What a load of old tosh!

How can a poor little mouse, who's biology is completely different from us human beings help find a cure for the common cold.

I would suggest that scientist get a grip.

The common cold isn't life threatening in most cases, and lets face it, it is only the menfolk who think they are dying from it.

By the way if you must find cures use humans to experiment on, not innocent creatures who where not put here on earth for us to experiment on.

Long Live! Dr Hadwens, finding non animals ways to test for cures.

May I start by agreeing with Clifford. Any potential cure is decades away, if that. This looks too much like a lazy reproduction of a PR Hacks' press release for my liking.

Ann Beirne, what makes you think mice have completely different immune systems? It has been a while since I studied Biology but I would have sworn they too were carbon based life forms.

As for experimenting on humans, well first of all the lesson of Auschwitz is very clear on that subject. Second government regulations demand that drugs have to pass animal trials before they can be used in humans. Experimental drugs will always need to be tested on animals first. Third human volunteers are a little thin on the ground don't you think?

It is impossible to do medical science except through and with animal tests. That may change in the future but there is no evidence of it changing soon.

For Ms Beirne and Katherine Perlo, I can kill mice if I like. If I lived in Italy I could even eat them. In fact the government will require me to kill them if there are too many in my home. And kill them in painful and nasty ways. If I own a cat, there is no law preventing my cat from killing them either. Can you please explain to me why the much greater cruelty of natural and every day life is permissible but the use of said mice in medical research is not? If might does not make right perhaps you might like to take it up with a cat?

Ann, did you actually read the piece? "Most people shrug off colds within a few days but in some people with respiratory problems – such as asthma – a cold can be fatal.

"Colds can result in babies and small children being admitted to hospital, lead to pneumonia in people with weakened immune systems and can trigger asthma attacks. They can also cause acute attacks of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, sometimes with fatal consequences."

Scientists always have to weigh the potential benefits of any animal research against the potential suffering of the animals, and they are not allowed to use animals if there is any other way.

We have been experimenting on humans for years, especially when it comes to the common cold. Sometimes you have to use animals to make real medical progress. According to public opinion polls, most people think that this is acceptable.

Yes, a good treatment or cure may be years away - medical research proceeds slowly and carefully. But most newspapers and the BBC ran with this story today, so science journalists must have seen something more than "lazy reproduction of a PR Hacks' [sic] press release", Benjamin.

And Robert seems to be suggesting that we genetically modify humans instead of mice. Hmm.

I just wanted to make a point in reference to the mention that "How can a poor little mouse, who's biology is completely different from us human beings help find a cure for the common cold." simply we have similar biological systems to animals, we can as such use them as an effective model for human disease, this is why there have been medical advances using animal research, for example Chemotherapy for leukaemia and inhaled ahstma medication.

Secondly we can't just test on humans, we do use clinical trials toward the end of the testing process but to use just humans wouldn't work, for one just the sheer number of people that would be required in order to conduct the tests, where exactly would all these volunteers would come from? Also the psycological impact on those that would have to carry out the tests. It just isn't a feasible suggestion.

Ideally though we would use non-animal methods but unfortunately no method exists which can out right replace animal research, there are how ever methods that can help reduce numbers of animals used, these methods are used where ever they are. I'd say its important to note that scientists are going by the 3 R's of animal research, those being Refine, Reduce and Replace.

I'm sick of these kind of inhumane scientists who rather kill or infect defenceless animals than using supposedly non-human/non-animal high-technology experiments. Actually just to cut cost. If they can create nuclear weapons; surely they can create the technology to replace animals/humans for testing!Ask these scientists a simple question - can they imagine infecting, torturing or killing their pets? Yet, they've double standards, not just for animals but for humans too. Capitalists have indeed created inhumane monsters just to maximise profit, cut cost and that's what experimentation using animals are about! One last thing, I suggest these scientists make a trip to Bali and visit the ancient temples where monkeys are revered instead of being treated barbarically for experiments! But since their humanity has been lost under the capitalist system, probably, the fundamental points of such ancient wisdom would have been lost on these brainwashed scientists!

