Do pharm schools use animals in the curriculum?

[FollowtheOmens]

I've read how most med schools, about 75%, have abstained from using animals wether dead or alive in their curriculum. If there are any other future pharmacists out there that share my views of compassion for animals, can you tell me which schools abstain from this practice? Thank you and have an awesome day!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmDstudent]

I've read how most med schools, about 75%, have abstained from using animals wether dead or alive in their curriculum. If there are any other future pharmacists out there that share my views of compassion for animals, can you tell me which schools abstain from this practice? Thank you and have an awesome day!

Check out the thread called Rat Lab from the pharmacy forum. You can find it by using the search function in the upper right hand corner.

 

[FollowtheOmens]

Hey PharmDStudent Thanks for the forward! There are some good arguments there. I personally will not participate if my Rx school has a lab like those. I have to much respect for other living things to duplicate research that has already been performed elsewhere. I am heavily conflicted on the animal testing issue. We still strive (and many times fail) to have equality in our own species, let alone any respect for another. Name a species and we have grossley violated it in some way.
Part of me thinks that humankind should man up if it wants to test something out. Hey, how about if we test on convicted child molesters. I don't beleive they are able to reform anyways and prison is not setup to help anybody. There is a good documentary narrated by Jouquin Pheonix(spelled wrong) called "Earthlings" that I think would be great for every person to see. I have lent it to my college professors as well as classmates. Chek it out!!!

 

[confettiflyer]

I think you hippies who think animal research is barbaric and unecessary need a reality check. My first priority is the person down the street who needs proper medicine and advances in them, not some lab rat that's going to live for 3 months, eat, ****, then die.

You know, the Nazi's avoided testing on animals.

Just my $.02.

 

[eelo]

I think you hippies who think animal research is barbaric and unecessary need a reality check. My first priority is the person down the street who needs proper medicine and advances in them, not some lab rat that's going to live for 3 months, eat, ****, then die.

You know, the Nazi's avoided testing on animals.

Just my $.02.

So did American researchers, at places like Tuskeegee Institute.

But yeah... test on bunnies before you test on my family.

 

[SGPharmD]

I think you hippies who think animal research is barbaric and unecessary need a reality check. My first priority is the person down the street who needs proper medicine and advances in them, not some lab rat that's going to live for 3 months, eat, ****, then die.

You know, the Nazi's avoided testing on animals.

Just my $.02.

That's right, the Nazi's avoided testing on animals, they tested on humans which is digusting and barberic and incomprehensible.

Anyway, you have to do experiments on something to see what happens when you take these drugs when they are in the experimental stage. It is barberic to test on humans, like the Nazi's did. When my mom was in pharmacy school they tested on rabbits. When my dad was in medical school they tested on dogs. They have since evolved from that and gone to rats and other small animals, but still, we need to figure out what drugs are going to do. Why not test on a rat? They reproduce rapidly so there is an unlimited amount of them. I don't think you can enter the medical field without prior knowlegde that you will probably be doing some kind of experiment on a living animal at some point in time. If you don't, great. But if you do, you should be prepared for it. And if it's something you don't think you can do, this probably isn't the right field for you. You have to weigh the pros and cons. Yes we are killing rats, but if a drug comes out of the experimental research that you do on these rats think of the greater good it will do, ie a cure for cancers, better hiv/aids medications, better vaccinations...it all starts with experiments.

 

[confettiflyer]

And letting undergrads/pharm students loose on animals in labs SHOULD be mandatory, you know why? It's a lot more barbaric to let these students study plastic models and then have them enter actual animal research without any hands on experience with these animals.

And on that note, I had really good steak the other day.

 

[PharmDstudent]

And letting undergrads/pharm students loose on animals in labs SHOULD be mandatory, you know why? It's a lot more barbaric to let these students study plastic models and then have them enter actual animal research without any hands on experience with these animals.

And on that note, I had really good steak the other day.

