Elizabeth ChoinskiScience LibrarianUniversity of Mississippi Librariesulemc@cypress.mcsr.olemiss.edu
Research scientists who are using animals as test subjects are required by the Animal Welfare Act (7 USC 2131-2156) to consider alternatives to animal testing prior to beginning a research project. These investigators are required to search the literature for alternatives and to supply their findings to their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). If no alternatives are available, investigators must supply to their IACUC a written description of their search history and databases used to look for alternatives. The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) of the National Agriculture Library provides in-depth information, in a question and answer format, concerning why literature searches must be conducted for animal testing alternatives and provides definitions of alternatives (Kreger 1998).
When the Animal Welfare Act took effect, literature searches were primarily accomplished using paper indexes or by employing the services of an information professional who could do mediated searches using databases from DIALOG, BRS, or other dial-up search services. Shevell and James (1995) discuss the role of the information specialist in terms of providing mediated searches. They stress the particulars of an effective reference interview with the investigator. They provide a detailed discussion of search methods and strategies available to the information specialist. Likewise, AWIC provides tips for doing a literature search that emphasizes communication between the information specialist and the investigator as well as the search strategies that are likely to be useful when searching CD-ROM based databases (Smith 1994). Snow provides very specific examples of searching Biosis Previews, Medline, EMBASE, and other databases via a dial-up connection to DIALOG (1990).
With the advent of web-based bibliographic databases and web sites full of information, the roles of the research scientist and librarian have changed. Many scientists do their own searching now. Instead of providing search services, librarians may be called upon to educate end users in navigating web-based sources of information. Librarians may even be called upon to help investigators with regulatory compliance concerning their search for animal testing alternatives. Based on personal experience with scientists in an academic research environment, investigators are usually not too interested in the policy-making or political aspects of animal rights when they are trying to get their grant proposals finished for a deadline. They are interested in finding literature specific to their research topic. This article focuses on bibliographic databases and web sites that provide information on the scientific aspects of animal testing alternatives and not on the pros and cons of animal rights.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
another article about animal testing....
Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Government labs will start moving to non-animal methods such as cells and computer models to test chemicals, drugs and toxins for safety, officials said on Thursday.
Such methods are faster, and are likely to be more accurate and far less expensive, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency said.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Human Genome Research Institute, both part of the NIH, said they would work with the EPA to make sure the newer methods are more accurate before expanding the program.
Animal testing has been the backbone of scientific research but NHGRI director Dr. Francis Collins said it does not predict very well what a chemical will do to a human being.
"It's slow. It's expensive," Collins told reporters in a telephone briefing. "We are not rats and we are not even other primates," he added.
"After all, ultimately what you are looking for is, does this compound do damage to cells? Can we, instead of looking at a whole animal, look at cells from different organs?"
The collaboration is starting out slowly and will cross-check the new rapid tests, called high-throughput tests, against older tests of known toxins.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Government labs will start moving to non-animal methods such as cells and computer models to test chemicals, drugs and toxins for safety, officials said on Thursday.
Such methods are faster, and are likely to be more accurate and far less expensive, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency said.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Human Genome Research Institute, both part of the NIH, said they would work with the EPA to make sure the newer methods are more accurate before expanding the program.
Animal testing has been the backbone of scientific research but NHGRI director Dr. Francis Collins said it does not predict very well what a chemical will do to a human being.
"It's slow. It's expensive," Collins told reporters in a telephone briefing. "We are not rats and we are not even other primates," he added.
"After all, ultimately what you are looking for is, does this compound do damage to cells? Can we, instead of looking at a whole animal, look at cells from different organs?"
The collaboration is starting out slowly and will cross-check the new rapid tests, called high-throughput tests, against older tests of known toxins.
Tragic incident in animal testing by Kathy Archibald
ANIMAL TESTING
Section: letters
In light of the Northwick Park clinical trial disaster - where six young men were nearly killed by a drug 'proven safe' in monkeys - it is clear that we need to review the practice of assessing drug safety in animals, superior methods are available which could better protect clinical trial volunteers and, ultimately, the public from side-effects of prescription drugs: currently our fourth leading killer. Tests involving human tissue could have predicted the disaster, where monkeys failed so tragically.
Thanks in large part to Ecologist readers, 234 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 92, calling for a scientific evaluation of animal testing. This historic EDM closes in November, so if you have not sent a postcard/email/fax/ letter to your MP (details at www.curedisease.net <http://www.curedisease.net>), please hurry! Now is the last chance to boost parliamentary support for this urgently-needed evaluation - and to show it is not just a minority of extremists who doubt the value of animal testing.
~~~~~~~~
Section: letters
In light of the Northwick Park clinical trial disaster - where six young men were nearly killed by a drug 'proven safe' in monkeys - it is clear that we need to review the practice of assessing drug safety in animals, superior methods are available which could better protect clinical trial volunteers and, ultimately, the public from side-effects of prescription drugs: currently our fourth leading killer. Tests involving human tissue could have predicted the disaster, where monkeys failed so tragically.
Thanks in large part to Ecologist readers, 234 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 92, calling for a scientific evaluation of animal testing. This historic EDM closes in November, so if you have not sent a postcard/email/fax/ letter to your MP (details at www.curedisease.net <http://www.curedisease.net>), please hurry! Now is the last chance to boost parliamentary support for this urgently-needed evaluation - and to show it is not just a minority of extremists who doubt the value of animal testing.
~~~~~~~~
argument over animal testing
Agreement could bring end to animal testing
Agencies will develop other methods
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
(c) USA TODAY, 2008
Agencies will develop other methods
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
(c) USA TODAY, 2008
Another Article about the truths of animal testing
Comment: The truth about animal research
Section: Comment and Analysis
No matter how extreme activists get, scientists must resist the temptation to go beyond the facts, warns Robert Matthews
ON ISSUES from genetically modified crops to climate change, scientists are confronted by critics seemingly willing to say or do anything to win the debate. Faced with such opposition, it can be tempting to push facts harder than they can bear, simply to get a hearing.
This temptation has long worried some of the scientists at the sharp end of such controversies. When the issue of global warming first made headlines in the late 1980s, the influential climate researcher Stephen Schneider expressed the hope that scientists could strike a balance "between being effective and being honest".
Yet such hope seems increasingly forlorn in one such controversy: the justifiability of animal experiments. Provoked by opponents prepared to use everything from celebrity endorsement to lethal force, the science community has begun sliding down a slippery slope -- making assertions that lack any basis in fact.
Let's be clear: animal experiments have undoubtedly been important in many areas of medicine, from immunology to surgery. Concern over the public's lack of appreciation of this fact prompted many eminent researchers, including six Nobel prizewinners, to stating that animal experiments have made "an important contribution" to medical science and surgery.