The problem with non-animal methods is you can only do so much with them, they have huge limitations but are used where they can be, this is by law. Also the notion that animal tests are used to cut costs is absurd, they are incredibly expensive, it has nothing to do with their cost, its simply a neccisty, we either use animals for medical research or we have no medical research.

As with all so-called scientific breakthroughs that involve the absue of other animals, this story will sink without trace.

I'd also like to point out that Paul Harasikwa knows nothing about medical research. It is only through clinical trials (those carried out on humans) that breakthroughs occur. Look at all the drugs that have terrible side effects in circulation, all of them were deemed safe after animal testing.

I'd also like to point the ignorant in the direction of the Dr Hadwen Trust, Europeans for Medical Progress and the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine in the US. ALL of which are comprised of doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals.

"we either use animals for medical research or we have no medical research." I've never heard such rubbish in my life!

And similar life forms do not a good match make. Cancer in animals develops differently from that in humans, for instance, and forcing animals to emulate human diets and other harmful human activities such as smoking is NOT research. It is torture and has been shown to not only involve massive suffering, but offers nothing useful to human progress. If we want to cure smoking related and diet related cancers, then we should stop smoking and stop eating cancer causing foods (such as red meat). Leave the animals out of it.

And as for the emotive plea regarding Auschwitz, I would point to Charles Patterson's 'Eternal Treblinka'; "In relation to them [mice], all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.” I suggest you ask why so many Holocaust survivors ended up vegetarians. Touché.

If we wish to help human beings, we should not be killing millions of non-humans in order to do so. This is immoral and arrogant. And it simply does not work.

www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk Go and learn something.

Well MiniMouse, I will agree that most newspapers and the BBC ran with this story today. But since when is sheer numbers proof of a good story? How many papers reported Cold Fusion uncritically? I am not sure that some science journalists must have seen something more than "lazy reproduction of a PR Hacks' [sic] press release". After all, if the alternative was either real work or not getting their story on the front page of the paper, well, that would be something else wouldn't it?

Jennifer Hynes

"As with all so-called scientific breakthroughs that involve the absue of other animals, this story will sink without trace."

You mean like that useless polio vaccine?

"It is only through clinical trials (those carried out on humans) that breakthroughs occur. Look at all the drugs that have terrible side effects in circulation, all of them were deemed safe after animal testing."

The first bit is precisely backwards. Breakthroughs come from all sorts of places these days but they only get to human trials at the very end - not the start. Let's consider all the drugs that were approved but that have terrible side effects. You are, of course, looking at the wrong end - it is not those that get through that matter, but those that don't. If out of every 1000 drugs, 10 are approved and 1 of which has an unexpected sidce effect, then we have been saved from 990 drugs with nasty side effects. Animal tests are not perfect but they are better than nothing.

A propos nothing much, a bigger problem is likely to be those drugs that should have got through but didn't. Aspirin would never pass these days. Pity.

"And similar life forms do not a good match make. Cancer in animals develops differently from that in humans, for instance, and forcing animals to emulate human diets and other harmful human activities such as smoking is NOT research."

Similar life forms are better than nothing. No one is claiming they are perfect. How do you know that cancer develops differentl?

Forcing animals to copy human diets *is* research. Not that a lot of it is done these days.

"If we want to cure smoking related and diet related cancers, then we should stop smoking and stop eating cancer causing foods (such as red meat). Leave the animals out of it."

Well yes. But of course we all know that smoking is a problem and we don't need to do more research on it. We know that diet related cancers are a problem (although we do need to do much more research on those). The evidence thatr red meat causes cancer is amazingly weak - much more so than smoking - by the way. But then what if we want to research something else? AIDS for instance? How are you proposing we test those drugs?

Quoting delusional misrepresentations of the Holocaust is not an argument. I doubt that so many Holocaust survivors ended up vegetarians. Or indeed many at all.

If we want to help cure diseases and relieve the suffering of all creatures - dogs get cancer too you know - we need to keep medical research going and that includes animal tests. There is no other way. The aim must be minimisation and harm reduction, not abolition.

"A propos nothing much, a bigger problem is likely to be those drugs that should have got through but didn't. Aspirin would never pass these days. Pity."