How many pharmacy students ACTUALLY enter animal research? Give me some stats before you start saying something is "a lot more barbaric".

 

[Knickerbocker]

And letting undergrads/pharm students loose on animals in labs SHOULD be mandatory, you know why? It's a lot more barbaric to let these students study plastic models and then have them enter actual animal research without any hands on experience with these animals.

And on that note, I had really good steak the other day.

Good grief.

This is funny though - if people had to guess between you and me (I hold the opposite view you do), they would guess that you were from Texas and that I was from California.

 

[FollowtheOmens]

I think you hippies who think animal research is barbaric and unecessary need a reality check. My first priority is the person down the street who needs proper medicine and advances in them, not some lab rat that's going to live for 3 months, eat, ****, then die.

You know, the Nazi's avoided testing on animals.

Just my $.02.

Yeah, that is a pretty weak argument comparing this to nazi Germany. Common sense would tell you that they didn't test on animals if they were expiramenting on unsuspeccting and unwilling humans.

I know we can not test drugs on humans, however it doesnt seem right that other species must pay for our gains in medicine. Watch a video of animal expiramentations and tell me if that seems right. I love medicine and it is going to be my career for many reasons. I personally need to do more research on the subject of animal testing to hopfully put me at ease. It is good to hear feedback wether pos or neg! SEEYA!

 

[Robinbird]

Wingate doesn't use animals in their cirriculum...I can't think of a reason why we would. We do occassionally talk about how drugs are tested on and derived from animal sources, but we don't use them...

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Well. . .to be fair, a good pharmacy school should train you to be a good pharmacist in all respects, from clinical to retail, to industrial.

On the side note, the reason why schools have been using animals since the start of time is so we can understand the body better. I mean really, seeing the effects of drugs on an animal is different than reading about it in a textbook.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Well. . .to be fair, a good pharmacy school should train you to be a good pharmacist in all respects, from clinical to retail, to industrial.

On the side note, the reason why schools have been using animals since the start of time is so we can understand the body better. I mean really, seeing the effects of drugs on an animal is different than reading about it in a textbook.

"To be fair", we should test on humans, because that's who we dispense prescriptions to. Veterinary pharmacists should be the only ones testing on animals, because they dispense prescriptions exclusively for animals. The only "fair" way is eye for an eye, right?

"I mean really", why do we need to test on animals if the best way to understand the human body is to test on humans themselves? Let's just bypass all of the pre-clinical trials and start testing at Phase 1, because we'll understand the body better .

Who's ready to be sacrificed knowing that some big drug company will be profiting off of only 0.1-0.5% of the compounds they test?

Animal testing will never be "fair".

 

[PharmDstudent]

In addition Aznfarmerboi, you should understand that drugs are being brought to the market so that drug companies can make a profit. Animal testing is almost completely void of altruistic qualities. Don't we have enough sartans, estrogens, diuretics, and steriods? Do we really need more of the same types of drugs? Who is profiting? Not the patients. The people who really need the novel medications, the sickest people, can't even afford them. Most of the elderly patients have to settle for what's already available in a generic.

My side notes:
Did you know that PETA has successfully stopped several large companies from doing animal testing that wasn't even mandated? No one wants to hear that an ingredient in their tasty Coca-cola drink was tested on mice- the caramel color. Other household products were or are being tested too.

I will only buy shampoos and cosmetics that say, "This product was not tested on animals." Sure, there is no guarantee that these products were never tested on animals, but at least the companies are holding themselves liable by printing that statement. PETA would be on their butts if they were testing animals but advertising otherwise.

I just want people to realize that there is no justification for animal testing. It is inherently wrong, yet sadly, it's necessary. It should be limited to the highest degree.

I'm not trying to single you out to ridicule you, Aznfarmerboi, but I'm sure it seems that way.

 

[SGPharmD]

"To be fair", we should test on humans, because that's who we dispense prescriptions to. Veterinary pharmacists should be the only ones testing on animals, because they dispense prescriptions exclusively for animals. The only "fair" way is eye for an eye, right?