Since then, attitudes on both sides have hardened. The protests have grown more strident -- and so have the pronouncements of scientists. Those same eminent researchers and even the Royal Society have taken to making a far stronger statement about the value of animal experiments: that "virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly [on research involving animals]".
This is certainly an impressive rejoinder to critics of such research -- but is it true? To find out, I traced the origins of the statement, and examined the evidence behind it. The results will appear in this month's issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and they do nothing to engender trust in the scientific community.
The statement may have acquired the imprimatur of the UK's leading scientific academy, but it turns out that it does not originate there -- or even in the refereed literature. The wording comes from an anonymous article in a newsletter circulated by the American Physiological Society in 1994, and attributed to the US Public Health Service. It contains not one reference to the scientific literature.
Long lists of breakthroughs attributed to animal research can indeed be found on the websites of pro-experimentation lobby groups, but they fall far short of representing "virtually every" medical achievement of the last century. This might sound churlish, but there's a point of principle here. The adoption of the statement by so many eminent scientists places a clear obligation on them to substantiate it with evidence. Their failure -- and, in all probability, inability -- to do so leaves them open to a charge of abuse of intellectual authority.
More problematic still is the assertion that all these medical achievements "depended directly or indirectly" on animal experiments -- that is, such experiments were not merely part of the discovery process, but provided invaluable weight of evidence. The distinction is crucial, given the widespread use of animals in medical research. Such use is mandatory in drug discovery, so every new wonder-drug involves the use of animals at some stage. But to claim this proves their value is as nonsensical as claiming that the wearing of lab coats proves their value in finding new cures.
The real question with animal experiments, then, is not their involvement in major breakthroughs, but whether they actually do any good. Astonishingly, that has never been formally established. Despite decades of research involving animals, there have been few systematic attempts to see how reliable the outcome really is.
Most attempts have been in the field of toxicity testing, and the results are far from encouraging. Few provide enough data to allow the value of animal studies to be worked out; those that do suggest they are no more informative than tossing a coin.
Does this prove that all animal research is useless? No -- but it does show that assertions about the value of such research are unsupported by data. It also explains the lack of supporting references in the original 1994 statement: there weren't any to give. Yet its endorsement by so many authority figures has given it a wholly spurious level of scientific credibility -- one that few non-scientists could easily dismiss.
The solution, of course, is to establish a systematic study of the real value of animal experiments to medical science. It will be expensive and time-consuming, and may not give the desired result. In the meantime, the scientific community should have the courage to ignore the hectoring of animal rights activists and state not what it hopes is true, but what it can prove to be true. To go beyond the facts is to risk that most precious commodity: intellectual integrity.
~~~~~~~~
By Robert Matthews
Section: Comment and Analysis
No matter how extreme activists get, scientists must resist the temptation to go beyond the facts, warns Robert Matthews
ON ISSUES from genetically modified crops to climate change, scientists are confronted by critics seemingly willing to say or do anything to win the debate. Faced with such opposition, it can be tempting to push facts harder than they can bear, simply to get a hearing.
This temptation has long worried some of the scientists at the sharp end of such controversies. When the issue of global warming first made headlines in the late 1980s, the influential climate researcher Stephen Schneider expressed the hope that scientists could strike a balance "between being effective and being honest".
Yet such hope seems increasingly forlorn in one such controversy: the justifiability of animal experiments. Provoked by opponents prepared to use everything from celebrity endorsement to lethal force, the science community has begun sliding down a slippery slope -- making assertions that lack any basis in fact.
Let's be clear: animal experiments have undoubtedly been important in many areas of medicine, from immunology to surgery. Concern over the public's lack of appreciation of this fact prompted many eminent researchers, including six Nobel prizewinners, to stating that animal experiments have made "an important contribution" to medical science and surgery.
Since then, attitudes on both sides have hardened. The protests have grown more strident -- and so have the pronouncements of scientists. Those same eminent researchers and even the Royal Society have taken to making a far stronger statement about the value of animal experiments: that "virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly [on research involving animals]".
This is certainly an impressive rejoinder to critics of such research -- but is it true? To find out, I traced the origins of the statement, and examined the evidence behind it. The results will appear in this month's issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and they do nothing to engender trust in the scientific community.
The statement may have acquired the imprimatur of the UK's leading scientific academy, but it turns out that it does not originate there -- or even in the refereed literature. The wording comes from an anonymous article in a newsletter circulated by the American Physiological Society in 1994, and attributed to the US Public Health Service. It contains not one reference to the scientific literature.
Long lists of breakthroughs attributed to animal research can indeed be found on the websites of pro-experimentation lobby groups, but they fall far short of representing "virtually every" medical achievement of the last century. This might sound churlish, but there's a point of principle here. The adoption of the statement by so many eminent scientists places a clear obligation on them to substantiate it with evidence. Their failure -- and, in all probability, inability -- to do so leaves them open to a charge of abuse of intellectual authority.
More problematic still is the assertion that all these medical achievements "depended directly or indirectly" on animal experiments -- that is, such experiments were not merely part of the discovery process, but provided invaluable weight of evidence. The distinction is crucial, given the widespread use of animals in medical research. Such use is mandatory in drug discovery, so every new wonder-drug involves the use of animals at some stage. But to claim this proves their value is as nonsensical as claiming that the wearing of lab coats proves their value in finding new cures.
The real question with animal experiments, then, is not their involvement in major breakthroughs, but whether they actually do any good. Astonishingly, that has never been formally established. Despite decades of research involving animals, there have been few systematic attempts to see how reliable the outcome really is.
Most attempts have been in the field of toxicity testing, and the results are far from encouraging. Few provide enough data to allow the value of animal studies to be worked out; those that do suggest they are no more informative than tossing a coin.
Does this prove that all animal research is useless? No -- but it does show that assertions about the value of such research are unsupported by data. It also explains the lack of supporting references in the original 1994 statement: there weren't any to give. Yet its endorsement by so many authority figures has given it a wholly spurious level of scientific credibility -- one that few non-scientists could easily dismiss.
The solution, of course, is to establish a systematic study of the real value of animal experiments to medical science. It will be expensive and time-consuming, and may not give the desired result. In the meantime, the scientific community should have the courage to ignore the hectoring of animal rights activists and state not what it hopes is true, but what it can prove to be true. To go beyond the facts is to risk that most precious commodity: intellectual integrity.
~~~~~~~~
By Robert Matthews
article over animal testing
Stop animal testing - it's not just cruel, it's ineffective By Kelly Overton
June 23, 2006 The pharmaceutical industry and the National Institutes of Health spend billions of dollars annually on medical research techniques that have been rendered obsolete by technological advances.
Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical research. The continued use of animals to test the effectiveness of medications and health interventions for humans is akin to using smoke signals instead of e-mail as a method of communication.
Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.
In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper. Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. Among the most publicized are the delays of a polio vaccine by over three decades and a four-year delay in the use of protease inhibitors for HIV treatment - after animal testing showed these interventions to be useless.
We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very few diseases are species-unique, and the only efficient and effective way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells, tissues and organs.
The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and disease almost always fails, simply because humans and animals have different physiologies.
Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.
Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil. It is evil, but it's not necessary. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes, telegrams and bloodletting. It is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science, through tax dollars and research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices.
It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that continue to profit by charging patients, insurance companies and the state and federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and antiquated research. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past decade, with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those killed or disabled by dangerous medicines.
Regardless of one's feelings about animals, it is time for consumers and taxpayers to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and produces an inferior product.
The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on animals.
The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat of biological terrorism. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and methodology.
Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical research. Researchers have proved ad infinitum that hitting a beagle on the head with a hammer causes trauma and forcing monkeys to smoke gives them cancer.
It's time to insist that they stop harming defenseless animals and wasting our precious health care dollars so they can get busy saving our lives by embracing technologies that work.
Kelly Overton is executive director of People Protecting Animals and Their Habitats in Cambridge, Mass. His e-mail is knophangan@aol.com.
June 23, 2006 The pharmaceutical industry and the National Institutes of Health spend billions of dollars annually on medical research techniques that have been rendered obsolete by technological advances.
Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical research. The continued use of animals to test the effectiveness of medications and health interventions for humans is akin to using smoke signals instead of e-mail as a method of communication.
Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.
In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper. Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. Among the most publicized are the delays of a polio vaccine by over three decades and a four-year delay in the use of protease inhibitors for HIV treatment - after animal testing showed these interventions to be useless.
We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very few diseases are species-unique, and the only efficient and effective way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells, tissues and organs.
The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and disease almost always fails, simply because humans and animals have different physiologies.
Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.
Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil. It is evil, but it's not necessary. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes, telegrams and bloodletting. It is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science, through tax dollars and research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices.
It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that continue to profit by charging patients, insurance companies and the state and federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and antiquated research. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past decade, with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those killed or disabled by dangerous medicines.
Regardless of one's feelings about animals, it is time for consumers and taxpayers to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and produces an inferior product.
The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on animals.
The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat of biological terrorism. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and methodology.
Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical research. Researchers have proved ad infinitum that hitting a beagle on the head with a hammer causes trauma and forcing monkeys to smoke gives them cancer.
It's time to insist that they stop harming defenseless animals and wasting our precious health care dollars so they can get busy saving our lives by embracing technologies that work.
Kelly Overton is executive director of People Protecting Animals and Their Habitats in Cambridge, Mass. His e-mail is knophangan@aol.com.
stub over tennessee
Stub Draft
February 8, 2008
Tennessee Basketball
The men's basketball program has always been a little behind the women’s team since it was founded in the 1908-1909 academic year. But they are finally catching up with the women's team now. Although the guys have had their share of success with 15 total appearances in the NCAA tournament. Along with the appearances in the National Invitational tournament also know as the NIT tournament eleven times. They have been successful in the South Eastern Conference with 8 championships. These championships came in 1936, 1941, 1943, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, and 2000. The championships in the years of 1972, 1977, and 2000 were all shared championships with some other team of the South Eastern Conference Tennessee played their home games at the Thompson-Boiling Arena. Tennessee fan support is one of the best in the nation since they have been in the Thompson-Boiling arena they have had an average of 20,000 fans every game and the fan support is still going very strong even today. In 2006-2007 the Volunteers were ranked 4th nationally in attendance with average of 19,661 which is the second largest of any pervious year. Along with that, since Bruce Pearl has arrived in March of 2005, the fan support has grown by 7,436 on average. Bruce Pearl’s style of play of fast pace, physical press defense, and up tempo game has fans just waiting to watch and come to every game. They are averaging about 80 points a game in the 07-08 season and that is what people like to see. It also helps being in the best conference considered by many to play in. This will make for many more close and high scoring games. Tennessee has been at the height of their success since hiring head coach Bruce Pearl from UW-Milwaukee. Only one South Eastern Conference team has a winning record against the Volunteers since Bruce Pearl came to the school. Along with Pearl is a great coaching staff of assistants, including Tony Jones, Steve Forbes, Jason Shay, and Ken Johnson. Also have produced a lot of NBA talent, including players like Ernie Grunfeld, Bernard King, Allan Houston, Dale Ellis, Tony White, Ron Slay, and Larry Robinson. Bernard King is the only player in Tennessee history to have their jersey retired. Tennessee currently ranks 7th in the national ranking with a 19-2 record as of the 07-08 season and having a great year, drawing much national attention to the school along with the other great athletic programs at the school.
February 8, 2008
Tennessee Basketball
The men's basketball program has always been a little behind the women’s team since it was founded in the 1908-1909 academic year. But they are finally catching up with the women's team now. Although the guys have had their share of success with 15 total appearances in the NCAA tournament. Along with the appearances in the National Invitational tournament also know as the NIT tournament eleven times. They have been successful in the South Eastern Conference with 8 championships. These championships came in 1936, 1941, 1943, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, and 2000. The championships in the years of 1972, 1977, and 2000 were all shared championships with some other team of the South Eastern Conference Tennessee played their home games at the Thompson-Boiling Arena. Tennessee fan support is one of the best in the nation since they have been in the Thompson-Boiling arena they have had an average of 20,000 fans every game and the fan support is still going very strong even today. In 2006-2007 the Volunteers were ranked 4th nationally in attendance with average of 19,661 which is the second largest of any pervious year. Along with that, since Bruce Pearl has arrived in March of 2005, the fan support has grown by 7,436 on average. Bruce Pearl’s style of play of fast pace, physical press defense, and up tempo game has fans just waiting to watch and come to every game. They are averaging about 80 points a game in the 07-08 season and that is what people like to see. It also helps being in the best conference considered by many to play in. This will make for many more close and high scoring games. Tennessee has been at the height of their success since hiring head coach Bruce Pearl from UW-Milwaukee. Only one South Eastern Conference team has a winning record against the Volunteers since Bruce Pearl came to the school. Along with Pearl is a great coaching staff of assistants, including Tony Jones, Steve Forbes, Jason Shay, and Ken Johnson. Also have produced a lot of NBA talent, including players like Ernie Grunfeld, Bernard King, Allan Houston, Dale Ellis, Tony White, Ron Slay, and Larry Robinson. Bernard King is the only player in Tennessee history to have their jersey retired. Tennessee currently ranks 7th in the national ranking with a 19-2 record as of the 07-08 season and having a great year, drawing much national attention to the school along with the other great athletic programs at the school.
