7 ms·

Two things really stood out in this article. One is how brutal animal experimentation can be. The other is the opening line.

annoyingnoob 5y ago
It was the picture that really stood out to me.
justAnIdea 5y ago
I don't think this is that bad as far as animal experimentation goes. Sadly, it can get a lot worse than suffocation.
GordonS 5y ago
I read a lot of medical research papers, and I've been thinking about this recently. Every time I read about a rat being "euthanized" or "sacrificed", when they have neuropathy induced by toxins, when they have limbs amputated, when they have their spine severed... I can't help but pause for a moment and think about that animal. I wonder if there are any good estimates of how many rats, rabbits, dogs and otherwise are maimed and killed each year for medical (or cosmetic) research. Is there, realistically, anything that would change this?
- keiferski 5y ago
  > It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptiles together account for over 85% of research animals.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
  - newsbinator 5y ago
    After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years? I don't know. If an alien species were using us for their medical experiments, under the same circumstances and conditions, then what would I say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
    - keiferski 5y ago
      Having read a bit about it, my position is something like: - Experiments are way too common and mostly have useless/unusable outcomes. - Ethical standards are basically nonexistent. - Limited animal testing for serious human conditions (cancer, disease, etc.) is justifiable if great care is taken to maximize the benefits and minimize animal suffering.
      - reureu 5y ago
        In the cases where animal testing is justifiable, I would love to see us start funding care for the remainder of the animal's natural life as part of the grant that funds the original research (at least in the cases where the research itself doesn't cause irreparable suffering or risk exposure of some novel pathogen). At the height of covid, there were a few pigs that were test subjects for ventilators who, after the experiments ended, were sent to an animal sanctuary. I wish we could cut down on animal research by, say, 90% and the remaining 10% could have similar outcomes as those pigs.
      - david-gpu 5y ago
        I am also all for protecting animals... until grandma is sick and could be cured only if we experiment a little more on rats. When that happens the life of a rat or a million looks disposable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- creamynebula 5y ago
  Other than a solid majority of people being aware of and actively against such practices, I don't see it.
  - f6v 5y ago
    That would cripple science for good and stop the progress. It’s either cancer patients or lab mice.
- david422 5y ago
  Yea, every time I receive medical care for some amazing drug or whatever, it crosses my mind of how many animals probably suffered getting it to that point. And I think maybe we should just call it good right now and stop the experimentation. But that's not really realistic either. I don't know if there is a good solution :(
- f6v 5y ago
  That’s why there’s a monument to a mouse [0]. > Is there, realistically, anything that would change this? In all confidence, nothing is going to replace animal models in science for decades to come(at least when we talk about biology). Yes, you can study development and disease in cell culture or organoids to some extent. But those don’t match the dynamics of a fully-functioning organism. Even though findings from mouse experiments often don’t translate well to humans, it’s our best bet. Computational biology can reduce the amount of experiments you need to do. For example, you can try to predict drug toxicity or identify key regulators of a certain cell type. But there’re always false positives(gene-regulatory networks are like 90% FP) and you always need to go back to the lab. If anything, I hope for more in-vivo experiments with the developments in CRISPR. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mou...
nonameiguess 5y ago
In one group of 11 mice, four had their intestines scrubbed to thin the mucosal lining and improve oxygen absorption. Next, the researchers injected pure, pressurized oxygen into the rectums of the scrubbed mice and four of the seven unscrubbed ones. I don't even want to know how they do this and whose terrible job this is.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Yea... poor mice.. hopefully they weren't awake.
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    I have a hunch future generations will look back on our animal experimentation similar to how we look back on human experimentation, horrified but with a silver lining (and most people just prefer not to think about it much at all). I'm very much against both, but I recognize the important advances they've made for medicine. I also recognize that most of the advances for animals don't translate to humans, and some even argue it's slowing progress overall. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/522775456/drugs-that-work-in-mice-often-fail-when-tried-in-people https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/5227754... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
    - x3iv130f 5y ago
      Nazi human experimentation was torture done under the auspices of junk-science. It was recognized as such even by the people of that time period. Nothing that they studied is taught in science programs anywhere today.
      - Judgmentality 5y ago
        My point is many will say the same thing about animal experimentation today. And there are doctors that reference the Nazi experiments, even if most refuse to ever look at the data. http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-research/ http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-rese...
majkinetor 5y ago
> One is how brutal animal experimentation can be If you think that is brutal you didn't see anything in animal experimentation.
poidos 5y ago
Back when I was a pre-med, my first summer research internship was in a cancer lab. After a couple of weeks of cell culture and autoclaving stuff, they let me start working with the mice. They were inducing lung cancer in them to test some novel compound that was supposed to cure the cancer. Every day, I'd have to go to the mice room, swap in fresh water and food, and then bag all the dead mice individually in rubber gloves, and leave them on my supervisor's desk. Really opened my eyes.
- rajin444 5y ago
  I've always found some solace in not being wasteful. In theory we're working towards a better future - harming animals now will result in world with no harm for an infinite number of descendants later. This is more or less "do the ends justify the means", but we live in a zero sum universe, so every action we take has to answer this question (if I eat this food, somebody else can't eat it). It's a matter of determining what we think justifies the cost.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  I was originally a biology in major in college. In Cell Bio, we had a lab that involved attempting to examine one of the circulatory subsystems of a limpet, but in vivo, so the idea was to chemically paralyze it and then dissect while it was still alive. I am certain to this day that I jacked it up somehow, because that poor limpet was absolutely not paralyzed and was squirming the entire time I was trying to cut it open. This will be seared into my memory for the rest of my life and I never took another biology class after that, only completing a minor instead.
  - poidos 5y ago
    That sounds horrible. :(
miles 5y ago
> how brutal animal experimentation can be. Mark Twain expressed it rather succinctly[1]: "I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=-cq4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238 https://books.google.com/books?id=-cq4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238

