, largely, de nosso estilo de vida e que a cura deva estar em correções nesses hábitos.

Sérgio Grief, Biologist group Vedder, in São Paulo (SP), Master in Food and Nutrition, co-author of the book “The True Face of Animal Experimentation: Your health in danger” and author of “Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals in Education: responsible for science”.

Animal experimentation is necessary for the welfare and human health? The answer to this question is not. To explain it simply, if so they, not necessary the existence of veterinary drugs and medicines for human use, and could choose between us operate on a doctor or a veterinarian. Indeed, não haveriam diferenças entre ambas as profissões.

Anyone who has studied biology learns that organisms evolve. Evolve means to differentiate, derive. Rats and mice are like animals, but not identical; they derived from a common ancestor, each with its own characteristics. But since the accumulated differences, two species arose, next, but different. Fact is that both bodies react differently to certain drugs, certain treatments. Do not just know that rats weigh more than mice for correcting the dose of a drug, since there is no scientific linearity check this extrapolation. As diferenças entre espécies são qualitativas e não quantitativas.

Likewise does the mouse in relation to the hamsters, the hamster in relation to guinea pig, this compared to rabbits, frogs, pigeons, dogs, cats, pigs, and monkeys, of course, man. No results that get these animals can be applied to man, because contrary to what they want us to believe, the mouse is not a human that weighs five hundred times less. Also, the difference in 0,4% genes between chimpanzee and man does not make this a model recommended for human disease research in 99,6% dos casos.

Animals used in experimentation, to be considered “good”, must belong to specific lineages. They need to be as homogeneous as possible, with a minimum of genetic variation. Thus, the results obtained from these experiments are well grouped. If instead of using animals of the same strain were used animals with different origins, even of the same species, the results would be inconclusive, because even within the same species differences make the reactions to treatments very varied. Daí pode-se entender a inconsistência da defesa da utilização de animais.

The most common allegation to defend these practices is that humans and pets are directly benefited by these experiments. Defend yourself that, without animal research, humans would not have vaccines, transplants, anesthesia, or drugs that supposedly treat different diseases. Alarms to the idea that the end of animal testing mean the end of humanity. The decline in our quality of life, in our longevity. These claims are, to say the least, enganosas.

While all of these treatments have been thoroughly tested and approved for animals, they all showed failed to produce promising effects in humans, at least at first. Many of them, despite the proven safety in animals, proved to be harmful to humans, producing severe side effects. And if the intention of these experiments was to prevent human beings were used as guinea pigs, isso não aconteceu.

If organ transplantation today can be performed with greater success and are somewhat safer vaccines, was because over these last decades these treatments have been tested in humans, often at the expense of their lives and health. The supposed success of these treatments in more recent times, although likely to be challenged in other instances, can not be attributed to the use of animal models, mas sim ao uso de cobaias humanas.

Humans died within the first organ transplants, Humans have suffered severe adverse effects of vaccines in the past, and based on these trials and errors, the current medicine was built. Not based on animal experimentation. XX

But, to animal experimentation does not benefit humans, why most people believe that it is essential? We can say that in a sense science works as a religion, where the authority of the higher clergy is never challenged; so, a doctor can never be questioned, even if it is a mere player an idea he heard. The scientist himself often not questioned, which seems counterintuitive, mas ele assume que determinados pressupostos são verdadeiros e os defende cegamente.

In another approach, science is mercantilist. It works by commercial interests, and animal experimentation is interesting in this regard. Besides all the equipment and supplies needed for the maintenance of laboratory animals (cages, containment equipment, rations, etc.) a indústria lucra com a experimentação animal.

Industries, as pharmaceutical, derive their profits from the sale of its products, If not, drugs. Therefore, they need to convince people that their products are vital to your quality of life. Efforts are made to convince people that the increase in our life expectancy is directly related to the huge availability of drugs and current treatments. Few attribute these improvements to our current housing conditions, Hygiene, clean water supply, sanitation, food safety, etc., fatores estes que também passaram a preponderar nas últimas décadas.

Luis de Andrade Martini is a psychologist and professor of psychology course graduate of the Institute of São Paulo Seat of Wisdom, onde também exerce as funções de supervisor de estágios e orientador de pesquisas científicas.

Scientific research more relevant to the preservation of health and life of humans resulted from studies based on clinical, on observation and mapping of the diseases that most affect on the human population or studies aimed at disease prevention, não exclusivamente para o combate de seus sintomas.

Scientific discoveries contributed most to prolong human life resulted primarily from studies and clinical observations, e não de testes feitos em animais vivos de outras espécies.

As a rule, studies based on the model animal alive (vivisection) serve only to develop the ability of scientists to build models that will have to be, later, redesenhados para a aplicação em estudos destinados à investigação de possíveis terapêuticas para doenças humanas.

After all this effort, the drugs do not work as promised. Many are withdrawn after its lethality observed for human. Science uses the money and invests the time of their operators being lost in the labyrinths of vivisection. Seu investimento nesse único método de pesquisa é diretamente proporcional ao seu fracasso em responder satisfatoriamente às questões às quais se propõe responder com a investigação.