Questions over brochures
1. List the names of the brochures you reviewed.
The real facts: second hand smoke, Protecting and serving, and UCA master of Arts and Mathmatics.
2. what is purposed tone? what phrases contribute to this?
To get parents to stop smoking because they just dont know the effect that it is having on their kids. They talk about the chracteristics of a smoker.
3. What is the intended audience like?
They are usually older women and men who are married or men and women who have a kid.
4. What kind of content is in the brochure?
Informative, because it can serve as a warning to parents about the damage it can do to their kids.
5. How does the content fit in with the brochure?
good because it can serve as a warning to parents that do not know what they are doing when they smoke a pack every day.
6. How does the content fit in with the audience?
Good because they can realize what they are doing by the statistics used in the brochure.
7. How is the text organized?
It is mostly in paragraph format.
8. How does text fit in with the purpose?
It is ok but not great. More listings would have caught there eyes more.
9. How does it fit in with the audience?
It is again ok, but i think more listing would have been better to catch their attention.
10. What aspects of formatting do you notice?
different color of text is one big thing throughout the paragraphs.
The real facts: second hand smoke, Protecting and serving, and UCA master of Arts and Mathmatics.
2. what is purposed tone? what phrases contribute to this?
To get parents to stop smoking because they just dont know the effect that it is having on their kids. They talk about the chracteristics of a smoker.
3. What is the intended audience like?
They are usually older women and men who are married or men and women who have a kid.
4. What kind of content is in the brochure?
Informative, because it can serve as a warning to parents about the damage it can do to their kids.
5. How does the content fit in with the brochure?
good because it can serve as a warning to parents that do not know what they are doing when they smoke a pack every day.
6. How does the content fit in with the audience?
Good because they can realize what they are doing by the statistics used in the brochure.
7. How is the text organized?
It is mostly in paragraph format.
8. How does text fit in with the purpose?
It is ok but not great. More listings would have caught there eyes more.
9. How does it fit in with the audience?
It is again ok, but i think more listing would have been better to catch their attention.
10. What aspects of formatting do you notice?
different color of text is one big thing throughout the paragraphs.
More information on Research
Benefits of using Animal testing
1. It is pretty cheap, and is eaisly done compared to other test. Most of the other test including human growth cells cost a lot more than animal testing does.
2. It can cure many types of diseases, such as polio, hepatitis and other diseases. It has already done a lot of good things for humans, and there is many good benefits that come from the use of animal testing.
3. Also it helps doctors in the operating room. Most doctors agree that they want animal testing to help them when they are doing organ transplants and many other things. It helps then when they can all the practice they can get. They do many transplants on animals that reflect in some way what they will do when they are operating.
1. It is pretty cheap, and is eaisly done compared to other test. Most of the other test including human growth cells cost a lot more than animal testing does.
2. It can cure many types of diseases, such as polio, hepatitis and other diseases. It has already done a lot of good things for humans, and there is many good benefits that come from the use of animal testing.
3. Also it helps doctors in the operating room. Most doctors agree that they want animal testing to help them when they are doing organ transplants and many other things. It helps then when they can all the practice they can get. They do many transplants on animals that reflect in some way what they will do when they are operating.
My Brochure over Animal testing
Is animal testing reliable?
yes animal testing is reliable, animal testing has helped prevent many diseases like polio, hepatatitis and others. It can be misleading sometimes and researchers understand this, and that is why there are hundreds of test on one type of medicine before it can be legal.
Are there other methods of testing?
yes there are some other forms of testing. We can now test by using human cells, but these can not be used to prevent any kind of cancer. Cancer treatments rely on animal testing. This is a major concern of why animal testing is so important.
Does the FDA require drugs to be tested by animals?
Yes it is a fact that the FDA currently requires all drugs to be tested on animals. The Federal Drug Administration is something that every drug will go through before being put on the market.
yes animal testing is reliable, animal testing has helped prevent many diseases like polio, hepatatitis and others. It can be misleading sometimes and researchers understand this, and that is why there are hundreds of test on one type of medicine before it can be legal.
Are there other methods of testing?
yes there are some other forms of testing. We can now test by using human cells, but these can not be used to prevent any kind of cancer. Cancer treatments rely on animal testing. This is a major concern of why animal testing is so important.
Does the FDA require drugs to be tested by animals?
Yes it is a fact that the FDA currently requires all drugs to be tested on animals. The Federal Drug Administration is something that every drug will go through before being put on the market.
Article for my research paper
Agencies will develop other methods
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
Article for my research paper
Agencies will develop other methods
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
Section: News, Pg. 04a
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health -- have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlock, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it has taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database. "We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!'"
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
Lit. Review
Weise, Elizabeth. (2008). Agreement could bring end to animal testing: Agencies will develop other methods, 4a. From Academic Search Elite Database.
There has been three agencies that have decided to develop new methods of testing for safety of humans for new drugs and chemicals. The Environment Protection Agency, The National Toxicology Program, and The National Institutes of Health have all made these decisions to make the new methods in testing. These companies have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to develop these ideas. Stephens of the Humane society thinks it will be at least 10 years before the animal testing can be stopped. The Humane Society and other groups have protested for long times about the animal testing of cosmetics and other personal products. Stephens would estimate to be about 10 million animals a year die from toxicity testing. They hope to rely on new testing of human cell growth in test tubes and computer driven test machines. He thinks that this will be a good method because it will use something that will be in human body along with the fact that it will cut down on the animals sacrificed. He thinks that they need to do more effective test with the cell growth tissues. This is supposedly the best way of testing other than animal testing. He agrees that applied research is something that is needed through animal testing to save lives. Saving the lives of Humans is more important than saving the lives of animals. He thinks that these 3 agencies will help cut down on animal testing’s very significantly.
Archibald, Kathy. (2006). Animal Testing, Vol. 36, Issue 9. From Academic Search Elite Database.
This is article that talks about the safety of prescription drugs. Six men were killed on a drug that was tested on monkeys, this drug was supposedly proven safe from the test. This drug was tested on many different monkeys and was thought to be ready for humans to take. Side affects of prescription drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the world today. Kathy, the Director of Europeans of Medical Progress, thinks that the new advancements in test of human cell growth could have prevented this disaster. Monkeys failed to be able to prevent this, and she thinks that this could be a future problem. Kathy thinks that the animal test need to be more thoroughly researched and maybe even researched on the test tubes after being testing on the animals. It couldn’t hurt anything to be more thoroughly researched. When something is thought to be safe through animal testing but kills humans it is something that is very hurtful to the community. But Kathy thinks animal testing is needed to help prevent many things and save many lives. But we don’t want to cause the death of any humans on the way to preventing these diseases. Also companies use the animal testing’s as a liability claim when someone is injured or hurt by a drug. Also if a drug has caused someone’s death, because they will let the people and family know that they have done is much research as possible to insure that the drug is safe. They have done many test on animals and studied the drug till they think that the drug is 100 percent reliable even though that is never possible to know. But they do work as hard as they can to do the best job on testing a drug. Drug testing is done many times before it can ever be put out in the market for people to buy.
