Animal "Pharming"

1. Have you heard about animal pharming before?

Yes - 34 votes (58 %)

No - 25 votes (42%)

 Total votes - 59

 

2. Would you use the drugs produce by animal pharming?

Yes - 13 votes (22%)

No - 2 votes (3%)

Maybe - 39 votes (68%)

Don't know - 4 votes (7%)

Total votes - 58


3. Do you think animal pharming is akin to animal exploitation?

Yes - 2 votes (3%)

No - 22 votes (37%)

To a certain extent - 31 votes (52%)

Don't know - 5 votes (8%)

Total votes - 60


4. Do you think research and commercialization in animal pharming should be encouraged?

Yes - 10 votes (16%)

No - 1 votes (2%)

With regulations - 41 votes (66%)

Don't know - 10 votes (16%)

Total votes - 62

 

 

5. Do you think animal pharming is beneficial to the medical world?

Yes - 24 votes (39%)

No - 5 votes (8%)

Maybe - 27 votes (43%)

Don't know - 6 votes (10%)

Total votes - 62

 

Animal pharming is a controversial method which allows the use of genes that may code for a useful pharmaceutical drug or bioactive chemical to be incorporated into an animal host that may not normally produce it. As a consequence, the host animal is then able to produce the required product in large quantities, which can then be purified and used.

Among the readers polled, 58% were aware of such a method, while 42% had not heard of the term. Among the 58 who responded, only 13 would have no qualms in using drugs of such sources, while 39 maintained their reservation, and a further 2 people gave a definitive no.

52% of readers believe that this constitutes animal exploitation to a certain extent, while 37% do not think so, and 3% strongly believed that it was. Hence, when queried on whether research and commercialisation on this method should be futher encouraged, 16% had no qualms over throwing their support, while 2% was strongly opposed. However, readers generally believed that animal pharming should be regulated.

In conclusion, out of 62 respondents, 24 believed that the medical world would benefit from animal pharming, while a further 27 maintained only the possibility. 5 respondents were opposed to this, and probably believed in the development of other alternative methods in its place.