Perhaps, but it's also worth remembering that a recent study found that aspirin was involved in almost one fifth of all admissions to hospital for an adverse drug reaction, almost entirely due to the same internal bleeding that would cause it to fail animal tests (Pirmohamed et al BMJ 2004). I think it's only right that we demand much higher safety standards from new drugs than we do from drugs that were developed a long time ago.

Jennifer, this development may well sink without trace, on the other hand it may not.

For all the naysayers, the obituary of Judah Folkman linked below in today's paper says a lot about how research, any research, proceeds. It's all about hypotheses, trial and error.

Judah Folkman showed, against initial scepticism at the time, that secondary tumours will only grow if they have a blood supply and that tumours stimulate the development of a blood supply. He did it using animals, and it would not have been possible without them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/dr-judah-folkman-cancer-researcher-who-realised-that-tumours-secrete-a-substance-that-stimulates-their-own-blood-supply-777708.html

After being infected with diptheria by the family doctor in 1942, I suffered with bronchitis - two or three times a year - and colds - up to five or six times a year.
Then five and a half years ago I heard about an ancient natural remedy for bronchitis. "Tincture of Myrrh".
Initially my coughing stopped ten minutes after taking the first dose of five drops in a little orange squash and after five or six further doses no more bronchitis.
I have succumbed to a cold once since then, but there are thousands of different mutations of the cold virus and of course it is almost certainly mutating all the time so I would count that as a very high siccess rate.

Robert, you wonder why we are not reading about the transferring of the retrovirus blocking mechanism of the mouse to humans.

One day, perhaps we shall be reading about it. In order to reach that day, however, we must first learn how to safely re-engineer genes to our advantage. We are only at the beginning of that learning process.

The fact that scientists have shown that it is possible to create a mouse that sneezes and sniffles, is one step towards a possible future where we do not have to.

What a load of rubbish this is. I may only be 15 but I know stupidity when I see it. I've always been against animal testing for many reasons and this just backs up an argument. To some, mice may seem to be nothing compared to us but they really do not deserve to suffer for medical research more then they have done.
Support organisations such as the Dr. Hadwen's trust, who devote themselves to non-animal research.

alasdair mackay, self evidently companies that make cough medicine are unlikely to support research into cures for common colds unless they could make even more money out of it. But that is the great thing about the free market - no one has a monopoly on funding. There is no reason why the Government would not fund it or some pharamceutical company that does NOT make cough medicine would not develop it further. Giving monopoly funding to anyone, even the Government, is the problem. Not the profits of existing companies.

Karen Gardner, I agree with your support of animal testing but I do think this is gilding the lily.

"Animals are not treated badly. Scientists are not gratuitously cruel to them and most animal studies involve little impact on the animal. Where a study may cause discomfort or pain it is rigorously assessed by independent panels and animals are protected from severe pain with anaesthetics and analgesics. Those who care for laboratory animals are very skilled in reducing pain and distress."

Most animals are not treated badly although a process of testing that involves sterile laboratories and eventual painless euthanasia is inevitably going to be something other than good treatment. The vast majority of scientists are not cruel - but the real allegation is that too many are heartless and indifferent rather than cruel. Most tests may have little impact, but some do. This is inevitable. Rigorous assessment from independent panels? You mean a group of researchers evaluating other researchers?

Feel contempt for those spreading fear about SARS but you will still have to explain why it is not a risk - and did these doctors study any likely impacts?

This report may be accurate in calling the findings of this study a breakthrough. But it is not the start of a cure for the common cold. This may well not work out or even be useful. Who knows? I agree the work of many skilled scientists have brought us this step forward. But it is only a step.

When you say "An effective treatment for the common cold would save the lives of patients with vulnerable health." you show the problem. There is a chasm between this mouse and a cure. It is wrong to glide over that.

I do not criticise scientists for not being open and for appearing arrogant in our communications. However you miss the point about PR and spin. It is not about communicating, it is about the opposite of communication. PR people do not attempt to explain and inform. They attempt to mislead. If they have a bad story they attempt to show it is a good story. If they have a good story they attempt to claim the Second Coming. As with this story. A bit more skepticism would not have gone amiss.