annoyingnoob 5y ago

It was the picture that really stood out to me.

justAnIdea 5y ago

I don't think this is that bad as far as animal experimentation goes. Sadly, it can get a lot worse than suffocation.

GordonS 5y ago

I read a lot of medical research papers, and I've been thinking about this recently. Every time I read about a rat being "euthanized" or "sacrificed", when they have neuropathy induced by toxins, when they have limbs amputated, when they have their spine severed... I can't help but pause for a moment and think about that animal. I wonder if there are any good estimates of how many rats, rabbits, dogs and otherwise are maimed and killed each year for medical (or cosmetic) research. Is there, realistically, anything that would change this?

keiferski 5y ago
> It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptiles together account for over 85% of research animals.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
- newsbinator 5y ago
  After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years? I don't know. If an alien species were using us for their medical experiments, under the same circumstances and conditions, then what would I say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
  - keiferski 5y ago
    Having read a bit about it, my position is something like: - Experiments are way too common and mostly have useless/unusable outcomes. - Ethical standards are basically nonexistent. - Limited animal testing for serious human conditions (cancer, disease, etc.) is justifiable if great care is taken to maximize the benefits and minimize animal suffering.
    - reureu 5y ago
      In the cases where animal testing is justifiable, I would love to see us start funding care for the remainder of the animal's natural life as part of the grant that funds the original research (at least in the cases where the research itself doesn't cause irreparable suffering or risk exposure of some novel pathogen). At the height of covid, there were a few pigs that were test subjects for ventilators who, after the experiments ended, were sent to an animal sanctuary. I wish we could cut down on animal research by, say, 90% and the remaining 10% could have similar outcomes as those pigs.
    - david-gpu 5y ago
      I am also all for protecting animals... until grandma is sick and could be cured only if we experiment a little more on rats. When that happens the life of a rat or a million looks disposable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
creamynebula 5y ago
Other than a solid majority of people being aware of and actively against such practices, I don't see it.
- f6v 5y ago
  That would cripple science for good and stop the progress. It’s either cancer patients or lab mice.
david422 5y ago
Yea, every time I receive medical care for some amazing drug or whatever, it crosses my mind of how many animals probably suffered getting it to that point. And I think maybe we should just call it good right now and stop the experimentation. But that's not really realistic either. I don't know if there is a good solution :(
f6v 5y ago
That’s why there’s a monument to a mouse [0]. > Is there, realistically, anything that would change this? In all confidence, nothing is going to replace animal models in science for decades to come(at least when we talk about biology). Yes, you can study development and disease in cell culture or organoids to some extent. But those don’t match the dynamics of a fully-functioning organism. Even though findings from mouse experiments often don’t translate well to humans, it’s our best bet. Computational biology can reduce the amount of experiments you need to do. For example, you can try to predict drug toxicity or identify key regulators of a certain cell type. But there’re always false positives(gene-regulatory networks are like 90% FP) and you always need to go back to the lab. If anything, I hope for more in-vivo experiments with the developments in CRISPR. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mou...