Australian and New Zealand council for the care of animals research and teaching. (2008). General Benefits of Animal Based Science. Retrieved March 6, 2008 from ANCCART Web site: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/humane/benefit.html
This council talks about how the research of the animal testing is based on the health and the well being of the humans on this earth. That is the most important thing that the animal testing researchers have on their mind is saving lives of other people which I think is very important. Also another big thing that is a benefit from animal testing is anesthetics. They test this on many animals and helps the doctors in the operating room when they are trying to put out a patient. This is a really important thing of animal testing because it could really kill someone if you put them out with the wrong type of medicine or the wrong way. Applied research is very important and theoretical research is something that can help doctors and scientist in the future. While most think that cosmetic type of research is not necessary. I agree that this research on cosmetics is not necessary and can not be used to save the lives of people. I don’t think it is worth getting women more cosmetics to kill innocent animals also being tortured.
http://www.medicalprogress.org/alternatives/alternativesnews.cfm?news_id=371
Over 500 hundred researchers from the UK are supporting animal testing because they think it is a important source of research. They signed a declaration saying that it is important to their research, it was organized by the Research Defense Society. The signatures of important and famous doctors were included in the declaration to keep animal testing alive. It is something the doctors want to keep animal testing alive and helping them in the operating room. The doctors tell us that this animal testing has kept their techniques very good in the operating room on organ transplants. Organ transplants are said to be one of the most difficult things to do for a doctor. Doing animal testing on organs in the animals have gave the doctors new ways and also better ways of doing these organ transplants on humans. It is something that will be close to the same and no necessarily something that can go wrong on humans like drugs tested. Also talks about how different drugs can react differently on animals. You can test a drug on one type of animal and it be fine and then test a drug on another and it be killed. One of the first antibiotics was tested on rabbits and delayed for years because of the research. It is said that if they would have tested this on pigs that they would have all been killed and the antibiotic would have been put away for years. Animal testing can be misleading sometimes and this is why I think that it should been tested by animals along with many other test. But like most people say that the drug will not always be 100 percent effective and we will never know how it will react to a human on its first trial. But if we never try anything, then we will never have these breakthroughs.
Dashek, Ryan. (February 4, 2008). In limited doses Animal Testing is Acceptable: Certain types of testing benefits Society. Retrieved March 10, 2008.
There are estimated 20 million animal testing each year from 3 main categories of testing. This is Toxicology testing, applied research and theoretical research. Applied research is they type of research that is directed towards the goal of studying real life problems. This is trying to solve these problems such as trying to cure a disease. Theoretical research aims at the subjects anatomy. This is such things as physiology, psychology and things of that nature. Also Toxicology testing is the testing of things like cosmetics and pharmaceutical things. This writer from the University of Wisconsin accepts the applied research, because of what it is aimed at. I agree that when it is aimed toward life problems that it should be done. Also he agrees with most of the theoretical research but not all. And the cosmetic testing is the things that he rather not be animal tested. Applied research has been used to help prevent Hepatitis B, Polio, Herpes, and also has helped treat a person with high blood pressure. Many lives are saved every year from the applied research, thousands every year are to be the estimate. He thinks that we still need to try to cut down on the animals being tested every year. But the lives that are saved very much out weigh the cost of these procedures. Theoretical testing is a bit more questionable because it is just trying to further our knowledge on a subject and we are killing living creatures for doing this.
Archibald, Kathy. (January 15,2008) Animal Testing: Science or Fiction. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
Kathy writes in the Ecologist magazine about the 3 causes of death that lead the nation. Cancer, heart disease and stroke are the 3 that kill most in the West. The next leading killer is the side effects of prescription drugs, killing over 10,000 a year in the UK, and over 100,000 in the U.S. There has been a lot of drugs that help treat strokes and been successful in animal testing but killed humans when they take them. Also studies show that cigarette smoke, and alcohol are all safe to ingest. Kathy still says that a drug should still be effectively tested in test tubes and animal testing before giving it to a person. But no drug is 100 percent safe because it differs from age, gender and other factors. There are three different phases of animal testing that is mostly used. This is test tube and computer modeling, animal testing, and human testing. Hormone replacement therapy has been given to many women because it has been a successful thing in monkeys in lowering the risk of heart disease. This is something that has been very well benefited from animal testing. But there are many things that animal testing has approved that could seriously cause bad effects on humans. So there are many arguments on the whole animal testing vs. the test tubes. The only thing about the test tubes is that it will not be able to test and try to prevent some kind of cancer which I think that is something that is needed very much in this world today. I am all for the animal testing but along with it I think that it should be tested by test tubes too. Because this gives it another test that involves something from a human just to see if there is any side effects from it. But no drug can be testing to know if it is 100 percent safe. If someone is already going to die of a disease I think that it is important that we at least try things that might save their lives are the lives of many other people in the future.
There has been three agencies that have decided to develop new methods of testing for safety of humans for new drugs and chemicals. The Environment Protection Agency, The National Toxicology Program, and The National Institutes of Health have all made these decisions to make the new methods in testing. These companies have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to develop these ideas. Stephens of the Humane society thinks it will be at least 10 years before the animal testing can be stopped. The Humane Society and other groups have protested for long times about the animal testing of cosmetics and other personal products. Stephens would estimate to be about 10 million animals a year die from toxicity testing. They hope to rely on new testing of human cell growth in test tubes and computer driven test machines. He thinks that this will be a good method because it will use something that will be in human body along with the fact that it will cut down on the animals sacrificed. He thinks that they need to do more effective test with the cell growth tissues. This is supposedly the best way of testing other than animal testing. He agrees that applied research is something that is needed through animal testing to save lives. Saving the lives of Humans is more important than saving the lives of animals. He thinks that these 3 agencies will help cut down on animal testing’s very significantly.
Archibald, Kathy. (2006). Animal Testing, Vol. 36, Issue 9. From Academic Search Elite Database.