Not necessarily because there are many drugs that animals use that are intended for human use, ie insulin, anti-thyroid medications, thyroid medications, eye drops/ointments. I don't know if you work in a pharmacy, but if not, you'd be surprised by the amount of dog and cat patients we have!

 

[PharmDstudent]

Not necessarily because there are many drugs that animals use that are intended for human use, ie insulin, anti-thyroid medications, thyroid medications, eye drops/ointments. I don't know if you work in a pharmacy, but if not, you'd be surprised by the amount of dog and cat patients we have!

I've worked in a pharmacy since 2004. I have a few years of experience, and actually, I just took a pay cut so that I wouldn't have to be miserable at CVS. My last store had airconditioning problems.

My point was not to split hairs between a regular pharmacist and a veterinarian pharmacist, so that's why I used the word "exclusively".

A pharmacist, who dispenses to humans, could just test on humans, right? Each type of pharmacist could experiment on their own patients to get the best "understanding" of their subjects .

 

[confettiflyer]

You hippies need to travel more.

and for you hippies that argue "not every PS students goes into research"...that claim is bogus. If you got to pick and choose and micromanage your curriculum based on what YOU think is important, it ceases to become education and becomes akin to ordering at McDonald's.

i'm going to eat foie gras tomorrow, mmmm, fattened duck liver ftw

 

[PharmDstudent]

You hippies need to travel more.

and for you hippies that argue "not every PS students goes into research"...that claim is bogus. If you got to pick and choose and micromanage your curriculum based on what YOU think is important, it ceases to become education and becomes akin to ordering at McDonald's.

i'm going to eat foie gras tomorrow, mmmm, fattened duck liver ftw

It's goose liver, not duck liver. DUH! Even "hippies" know that.

Oh, and make sure you inject the goose with Risperdine first. I know you want it to **** all over you. It's tastier that way .

 

[confettiflyer]

it's goose OR duck, silly animal worshippers!

 

[PharmDstudent]

it's goose OR duck, silly animal worshippers!

Thanks for clearing that up .

 

[Knickerbocker]

it's goose OR duck, silly animal worshippers!

I think your posts are becoming too inflammatory for these forums.

 

[FollowtheOmens]

it's goose OR duck, silly animal worshippers!

Hopfully the AD COMS will see through this kid if he gets an interview. He or she seems to have an immature sense of the world around. Man, I am glad I don't get all my world perspectives from South Park episodes like this dude.

Some humans think we can do as we please because we are superior. I think because we are "superior" we should set an example for other species. What if there was a more intelligent species above us and we were caged for life, mutilated, deprived food, light, and died in solitude?

I think these guys have the right idea!

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"--Albert Einstien

"Truley man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men"--Leonardo da Vinci

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated"--Mahatma Gandhi

 

[ClassOf78]

I'm not sure how many schools still use animals, but WAY back when, we did use animals, not for research, more for demonstration of effects of drugs on them. Actually it was pretty gruesome sometimes. We used rats and would put little pads over their eyes and shock them, then give them a dose of dilantin (through their tail) and shock them again to demonstrate the effects of the drug on the "seizure" we were inducing. We'd sedate them, stimulate them, and yes in the end euthanize them. Get caught hurting them intentionally, automatic F for the lab. One of the little critters bit me once, and I can't say I blame him. Bottom line, for me anyway, the lab was one of the most memorable and educational parts of my pharmacy education, and you won't find a bigger animal lover than me, and I'm not sure I could have done anything like this to a domestic animal but I don't recall being too traumatized using the rats.

 

[confettiflyer]

Hopfully the AD COMS will see through this kid if he gets an interview.
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated"--Mahatma Gandhi

OH don't worry, i'll be wearing my "I LOVE STEAK" shirt at my interview coming up and reeking of bbq.