Whatever treatment is developed in this mouse will it work in humans? If they haven't developed a cure after trying for years with human volunteers, are we expected to believe it will happen using a genetically engineered mouse? The theory is that drugs developed in this mouse can be used to treat the human cold. According to vice president of major drug company 'majority of drugs do not work in most people'. And the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that prescription drugs are the 4th major cause of death! Independent on Sunday (21.10.07) revealed that 'Britons are dying in their thousands from prescription and over the counter medicines' -all of which are developed and tested in animals. It is a poor science that inflicts suffering on one species for the alleged purpose of finding cures for another, and even poorer one that fails to recognise its abysmall track record. One cannot deny advances have been made, but all have depended upon trial and error in human patients, hence the numerous tragedies and drugs withdrawn.

In every online discussion about this subject I have ever read the pro vivisectionists always say how the anti-vivisectionists come up with a load of false evidence and misquoted extracts from journals from reports. Even if some of them are misquoted, which may well be possible; I see no reason why they all should be. Not only that but they/we (the anti-vivs) always put forward a great deal of evidence which is backed by medical professionals and researchers (such as Europeans for medical progress) I for one am willing to trust these people just as much as anybody would trust a pro-vivsectionist researcher. One thing I have noticed is that this performance is never mirrored by the pro-vivisectionist supporters. All that is ever said is "animals are vital for research" or for example "Insulin as the solution for diabetes depended on animal research" they never actually supply anything to back it up, they just expect everyone to assume that it is true. From a purely non-scientific; simply observational point of view it seems that anti-vivsection is the only believable conclusion in these instances. What is to say that the medical breakthroughs that supposedly depended on animal research actually depended on them, why would it be that the real breakthroughs didn't actually come in the human based sections of these studies?
I for one am against animal experiments on moral grounds that I simply do not believe that it is okay to take away the lives and freedoms of individual and sentient beings simply for the gain of a species who think they are better and worth more than all the others, they were put on this earth by whatever means for the same 'reasons' as us; to live a life and progress as animals do. One very relevant point a friend of mine put forward was that if aliens who were infinately more advanced than us in every way were to arrive on Earth and decide that they wanted to experiment on us would we really see that as okay and acceptable? If we as a society and vivisectors themselves really do care about the animals why do we think that it is okay to take the one and most beautiful thing that any being could ever possess away from them; their lives and freedoms that we so enjoy, depend on and revere?

Stop the world we all should get off.... i am sorry but dont you think its about time we turned back time. Turned it back to innocense and morals, of a little mystery, respect and most of all a difference between childhood and adulthood.