This is article that talks about the safety of prescription drugs. Six men were killed on a drug that was tested on monkeys, this drug was supposedly proven safe from the test. This drug was tested on many different monkeys and was thought to be ready for humans to take. Side affects of prescription drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the world today. Kathy, the Director of Europeans of Medical Progress, thinks that the new advancements in test of human cell growth could have prevented this disaster. Monkeys failed to be able to prevent this, and she thinks that this could be a future problem. Kathy thinks that the animal test need to be more thoroughly researched and maybe even researched on the test tubes after being testing on the animals. It couldn’t hurt anything to be more thoroughly researched. When something is thought to be safe through animal testing but kills humans it is something that is very hurtful to the community. But Kathy thinks animal testing is needed to help prevent many things and save many lives. But we don’t want to cause the death of any humans on the way to preventing these diseases. Also companies use the animal testing’s as a liability claim when someone is injured or hurt by a drug. Also if a drug has caused someone’s death, because they will let the people and family know that they have done is much research as possible to insure that the drug is safe. They have done many test on animals and studied the drug till they think that the drug is 100 percent reliable even though that is never possible to know. But they do work as hard as they can to do the best job on testing a drug. Drug testing is done many times before it can ever be put out in the market for people to buy.
Australian and New Zealand council for the care of animals research and teaching. (2008). General Benefits of Animal Based Science. Retrieved March 6, 2008 from ANCCART Web site: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/humane/benefit.html
This council talks about how the research of the animal testing is based on the health and the well being of the humans on this earth. That is the most important thing that the animal testing researchers have on their mind is saving lives of other people which I think is very important. Also another big thing that is a benefit from animal testing is anesthetics. They test this on many animals and helps the doctors in the operating room when they are trying to put out a patient. This is a really important thing of animal testing because it could really kill someone if you put them out with the wrong type of medicine or the wrong way. Applied research is very important and theoretical research is something that can help doctors and scientist in the future. While most think that cosmetic type of research is not necessary. I agree that this research on cosmetics is not necessary and can not be used to save the lives of people. I don’t think it is worth getting women more cosmetics to kill innocent animals also being tortured.
http://www.medicalprogress.org/alternatives/alternativesnews.cfm?news_id=371
Over 500 hundred researchers from the UK are supporting animal testing because they think it is a important source of research. They signed a declaration saying that it is important to their research, it was organized by the Research Defense Society. The signatures of important and famous doctors were included in the declaration to keep animal testing alive. It is something the doctors want to keep animal testing alive and helping them in the operating room. The doctors tell us that this animal testing has kept their techniques very good in the operating room on organ transplants. Organ transplants are said to be one of the most difficult things to do for a doctor. Doing animal testing on organs in the animals have gave the doctors new ways and also better ways of doing these organ transplants on humans. It is something that will be close to the same and no necessarily something that can go wrong on humans like drugs tested. Also talks about how different drugs can react differently on animals. You can test a drug on one type of animal and it be fine and then test a drug on another and it be killed. One of the first antibiotics was tested on rabbits and delayed for years because of the research. It is said that if they would have tested this on pigs that they would have all been killed and the antibiotic would have been put away for years. Animal testing can be misleading sometimes and this is why I think that it should been tested by animals along with many other test. But like most people say that the drug will not always be 100 percent effective and we will never know how it will react to a human on its first trial. But if we never try anything, then we will never have these breakthroughs.
Dashek, Ryan. (February 4, 2008). In limited doses Animal Testing is Acceptable: Certain types of testing benefits Society. Retrieved March 10, 2008.
There are estimated 20 million animal testing each year from 3 main categories of testing. This is Toxicology testing, applied research and theoretical research. Applied research is they type of research that is directed towards the goal of studying real life problems. This is trying to solve these problems such as trying to cure a disease. Theoretical research aims at the subjects anatomy. This is such things as physiology, psychology and things of that nature. Also Toxicology testing is the testing of things like cosmetics and pharmaceutical things. This writer from the University of Wisconsin accepts the applied research, because of what it is aimed at. I agree that when it is aimed toward life problems that it should be done. Also he agrees with most of the theoretical research but not all. And the cosmetic testing is the things that he rather not be animal tested. Applied research has been used to help prevent Hepatitis B, Polio, Herpes, and also has helped treat a person with high blood pressure. Many lives are saved every year from the applied research, thousands every year are to be the estimate. He thinks that we still need to try to cut down on the animals being tested every year. But the lives that are saved very much out weigh the cost of these procedures. Theoretical testing is a bit more questionable because it is just trying to further our knowledge on a subject and we are killing living creatures for doing this.
Archibald, Kathy. (January 15,2008) Animal Testing: Science or Fiction. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
Kathy writes in the Ecologist magazine about the 3 causes of death that lead the nation. Cancer, heart disease and stroke are the 3 that kill most in the West. The next leading killer is the side effects of prescription drugs, killing over 10,000 a year in the UK, and over 100,000 in the U.S. There has been a lot of drugs that help treat strokes and been successful in animal testing but killed humans when they take them. Also studies show that cigarette smoke, and alcohol are all safe to ingest. Kathy still says that a drug should still be effectively tested in test tubes and animal testing before giving it to a person. But no drug is 100 percent safe because it differs from age, gender and other factors. There are three different phases of animal testing that is mostly used. This is test tube and computer modeling, animal testing, and human testing. Hormone replacement therapy has been given to many women because it has been a successful thing in monkeys in lowering the risk of heart disease. This is something that has been very well benefited from animal testing. But there are many things that animal testing has approved that could seriously cause bad effects on humans. So there are many arguments on the whole animal testing vs. the test tubes. The only thing about the test tubes is that it will not be able to test and try to prevent some kind of cancer which I think that is something that is needed very much in this world today. I am all for the animal testing but along with it I think that it should be tested by test tubes too. Because this gives it another test that involves something from a human just to see if there is any side effects from it. But no drug can be testing to know if it is 100 percent safe. If someone is already going to die of a disease I think that it is important that we at least try things that might save their lives are the lives of many other people in the future.
Annotative bib.
Weise, Elizabeth. (2008). Agreement could bring end to animal testing: Agencies will develop other methods, 4a. From Academic Search Elite Database.
There has been three agencies that have decided to develop new methods of testing for safety of humans for new drugs and chemicals. The Environment Protection Agency, The National Toxicology Program, and The National Institutes of Health have all made these decisions to make the new methods in testing. These companies have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to develop these ideas. Stephens of the Humane society thinks it will be at least 10 years before the animal testing can be stopped. The Humane Society and other groups have protested for long times about the animal testing of cosmetics and other personal products. Stephens would estimate to be about 10 million animals a year die from toxicity testing. They hope to rely on new testing of human cell growth in test tubes and computer driven test machines.
Archibald, Kathy. (2006). Animal Testing, Vol. 36, Issue 9. From Academic Search Elite Database.
