3 ms·

The purpose of my comment was to point out that no one, AFAIK, has actually attempted to outgas the meat or evaluate whether buprenorphine survives cooking. And

The purpose of my comment was to point out that no one, AFAIK, has actually attempted to outgas the meat or evaluate whether buprenorphine survives cooking. And it is wasteful, in the sense that if they don't need to do cardiac perfusion of formaldehyde, the meat part of the pig might well still be edible once the brain has been removed. (edit) And I should point out that when I started in the field, we used to donate euthanized rodents to the zoo for snake food, but somehow that now became not-a-thing, despite the fact that there are humane/approved ways of doing euthanasia that minimize distress while still not requiring anesthesia. (This is how the reptile food industry operates!)

iancmceachern 4y ago
Not really. They really work to get the most out of each animals sacrifice. So one day it may be used for a cardiac procedure, the next day some kind of skin drug test, the next day some kind of cardiac drug, etc. So it's not like they use one tiny part of an animal then throw it away. They use the whole animal to get clinical benefit. It's the same with cadavers. They cut them up and use only the part they need to do the work. It's far less wasteful that way.
- ckemere 4y ago
  > So one day it may be used for a cardiac procedure, the next day some kind of skin drug Our IACUC will not allow this. The general policy from the Guide to Animal Care (NIH document which governs PHS funded research in the US) is in fact that an individual animal should not be exposed to multiple distressful procedures unless scientifically necessary. My understanding is that European animal committees have more of a minimize-the total-number-of-animals attitude, but that doesn't fly in the States anymore, at least on the research side.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    This doesn't jive with what I've personally seen "on the ground". Many procedures are not distressing.

iancmceachern 4y ago

Not really. They really work to get the most out of each animals sacrifice. So one day it may be used for a cardiac procedure, the next day some kind of skin drug test, the next day some kind of cardiac drug, etc. So it's not like they use one tiny part of an animal then throw it away. They use the whole animal to get clinical benefit. It's the same with cadavers. They cut them up and use only the part they need to do the work. It's far less wasteful that way.

ckemere 4y ago
> So one day it may be used for a cardiac procedure, the next day some kind of skin drug Our IACUC will not allow this. The general policy from the Guide to Animal Care (NIH document which governs PHS funded research in the US) is in fact that an individual animal should not be exposed to multiple distressful procedures unless scientifically necessary. My understanding is that European animal committees have more of a minimize-the total-number-of-animals attitude, but that doesn't fly in the States anymore, at least on the research side.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  This doesn't jive with what I've personally seen "on the ground". Many procedures are not distressing.