Jerry,
I am not sure that I agree with your statement. You hear constantly about drugs tested in animals that "show great promise" for human treatment. It is amazing the number that you never hear about again. (My comment to these is the same, "what does this have to do with humans.") It is clear that in many cases results in animal test may not relate to humans due to genetic and physiology factors. There is an interesting article on animal testing and human cancers at http://www.idausa.org/ir/reports/cancer.htm and the use of mice can be found at http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/cancer.htm (These sites appear to be anti-vivisectioning, but I think the basic information is interesting.) Animal testing is a stepping stone to human testing which must be done. The "gold standard" is, d! oes it work in humans?
The basis for regulating against substances that cause harmful effects in animals I think goes back to a law passed in the 1960s call the Sullivan Act (I am probably wrong about the circa and actual legislation, and I hope someone will correct me on these.) It said that any toxin that could cancer in animals required legislation to protect humans. This predates the EPA, but the philosophy is still there. Of course, this is really not very scientific. You can put a dime or egg yoke under a mouse's skin and cause cancer. Believe me, I have been saying for years "what does this have to do with humans?"
Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
How come when studies find something is harmful to laboratory animals, we assume it is also harmful to humans and pass laws and regulations to protect people from it, but when a positive effect is observed we ask, "what does this have to do with humans?". . .