This is article that talks about the safety of prescription drugs. Six men were killed on a drug that was tested on monkeys, this drug was supposedly proven safe from the test. This drug was tested on many different monkeys and was thought to be ready for humans to take. Side affects of prescription drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the world today. Kathy, the Director of Europeans of Medical Progress, thinks that the new advancements in test of human cell growth could have prevented this disaster. Monkeys failed to be able to prevent this, and she thinks that this could be a future problem.
Australian and New Zealand council for the care of animals research and teaching. (2008). General Benefits of Animal Based Science. Retrieved March 6, 2008 from ANCCART Web site: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/humane/benefit.html
This council talks about how the research of the animal testing is based on the health and the well being of the humans on this earth. That is the most important thing that the animal testing researchers have on their mind is saving lives of other people which I think is very important. Also another big thing that is a benefit from animal testing is anesthetics. They test this on many animals and helps the doctors in the operating room when they are trying to put out a patient. This is a really important thing of animal testing because it could really kill someone if you put them out with the wrong type of medicine or the wrong way.
http://www.medicalprogress.org/alternatives/alternativesnews.cfm?news_id=371
Over 500 hundred researchers from the UK are supporting animal testing because they think it is a important source of research. They signed a declaration saying that it is important to their research, it was organized by the Research Defense Society. The signatures of important and famous doctors were included in the declaration to keep animal testing alive. It is something the doctors want to keep animal testing alive and helping them in the operating room.
Dashek, Ryan. (February 4, 2008). In limited doses Animal Testing is Acceptable: Certain types of testing benefits Society. Retrieved March 10, 2008.
There are estimated 20 million animal testing each year from 3 main categories of testing. This is Toxicology testing, applied research and theoretical research. Applied research is they type of research that is directed towards the goal of studying real life problems. This is trying to solve these problems such as trying to cure a disease. Theoretical research aims at the subjects anatomy. This is such things as physiology, psychology and things of that nature. Also Toxicology testing is the testing of things like cosmetics and pharmaceutical things. This writer from the University of Wisconsin accepts the applied research, because of what it is aimed at. I agree that when it is aimed toward life problems that it should be done. Also he agrees with most of the theoretical research but not all. And the cosmetic testing is the things that he rather not be animal tested. Applied research has been used to help prevent Hepatitis B, Polio, Herpes, and also has helped treat a person with high blood pressure. Many lives are saved every year from the applied research, thousands every year are to be the estimate. He thinks that we still need to try to cut down on the animals being tested every year. But the lives that are saved very much out weigh the cost of these procedures. Theoretical testing is a bit more questionable because it is just trying to further our knowledge on a subject and we are killing living creatures for doing this.
Archibald, Kathy. (January 15,2008) Animal Testing: Science or Fiction. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
Kathy writes in the Ecologist magazine about the 3 causes of death that lead the nation. Cancer, heart disease and stroke are the 3 that kill most in the West. The next leading killer is the side effects of prescription drugs, killing over 10,000 a year in the UK, and over 100,000 in the U.S. There has been a lot of drugs that help treat strokes and been successful in animal testing but killed humans when they take them. Also studies show that cigarette smoke, and alcohol are all safe to ingest. Kathy still says that a drug should still be effectively tested in test tubes and animal testing before giving it to a person. But no drug is 100 percent safe because it differs from age, gender and other factors
There has been three agencies that have decided to develop new methods of testing for safety of humans for new drugs and chemicals. The Environment Protection Agency, The National Toxicology Program, and The National Institutes of Health have all made these decisions to make the new methods in testing. These companies have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to develop these ideas. Stephens of the Humane society thinks it will be at least 10 years before the animal testing can be stopped. The Humane Society and other groups have protested for long times about the animal testing of cosmetics and other personal products. Stephens would estimate to be about 10 million animals a year die from toxicity testing. They hope to rely on new testing of human cell growth in test tubes and computer driven test machines.
Archibald, Kathy. (2006). Animal Testing, Vol. 36, Issue 9. From Academic Search Elite Database.
This is article that talks about the safety of prescription drugs. Six men were killed on a drug that was tested on monkeys, this drug was supposedly proven safe from the test. This drug was tested on many different monkeys and was thought to be ready for humans to take. Side affects of prescription drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the world today. Kathy, the Director of Europeans of Medical Progress, thinks that the new advancements in test of human cell growth could have prevented this disaster. Monkeys failed to be able to prevent this, and she thinks that this could be a future problem.
Australian and New Zealand council for the care of animals research and teaching. (2008). General Benefits of Animal Based Science. Retrieved March 6, 2008 from ANCCART Web site: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/humane/benefit.html
This council talks about how the research of the animal testing is based on the health and the well being of the humans on this earth. That is the most important thing that the animal testing researchers have on their mind is saving lives of other people which I think is very important. Also another big thing that is a benefit from animal testing is anesthetics. They test this on many animals and helps the doctors in the operating room when they are trying to put out a patient. This is a really important thing of animal testing because it could really kill someone if you put them out with the wrong type of medicine or the wrong way.
http://www.medicalprogress.org/alternatives/alternativesnews.cfm?news_id=371
Over 500 hundred researchers from the UK are supporting animal testing because they think it is a important source of research. They signed a declaration saying that it is important to their research, it was organized by the Research Defense Society. The signatures of important and famous doctors were included in the declaration to keep animal testing alive. It is something the doctors want to keep animal testing alive and helping them in the operating room.
Dashek, Ryan. (February 4, 2008). In limited doses Animal Testing is Acceptable: Certain types of testing benefits Society. Retrieved March 10, 2008.
There are estimated 20 million animal testing each year from 3 main categories of testing. This is Toxicology testing, applied research and theoretical research. Applied research is they type of research that is directed towards the goal of studying real life problems. This is trying to solve these problems such as trying to cure a disease. Theoretical research aims at the subjects anatomy. This is such things as physiology, psychology and things of that nature. Also Toxicology testing is the testing of things like cosmetics and pharmaceutical things. This writer from the University of Wisconsin accepts the applied research, because of what it is aimed at. I agree that when it is aimed toward life problems that it should be done. Also he agrees with most of the theoretical research but not all. And the cosmetic testing is the things that he rather not be animal tested. Applied research has been used to help prevent Hepatitis B, Polio, Herpes, and also has helped treat a person with high blood pressure. Many lives are saved every year from the applied research, thousands every year are to be the estimate. He thinks that we still need to try to cut down on the animals being tested every year. But the lives that are saved very much out weigh the cost of these procedures. Theoretical testing is a bit more questionable because it is just trying to further our knowledge on a subject and we are killing living creatures for doing this.
