5 ms·

> Her lab job was to kill rats in the lab(adults, and babies). She would slam their heads into a piece of granite. Some times multiple times. (btw--she had horr

> Her lab job was to kill rats in the lab(adults, and babies). She would slam their heads into a piece of granite. Some times multiple times. (btw--she had horrid dexterity) NO IACUC at any university or any veterinarian would approve this. > Years ago some Researcher put a plywood cover on his truck. He then filled the truck with live piglets. He then went four wheel driving. He claimed to be studying orthopedic injuries. If not illegal then, this would certainly be illegal now. > She even admitted a lot of it was validating Current studies--so students could finish their studies in order to get that advance degree. How is validation useless? > So, there are no regulations in the United States on the treatment rodents and amphibians in schools and labs. If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. There are so many hoops you have to jump through before you're allowed to do animal experiments that it's almost ridiculous at this point in several institutions. I was on a team which proposed an experiment in which we wanted to monitor the uptake of trace quantities of known compounds and their derivatives in hair. The doses would have been far below anything toxic and the only procedures were injection of the compound and shaving the rodents while they were under anesthetic. This experiment took WELL OVER A YEAR to make it through multiple animal welfare committees and for investigators to get the required training; so long that we ended up dropping the proposal all together. Please also keep in mind that most experiments are being done on mice, animals which people have no problem killing and attacking in their homes using brutal techniques (sticky traps, terrible poisons, spring loaded traps) or feeding to their caged pets while still alive with no moral qualms whatsoever.

logfromblammo 12y ago
I recently attended a parents' meeting for the elementary school science fair. If the 5th-grade students were doing an experiment that involved animals, they had to fill out a stack of forms and collect the signature of a vet. If the experiment involved humans--even if that involvement was as simple as answering a question--each human participant had to sign a form. My kid, who also attended, said, "I'm doing my experiment on plants." Elementary school science fair! If you want to condition your own dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, you need to fill out additional paperwork and get your vet to approve. I can only imagine what load of crap university scientists have to wade through to get any research done.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Annoying? Likely, but once you have seen the abuses that have taken place over the last 50 years you will see why that is necessary.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    You don't need a D.V.M. to know what animal cruelty is, and you don't need a Ph.D. to determine whether the human participation in your experiment is unethical. We don't need more gatekeepers dictating morality to us. The abuses demand oversight, it is true. But that oversight does not require professional qualifications. Something that shocks the conscience of a Nobel laureate will likely also shock the conscience of high-school dropouts. The very same peer jury system that is capable of condemning a criminal human to state execution or awarding millions of dollars in civil restitution can certainly determine whether a method of sacrificing research animals to science is acceptable or not. The same public concerns that led to the retrofit of commercial slaughterhouses with more humane Grandin animal handling systems can be applied to research animals. My suggestion is this: for any given experiment that involves potential harm or injury to animals, assemble a randomized, unbiased, volunteer jury of at least 12 people. Explain to them the goals of the experiment and the protocols, and the proposed animal involvement. If no more than 25% of the jury objects, the experiment may begin immediately. Otherwise, rewrite the protocols and try again. Ethics approval could take days instead of months.
atlantic 12y ago
>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the world is not enough. Consider even the most humane animal experiment, replace the animal with a human being, and see how you feel about it. Animals are living beings that we share the planet with; let them live their lives out in their natural environment. Animal experimentation should not even be contemplated, for exactly the same reason that wartime Nazi medical and eugenic experiments are condemned: for causing needless suffering in other living beings.
- Thriptic 12y ago
  The fact of the matter is that translational life science, medical device development, and pharmaceutical development are not safely possible without animal experimentation at this time. Our in vitro and computer models are simply not good enough to accurately mimic the human body. It's completely legitimate to take the stance that animals should never suffer, but then you must also be willing to accept that our ability to produce beneficial medications will also be severely limited. I'm personally not willing to make that tradeoff.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    For me personally, it doesn't make any kind of sense to force members of other species to live miserably and undergo various forms of de facto torture so I can avoid disease and live longer. It seems a bit selfish. I understand other people can and do take other positions on this matter.
    - EmlynC 11y ago
      Animal experimentation is repellant to many people, I can see why. The point is that society has decided that they'd prefer well-researched, empirically-observed working medicines. Regulation must strike a compromise between allowing research to continue with enough oversight to limit abuse. It is the sort of compromise developers use with security; enough to limit abuse, but not too much that no-one can use the system!

logfromblammo 12y ago

I recently attended a parents' meeting for the elementary school science fair. If the 5th-grade students were doing an experiment that involved animals, they had to fill out a stack of forms and collect the signature of a vet. If the experiment involved humans--even if that involvement was as simple as answering a question--each human participant had to sign a form. My kid, who also attended, said, "I'm doing my experiment on plants." Elementary school science fair! If you want to condition your own dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, you need to fill out additional paperwork and get your vet to approve. I can only imagine what load of crap university scientists have to wade through to get any research done.

tomjen3 12y ago
Annoying? Likely, but once you have seen the abuses that have taken place over the last 50 years you will see why that is necessary.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  You don't need a D.V.M. to know what animal cruelty is, and you don't need a Ph.D. to determine whether the human participation in your experiment is unethical. We don't need more gatekeepers dictating morality to us. The abuses demand oversight, it is true. But that oversight does not require professional qualifications. Something that shocks the conscience of a Nobel laureate will likely also shock the conscience of high-school dropouts. The very same peer jury system that is capable of condemning a criminal human to state execution or awarding millions of dollars in civil restitution can certainly determine whether a method of sacrificing research animals to science is acceptable or not. The same public concerns that led to the retrofit of commercial slaughterhouses with more humane Grandin animal handling systems can be applied to research animals. My suggestion is this: for any given experiment that involves potential harm or injury to animals, assemble a randomized, unbiased, volunteer jury of at least 12 people. Explain to them the goals of the experiment and the protocols, and the proposed animal involvement. If no more than 25% of the jury objects, the experiment may begin immediately. Otherwise, rewrite the protocols and try again. Ethics approval could take days instead of months.

atlantic 12y ago

>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the world is not enough. Consider even the most humane animal experiment, replace the animal with a human being, and see how you feel about it. Animals are living beings that we share the planet with; let them live their lives out in their natural environment. Animal experimentation should not even be contemplated, for exactly the same reason that wartime Nazi medical and eugenic experiments are condemned: for causing needless suffering in other living beings.

Thriptic 12y ago
The fact of the matter is that translational life science, medical device development, and pharmaceutical development are not safely possible without animal experimentation at this time. Our in vitro and computer models are simply not good enough to accurately mimic the human body. It's completely legitimate to take the stance that animals should never suffer, but then you must also be willing to accept that our ability to produce beneficial medications will also be severely limited. I'm personally not willing to make that tradeoff.
- atlantic 12y ago
  For me personally, it doesn't make any kind of sense to force members of other species to live miserably and undergo various forms of de facto torture so I can avoid disease and live longer. It seems a bit selfish. I understand other people can and do take other positions on this matter.
  - EmlynC 11y ago
    Animal experimentation is repellant to many people, I can see why. The point is that society has decided that they'd prefer well-researched, empirically-observed working medicines. Regulation must strike a compromise between allowing research to continue with enough oversight to limit abuse. It is the sort of compromise developers use with security; enough to limit abuse, but not too much that no-one can use the system!