From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: animal testing
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:38:24 GMT

In article <35687.2B4BFFDF@puddle.fidonet.org>,
Shannon.Rae@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Shannon Rae) writes:
>  
> Hi, my name is Shannon RAe and I am from Bonners Ferry Idaho.  A
> topic that I am interested in is animal testing in laboratories.
> I know this is necessary so things that could be dangerous to
> humans can be discovered, but I can't stand the thought of animals
> suffering so us girls can wear make-up and hair spray.  I have
> heard that computers have the potential to simulate these tests, so
> why don't they use computers instead of making animals suffer?  I
> don't really have alot of knowlege on this subject, and that is why
> I would like anyone who has knowlege on this subject to reply.
> Basically what the common person knows about this is what they see
> on T.V. Like I said before testing for cancer etc. is necessary,
> but we are using animals that feel pain to test make-up or other
> cosmetics.  I want to know if what I have heard is true?  Can
> computers really do this testing that we are currently using
> animals for?  I would like to hear someones opinion on this
> sublect.  I have tried not to say anything that I really don't know
> anything about, so someone please write.

   Hello, I'd like to take a shot at two of the questions you pose.  
First of all, animal testing of cosmetics is probably unneccesary.  
There is a broad range of relatively safe or entirely safe materials
that you can make cosmetics out of and hence avoid the need for 
animal testing.  Also I know there are companies (I wish I could 
remember which ones) that use materials of this type and whoes entire
product line is "cruelty free".  I assume their products would advertise
this fairly prominently on the label.  I don't use cosmetics myself
so I can't give an opinion on the quality of the cruelty free products.

   The second question, concerning computers, is one I have very strong
feelings on.  There is no computer on earth that could begin to model 
the interaction of one new chemical with the skin or internal chemistry 
of a living organism.  The computer's electronics are nowhere near powerful
enough.  In addition no one understands living creatures well enough to 
write the programs that could do this checking even if some modern day 
Einstien could somehow build the computer we would need.  A cosmetic 
product may have dozens of new chemicals in it.  If one is too hard to 
compute dozens are incredibly too hard.

   The idea that computer models can substitute for animal tests (say in 
evaluating new drugs) is one that comes up again and again in the animal
right's movement.  It is a completely silly idea.  I use computer's to
study biological problems; todays computers are far to small and out software is
far too primitive to model a living creature at the chemical level in
any meaningful way.  The problem with the animal right's movement is that
it is jammed with people who feel bad for the animals but cannot be bothered
to learn enough to understand the issues involved in animal testing.  I am
quite pleased to see you asking these questions.

Professor Dan Ashlock              email: Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
400 Carver Hall                    phone: (515)-294-7965
Iowa State University
Department of Mathematics
(Math biology group)
Ames Iowa
50011

>                                                  Thank You,
>                                                  Shannon Rae.

You're welcome.