Archibald, Kathy. (January 15,2008) Animal Testing: Science or Fiction. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
Kathy writes in the Ecologist magazine about the 3 causes of death that lead the nation. Cancer, heart disease and stroke are the 3 that kill most in the West. The next leading killer is the side effects of prescription drugs, killing over 10,000 a year in the UK, and over 100,000 in the U.S. There has been a lot of drugs that help treat strokes and been successful in animal testing but killed humans when they take them. Also studies show that cigarette smoke, and alcohol are all safe to ingest. Kathy still says that a drug should still be effectively tested in test tubes and animal testing before giving it to a person. But no drug is 100 percent safe because it differs from age, gender and other factors
Research proposal
Animal testing is very important for many different reasons. Animal testing can save many lives and it has a lot more positive reasons for doing it than the negatives. I agree that I hate for animals to be abused and I never like to see animals die, but I rather save the lives of many humans than to save the lives of animals.
Animal testing is used for many different reasons, it can range from testing of some kinds of shampoo and also help testing for some form of cancer. Animal testing has had some very positive affects on the medical world today, helping doctors techniques along with finding ways to cure different types of sickness. Animal testing has help make vaccines for diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and TB. Also cancer treatments rely on animal testing, which is something that is very important in the world today. There are many people with different kinds of cancer, and if animal testing could find the cure to many types of cancer that could save your life one day. Another thing that animal testing has improved greatly is the techniques of the organ transplants. This is something that is very important for doctors to have in the operating room.
I plan to research the ways that animal testing can improve the future of human life. Also I will look at the reasons we can stop animal testing, and the alternatives to animal testing. There are a couple of different ways that we can test for certain things now. We have cell tissues that we can used to test many different things. Animals are also killed for food all the time around the year, if they can be used for food, they should also be used to save others lives. There are many pros and cons to animal testing, but testing animals is important to our human lives and much needed.
Animal testing is used for many different reasons, it can range from testing of some kinds of shampoo and also help testing for some form of cancer. Animal testing has had some very positive affects on the medical world today, helping doctors techniques along with finding ways to cure different types of sickness. Animal testing has help make vaccines for diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and TB. Also cancer treatments rely on animal testing, which is something that is very important in the world today. There are many people with different kinds of cancer, and if animal testing could find the cure to many types of cancer that could save your life one day. Another thing that animal testing has improved greatly is the techniques of the organ transplants. This is something that is very important for doctors to have in the operating room.
I plan to research the ways that animal testing can improve the future of human life. Also I will look at the reasons we can stop animal testing, and the alternatives to animal testing. There are a couple of different ways that we can test for certain things now. We have cell tissues that we can used to test many different things. Animals are also killed for food all the time around the year, if they can be used for food, they should also be used to save others lives. There are many pros and cons to animal testing, but testing animals is important to our human lives and much needed.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
My Brochures
My first brochure that i picked up for class was a stamp out smoking brochure. This was a brochure that was intended for all adults who are married with kids. The brochure was mainly talking about second hand smoke. It mainly talked about adults smoking around their kids and how it will effect the kids later on in life. It was in the form of paragraphs but I thought they should have done some listing on the things that it did to kids. Or maybe even some kind of graphs or something like that. I thought it was a pretty good brochure becasue it is something that is very important today.
Research
I did my paper on animal testing and learned alot about the subject. I found out many of the different test and many different views of other people. I realized how many companies are out there trying to stop animal testing but many doctors want animal testing. Doctors want animal testing because it will help them in the operating room with things like heart, organ, lungs or any kind of major transplant. I also realized that cosmetics is something that is tested alot on animals which is something I do not really agree with. I do not think that we should test cosmetics on animals because it is not a major issue. I dont think that we should mess with animals for peoples sake, just trying to give women more things to put on their face. I think that women have enough stuff to wear and they do not need anything else
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Research topic
I have decided to do my research topic on animal testing. I think that it will be a very interesting topic to do it on, also having a lot things that I will be able to learn that is new to me. There are many different ways that people view animal testing. Many people hate it and think it is something that is cruel and never should be done. But there are also people who think it is very necessary to have animal testing for many different reasons. I have found a couple of good websites that I have looked at to do some research on. I think they well be very interesting and helpful on my topic.
http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/ , http://www.stopanimaltests.org/index.aspx, http://www.istl.org/00-summer/internet.html, http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/
http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/ , http://www.stopanimaltests.org/index.aspx, http://www.istl.org/00-summer/internet.html, http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Synthesis
In The Evocative Power of Things it talks about the material culture. I think you can relate this to House of Cards because a lot of people buy houses that they know they can not afford. A lot of people want things that they really do not even need. Everyone always wants something bigger and better now in America.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Critique
I thought the author of this article should have talked a little more about the success of the girls program. It seemed that he expected most people to know how successful they were when most people might not know. He should have talked about the stadium being renamed to the Summit Arena. I thought it could have been a lot better article by talking more about the girls teams success and then compare it with the guys.
Summary
The men's basketball program is finally catching up with the Women's but has always been a little behind. Although the guys have had their share of success with 15 total apperances in the NCAA tournament. Along with the apperances in the post season NIT tournament many times. They have been successful in the SEC with 8 championships. Tennessee with the good fan support, one of the best in the country considered by many and production of many NBA prospects shows the schools good history.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I think that plagiarism is something that can get you in a lot of trouble and is always going to be bad thing if you try to do it. Plagiarism I think is when you either copy and paste something that someone else wrote and say it is yours. It might just be only changing a couple of words out of a sentence that someone else wrote, but if you do not put it all in your own words then it is still plagiarism. I think a lot of people will change the couple small words of someone elses sentence and think it is not plagiarism if they do not write it word for word. I think it is still the same thing unless you take the whole thing you are reading and think of it in your terms. Plagiarism is something everyone needs to try and stay away from because it is illegal and not something smart to do.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
I do consider myself open-minded but my deal breakers are people who stubborn and think they know everything. I hate hearing people talk about something when they really do not know what they are saying is even right.
I learned a lot from the last person I dated. The thing I learned the most was i should listen to my friends because they were right about her after all.
If it is sunday morning at 10:00am and im not sleeping, I will be at church for sure. Not only because I want to go but my dad likes for me to hear him speak since he is the pastor.
When I die I believe I will go to Heaven.
Something that I keep getting and never use would probably be pants that you sleep in.
One sport that i will never get is cheerleading, if you consider it a sport.
When I was a kid I actually owned a wooden basketball goal built into the ground.
I learned a lot from the last person I dated. The thing I learned the most was i should listen to my friends because they were right about her after all.
If it is sunday morning at 10:00am and im not sleeping, I will be at church for sure. Not only because I want to go but my dad likes for me to hear him speak since he is the pastor.
When I die I believe I will go to Heaven.
Something that I keep getting and never use would probably be pants that you sleep in.
One sport that i will never get is cheerleading, if you consider it a sport.
When I was a kid I actually owned a wooden basketball goal built into the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)