I worked in a laboratory with mice for about two years after college. * None of our mice were morbidly or even slightly obese (I know because I had to cut them

I worked in a laboratory with mice for about two years after college. * None of our mice were morbidly or even slightly obese (I know because I had to cut them open). * The mice lived in groups of up to 6 in a cage, which I don't know how it compares to their normal situation, but it's not "starved of social contact." * I don't remember how we dealt with the mice's circadian rhythms, but I think that we had the lights on timers for this. * Research is inherently subject to variation. There might be compelling reasons why results would vary based on how researchers treat their animals, but I think it would depend a lot on what kind of experiments were being performed. Stating that in a blanket fashion, I think, is misleading. Biological science is just plain hard, and many experiments fail, often with no clear explanation why. That someone could get frustrated enough to start singing to their animals is not an indication that mouse research is inherently flawed. At the end of the day, a vast quantity of scientific knowledge is owed to mouse research. Denouncing it as "[mostly] complete crap" is just plain false.