nonameiguess 5y ago

In one group of 11 mice, four had their intestines scrubbed to thin the mucosal lining and improve oxygen absorption. Next, the researchers injected pure, pressurized oxygen into the rectums of the scrubbed mice and four of the seven unscrubbed ones. I don't even want to know how they do this and whose terrible job this is.

bostonsre 5y ago
Yea... poor mice.. hopefully they weren't awake.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  I have a hunch future generations will look back on our animal experimentation similar to how we look back on human experimentation, horrified but with a silver lining (and most people just prefer not to think about it much at all). I'm very much against both, but I recognize the important advances they've made for medicine. I also recognize that most of the advances for animals don't translate to humans, and some even argue it's slowing progress overall. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/522775456/drugs-that-work-in-mice-often-fail-when-tried-in-people https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/5227754... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
  - x3iv130f 5y ago
    Nazi human experimentation was torture done under the auspices of junk-science. It was recognized as such even by the people of that time period. Nothing that they studied is taught in science programs anywhere today.
    - Judgmentality 5y ago
      My point is many will say the same thing about animal experimentation today. And there are doctors that reference the Nazi experiments, even if most refuse to ever look at the data. http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-research/ http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-rese...

majkinetor 5y ago

> One is how brutal animal experimentation can be If you think that is brutal you didn't see anything in animal experimentation.

poidos 5y ago

Back when I was a pre-med, my first summer research internship was in a cancer lab. After a couple of weeks of cell culture and autoclaving stuff, they let me start working with the mice. They were inducing lung cancer in them to test some novel compound that was supposed to cure the cancer. Every day, I'd have to go to the mice room, swap in fresh water and food, and then bag all the dead mice individually in rubber gloves, and leave them on my supervisor's desk. Really opened my eyes.

rajin444 5y ago
I've always found some solace in not being wasteful. In theory we're working towards a better future - harming animals now will result in world with no harm for an infinite number of descendants later. This is more or less "do the ends justify the means", but we live in a zero sum universe, so every action we take has to answer this question (if I eat this food, somebody else can't eat it). It's a matter of determining what we think justifies the cost.
nonameiguess 5y ago
I was originally a biology in major in college. In Cell Bio, we had a lab that involved attempting to examine one of the circulatory subsystems of a limpet, but in vivo, so the idea was to chemically paralyze it and then dissect while it was still alive. I am certain to this day that I jacked it up somehow, because that poor limpet was absolutely not paralyzed and was squirming the entire time I was trying to cut it open. This will be seared into my memory for the rest of my life and I never took another biology class after that, only completing a minor instead.
- poidos 5y ago
  That sounds horrible. :(

miles 5y ago

> how brutal animal experimentation can be. Mark Twain expressed it rather succinctly[1]: "I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=-cq4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238 https://books.google.com/books?id=-cq4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238