John H. Draize is another name I cannot read without wincing. John H. Draize invented the “Draize test” — an irritancy test in rabbits. It involves putting a chemical directly into rabbits’ eyes and then inspecting how damaged the eyes become after a few days and up to a week. If a lot of damage occurs, it’s determined that the chemical is irritating. If not much occurs, it’s determined that the chemical is not irritating. It also applies to tests done on rabbits where the rabbit’s skin is cut, and then chemicals are poured on the cut. If the cuts become disgusting, it’s determined that the chemical is probably irritating to human skin.
So, can you see the name John H. Draize without thinking “rabbit abuser and mutilator?” Because I can’t.
Luckily, there is an alternative. One of ICCVAM’s only recommended alternative methods is Corrositex (warning: unpleasant pictures in the link), which is a non-animal test (and is frequently used by companies that produce non-animal-using-test-kits, such as InVitro International, and the Institute for In Vitro Sciences.)
Tags : alternatives to animal testing, corrositex, draize, draize test
Categories : against animal testing
RSS feed for comments on this post
Eric
July 29th, 2008 at 5:51 am
There are other alternative and in vitro toxicology tests that can be done to further reduce the use of rabbits needed for the Draize Rabbit Eye Test.
See sites like, http://www.mbresearch.com for more information on 3D tissue models that mimic the human epidermis and corneal epithelium. Also, there is the CAMVA which uses the vascular membrane of a fertile chicken egg to simulate the mucosal membrane of the eye.
This lab also conducts experiments on excised bovine corneas that is normal thrown away during meat production called the BCOP - Bovine Cornea Opacity and Permeability Test. The BCOP is used to determine if a product will cause damage to a cornea using light and a fluorescent dye.
Using alternatives and cell based tests will reduce the need for the rabbit eye test.
Emily
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Dear Eric,
Thank you for that information — I am absolutely thrilled to hear it! Unfortunately I really am not comfortable reading websites about animals having tests done to them, which it looked to me from my brief perusal mbresearch has. I’m a little afraid to go look more carefully. But I am very, very thrilled that mbresearch does do alternative tests, and the 3d tissue models that mimic skin and corneas sound SO fantastic. Really — thank you for telling me about them, it makes me very, very happy
Regards,
Emily
Emily
November 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Hi Kelly who left a very negative comment here that I decided not to allow. If you’d like me to allow your comments in the future, please make your points in a respectful manner, don’t personally attack me or anyone else, or swear in your text.
But I’ll summarize your point in a polite manner — you say that I shouldn’t slander someone like John H. Draize for inventing a test nobody even uses any more, because he’s been dead for many years.
I have three points in my rebuttal of your argument:
(1) I don’t think I’m “slandering” John Draize. I’m telling the truth about him. He invented a test that involves mutilating animals by putting chemicals in their eyes that damages their eye-tissue. Is that a lie of any kind? An exaggeration? In what way? Explain to me how that is slander, exactly. Perhaps I should have been more careful to emphasize that the Draize test has probably saved a lot of people from cosmetics that may “irritate” (irritate=damage in animal testing euphemism) their eyes — but I think I made it fairly cleaer that I think the Draize test is of toxicological value — I’m promoting tests that provide the same information the Draize test does in a less horrific way.
(2) Second, it’s true Dr. Draize is dead. Why shouldn’t I reveal the truth — or as you call it “slander” — about a man who caused a huge amount of animal suffering and mutilation just because he is dead? Should I not say negative things about Nazi medical doctors who basically performed Draize-like tests on live human beings? Most of the Nazi doctors are dead too. Should I be nice about Doctors Rascher, Eppinger, Heissmeyer, Verschuer, Clauberg, and Mengele? Doctors who used people “as guinea pigs” in brutal medical experiments in concentration camps? Like Dr. Rascher, who immersed over 300 people in ice baths to discover how long pilots could survive in the frozen North Sea after their planes went down? And who asked to move his laboratory from Dachau to Auschwitz because there was more space at Auschwitz so his victims’ screaming as their limbs froze wouldn’t disturb his wife’s sleep? I think once you pass a certain level of atrocity you lose your right to have only good spoken about you after you are dead.
http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=history1900s&cdn=education&tm=9&f=20&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
(3) You claim the Draize test isn’t used any more? According to Johns Hopkins and the 3R Research Foundation in Switzerland, it’s still in use. Please cite your source for your claim that the Draize test isn’t used any more.
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm#16
http://3r-training.tierversuch.ch/en/module_3r/draize_test_replacement/eye_irritation
Wendy Koenigsmann
March 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Dr. Draize was a sociopath, for sure.
4 Responses