"Doh." -- Homer Simpson

 

[FollowtheOmens]

OH don't worry, i'll be wearing my "I LOVE STEAK" shirt at my interview coming up and reeking of bbq.

"Doh." -- Homer Simpson

Matt greoning is a vegetarian. Doh!

 

[FollowtheOmens]

I'm not sure how many schools still use animals, but WAY back when, we did use animals, not for research, more for demonstration of effects of drugs on them. Actually it was pretty gruesome sometimes. We used rats and would put little pads over their eyes and shock them, then give them a dose of dilantin (through their tail) and shock them again to demonstrate the effects of the drug on the "seizure" we were inducing. We'd sedate them, stimulate them, and yes in the end euthanize them. Get caught hurting them intentionally, automatic F for the lab. One of the little critters bit me once, and I can't say I blame him. Bottom line, for me anyway, the lab was one of the most memorable and educational parts of my pharmacy education, and you won't find a bigger animal lover than me, and I'm not sure I could have done anything like this to a domestic animal but I don't recall being too traumatized using the rats.

You see, I also try to rationalize that maybe it's okay if it's just rats, but it does'nt work out.
I understand where you're coming from, but what gives us the right to place different levels of value on different living creatures? So is it okay to test on certain species? Are certain animals of limits while others are not? What do you think?

 

[confettiflyer]

You see, I also try to rationalize that maybe it's okay if it's just rats, but it does'nt work out.
I understand where you're coming from, but what gives us the right to place different levels of value on different living creatures? So is it okay to test on certain species? Are certain animals of limits while others are not? What do you think?

Alright I'll quit with the shenanigans. I'll be a realist and say that of course it's improper to test on certain animals. Those who are self-aware (ie pass the "mirror" test) and those that are just darn cute and cuddly or have a close connection to humans obviously would cause a HUGE uproar with the public.

Examples would be dogs, rabbits, elephants (if they weren't endangered) and other domestic animals. This of course would vary with different cultures. We eat cows like no other in the US and don't hesitate when it comes to slaughter (or heck, even testing)...but try that in India and you'd get driven out just as quick.

In the end, it's not about philosophy or "what is right" or any of that crap...it's about what is palatable with the general public. For most of us, rats are seen as pests, expendable, and generally aren't seen as contributing to the menagerie of life.

I've worked with rats, I think they can be cute sometimes, but I'm able to detach myself from the situation and understand they are there for my education....I think it's the inability to detach oneself (critical in health care) that causes many of you to protest. Just my $.02.

 

[Knickerbocker]

We eat cows like no other in the US and don't hesitate when it comes to slaughter (or heck, even testing)...but try that in India and you'd get driven out just as quick.

I just want to point out a common misconception about India. While most of the population holds cows in a high regard, it is legal to slaughter in certain states/provinces (especially ones that have larger Muslim populations). The country has a pretty big leather industry, too.

 

[confettiflyer]

I just want to point out a common misconception about India. While most of the population holds cows in a high regard, it is legal to slaughter in certain states/provinces (especially ones that have larger Muslim populations). The country has a pretty big leather industry, too.

hmm that's interesting. thanks for the clarification. it's just images of cows wandering around on travel channel shows doesn't help that misconception.

 

[ClassOf78]

I also understand how you feel. For me, I do place different values on different living creatures, as cruel as that might sound. My dog is much different to me, because as a culture we have domesticated them. She lives in my house, she greets me when I come home, she knows me. I really see both sides of this issue, and truthfully, for me being a visual learner it was a powerful lesson. I know this doesn't help one that may be offended by such things, but if it does happen go into it with a good attitude, learn from the experience. Good luck to you all. I'm so impressed by your determination to become pharmacist. It's a GREAT profession.

 

[CO2012]

although this does not relate directly to this thread, i see that peta was mentioned above. thought this article was interesting and wanted everyone to see it:

http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20080111/DC1129510012008-1.html

An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it's perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.
Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.