While generations of young scientists are transformed into vivisectors under the hegemonic imposition of an ideology clearly failed, so many generations of young, bebês e adultos morrem a cada ano daquelas mesmas doenças que o cientista há mais de cinco ou seis décadas promete curar ao buscar em organismos de ratos e camundongos a resposta para males que afetam cada vez mais devastadoramente organismos de indivíduos humanos.

Science vivisector has not made any progress in finding the cure of the great evils that produce chronic diseases, painful and lethal more common in human organisms: cancer, vascular accidents, diabetes, hypertension, Alzheimer's, sickness Parkinson. Besides the obvious failure of all drugs used today for “care” these diseases, it is necessary to account for the failure of other fabricated from vivisector model for the treatment of other diseases afflicting humans, a exemplo da depressão e de outras formas de sofrimento psíquico.

By adopting the body of mice, times, dogs, cats, pigs, horses, non-human primates and birds as references for the investigation, science fails to study and know the body and the psyche of the beings of the human species, a destinatária de seus resultados.

What does the scientist vivisector is studying the physiology of these diseases in organisms that, usually, even the naturally produce. It takes “manufacture” a mouse with cancer drugs to test it promised to cure cancer in organisms that were not “manufactured” with cancer, but which develop. The cancer death remains almost predictable, in spite of the drugs to which the patient is subjected in human “luta contra” he. Adiar a morte não cura.

This science may forego the use of live animals, because, although she has produced an incalculable drugs to combat the symptoms of such ailments, to support his research vivisseccionismo, does not produce results that guarantee “care” de nenhum daqueles males mais freqüentes que afetam crônica ou agudamente a saúde e destroem a vida humana.

Sonia Felipe Teresinha, 53, Dr. em moral philosophy and political theory pela University of Konstanz (Germany) with postdoctoral fellow in bioethics, animal ethics by the Center for Philosophy, University of Lisbon (Portugal), é professora da graduação e da pós-graduação em filosofia e do doutorado interdisciplinar em ciências humanas da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.

Some scientific institutions, is saying quite concerned about the future of science, were the last day 13, Brasilia to try to mobilize members to rush the vote, and approval, of the Bill 1.153/95, regulating animal experimentation. The claim is that the lack of regulation, yet, torna o setor frágil frente a atuação de grupos opostos à experimentação animal.

In this line of argument, science can not progress without animal testing, and it depends on human health. Alegam também que ainda não existem alternativas para todas as pesquisas que são realizadas em animais.

This event brings up a discussion that can not be debated throughout society. Animals are models that reproduce the metabolism of human? Animal research benefits humans? We know that cancer is, since the mid- 80, so fatal to mice as the cold is for us. We know that rats have no more problem of high cholesterol, thanks to a cocktail of vitamins that scientists developed especially for them. We know that Parkinson's disease, Mal of Chagas, dwarfism and even mental deficit are problems of the past for these animals. E que ratos que sofrem lesão na medula podem voltar a andar desde a década de 90.

All these promising results, already obtained many years, at the expense of many hours of work of scientists, many billions of taxpayer dollars, however, are useless for humans. Humans continue to die of cancer, suffering with your high cholesterol, Mal Parkinson, Chagas disease and paraplegia. Although the medicine is so advanced with respect to rodents, ainda estamos engatinhando no que diz respeito ao ser humano.
This is because the model adopted to represent us does not represent us. All data obtained experimentally in animals can not be extrapolated to humans. While we share many physiological and metabolic characteristics with other animals, as diferenças entre as espécies levam a resultados muito diversos.

Animals are used in experiments because it is the model of medicine that has been developing since the eighteenth century, mas de forma alguma isso significa que essa seja a forma mais correta de melhorar a saúde da população.
Becomes offensive to see scientists, trained persons and they should seek the truth above all, use of aggressive language and maliciously to try to assert their particular interests. Hoje medicine is to discover behind it, é porque ela se baseia na experimentação animal e não será pela experimentação animal que ela irá se desenvolver.
Defend the end of animal testing is not put up against science and against the human, on the contrary, is to defend the interests of human and, above all, defender a ciência.

The human medicine should proceed through the study of humans. This is not to arrest our enemies in concentration camps and use them as guinea pigs, Nor would this scientific. Currently the epidemiology and clinical medical sciences are peripheral challenge the big pharmaceutical industries and research institutions, producing new treatments and medications. But, although the sale of drugs meets the commercial interests of powerful groups, population health is not these drugs. When the scientist actually seeking the public's health, is not for the trapped animal in a laboratory he should look, mas para a população que já padece da doença.

What are the origins of this disease? What are its causes? These causes can be avoided? Its symptoms can be circumvented without this is to create new diseases, with new symptoms?
The medicine based on animal experimentation does not benefit humans, unless they have business interests involved. A medicina que de fato beneficia seres humanos é toda ela baseada no ser humano.

Sérgio Grief, Biologist group Vedder, in São Paulo (SP), Master in Food and Nutrition, co-author of the book “The True Face of Animal Experimentation: Your health in danger” and author of “Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals in Education: responsible for science”.