It is quite easy to see that our country is really going down the proverbial pan, in every single way, and now we have to have introduced to us, british day' and all children will have to swear allegiance to the queen! what ever difference will that make to our country or to the youth, why is it ask yourself Mr Brown that you see a need to have to declare that there are some true british prople here still, and could we still be heard if its not too much of an inconvenience!!
As a mother of four, whom i have mostly brought up on my own, i feel i have the knowledge, and the hindsight to speak out about how i feel about the demise of our country our society and i feel its all so obvious, i can never understand why those in a position of power cant see these things.
1. when we had punishment in schools, the youth then were too afraid and had respect for authority, be it teachers or police, and most of all parents, for they too were allowed then to chastise their children, to teach them discipline, how else will they ever know discipline unless it is shown to them, you cannot be a best friend to children teachers, and show them right from wrong, they need to have a certain amount of fear from doing wrong, or else what makes the difference. And now we have youths that think every thing is right, all is allowed, and noone is worthy of any respect, and it will only get worse. bring back punishment in schools, give a child the cane, if he does nothing wrong he won't get it!!
Yes there will always be the odd one, but an odd one is better than the very odd millions roaming our streets like something out of mad max!!
2. Can you not see that however user friendly you are trying to be british people will just abuse the 24 hour drinking laws, and the ones who would not, don't go out to drink any more, as they are the older generation, who wanted to have a cigarette with there drink. We never had all these binge drinkers when pubs opened at 11 and shut at 3 then opened again at 7 and shut at 11. What it did give people was somewhere to look forward to going, for a few hours socialising, you would then actually arrange to meet people as you knew it was a set time. Now look at the bloody mess our streets and youth are in, how is that progress, how? its rubbish, older people are afraid to go out at night, and again the youth is being allowed to run riot, with little or no punishment for their actions, and really they should not be, it is the laws fault for allowing such rediculous licensing laws, well done, another great idea failed, and socially has runined peoples lives.
3. Why oh why oh why, and how did we get to people not having the right to light up a cigarette if they damn well wanted one? Ok joe and jane wanted to get a job in a bar, but did not want to inhale other peoples smoke, ..well poss off then and go and work in a cake shop!!! how did it get to taking people freedom of choice away over smoking, it di not the non smokers did it,who the devil are these so called people who can just run peoples lives without the vote of the actual people, the tax that smokers pay on cigarettes far out ways the cost of medical treatment for smoking related illness, and dont go thinking that the patches are any different as they are basically taxed by the government too, so they are laughing all ways, why does no body ever make a stand in this coutry, why is every decision not voted on by all the people in the country.
4. Traffic... well when i was young most towns in our area had stations, yes stations, that how most of us got around, and yes we even went to the coast on a train, but hold on lets get rid of a lot of the smaller stations, as the population over the next 50 years will only get smaller...is that what some vclever idiot thought, and now look, we have no staions in our smaller towns or villages, instead we all clamber into our fuel laden vehicles every day and have to drive out to the nearest one, try to park, pay stupid paking fees, get squashed or stand all the way, some one tell me why, we need to have rail links in all our towns now to take the traffic off the roads, and avoid the enviroment issue, but oh dear the land where the staions were has all been sold off and built on..no where to put them now, because there are soooooo many people...who need transport!!
5. Then of course there are the Hospitals. now do you know by now where i am going with this one.. yes we used to have small hospitals in most towns, a place where one could be sent to for a broken bone or small cuts and bruises, xrays, dentist clinic, even small ops like tonsilectomy or appendix, now of course they have all been closed because just like the stations, the bright spark thought the country population was going to decrease and they would not be need, so we will just have huge hospitals, that are far too big to keep properly clean and sterile, the doctors are overloaded and tired, and patients have to wait for all those small things because they are too busy... great...oh and while we are on this subject, does one remember the days when we could actually tell the difference between the medical staff and the handyman and cleaner, yes that it, crisp clean white coats, and aprons, crisp white hats to keep hair out of patients faces , no doctors ties flapping around in wounds, if an apron was dirty it was changed, and a doctors coat was buttoned up, now they all look like they are about to scrub the floors or go jogging, like every thing else in this country, there is no self respect, no effort, nothing to aspire to, a girl when young would want to be a nurse because of the lovely uniform initially, they wanted to be recognised as someone who cared for others, to be respected, no wonder they have not got this image in their eyes now, soon no one will want to join the profession.
6...Offenders, young mainly, on sentencing, they should be given a clear cut choice, ie 6 months in prison, or 6 months in army training camp. ITS THAT SIMPLE.. most will choose the army training camp, and what a result that will be... The old air bases, and army bases which again keep being sold off, could be made into bases for these offenders, Ex army personnel who have to retire but wish to stay in that type of job could run them, instill team work and respect into these louts, and i know i had one, and watch them change, mine wishes he had had that choice, what bloody good does locking a teenager up for 23 hours a day do? what what what, it did nothing for him, what he did not know about drugs when he went in he certainly knew about by the time he came out, how to use them move them, get them etc. The answers are so simple it makes my head ache, if they do not change after the traing and reoffend then put them away for a longer period, it was ok for men who fought for this country, who had done nothing wrong, why is it not good enough for louts, criminals etc. Give them some backbone and make men out of them, stop the do gooders again, go do good somewhere else stop messing up this country.
I am goint to stop now as i get so angry and i could go on and on, but please will something change, before its too late, before its the done thing to go and get a bag of cocaine and the corner shop, before no body dare walk the streets past 6 at night, before we cannot go to hospital because we will be worse than when we went in, and before the children are teaching the teachers.

STOP BREATHING!! ITS AIRBORNE AND UNAVOIDABLE, and personally i always feel a lot better after a really good sneeze, its not life threatening as such, so lets worry more about curing terminal illness, or just getting rid of rats from around duck ponds!!!!!