…and this is a 
You can't replace animals with petri dishes and computers
Category: Science
Posted on: August 28, 2007 12:30 PM, by PZ Myers
Once we've defeated the creationists (hah!), we're going to have to manage the next problem: well-meaning but ill-informed animal rights activists. Nick describes a recent article that tries to claim we can reduce animal use in labs — and it even has a couple of respectable scientists signing on to that nonsense.
And it really is nonsense. We don't understand everything that is going on inside animals, and to figure it out, we actually need to look inside them. There's no other way. If you want to examine patterns of gene expression inside the developing mouse brain, you have to extract their brains (needless to say, a lethal process) and examine them with a host of tools. Isolated cells in a petri dish aren't the same thing. To simulate something with a computer, you need to know the parameters of what you're simulating.
Using our imaginations and inventing what we think might be going on rather easily leads to absurd results … and the way I recognized that they were absurd is that I've actually looked at the processes involved.
Comments
And there's a much more pragmatic bent to this than satiating curiosity. Diseases. Diseases, diseases, diseases. Studying vectors is pretty important.
Also (and I don't want to come off as a framer here), hurling molotov cocktails at old women who they mistake for biologists isn't the best way to win friends and influence people. Getting naked in public is. They should do more of that.
Posted by: Dustin | August 28, 2007 12:51 PM
Even so, it should be required to use anesthesia where doing so would not harm the experiment.
Posted by: anna | August 28, 2007 12:57 PM
Won't someone please think of the suffering of the poor, poor E. coli, being tortured in Petri dishes? Being torn open just to make a plasmid? Can't you just use a computer?
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 12:58 PM
I am forced to agree that we will probably never be able to completely eliminate research using living organisms as test subjects.
However, the patenting of animals altered by testing recently came to my attention, and I am very troubled by the other extreme as well - the complete disregard of any level of dignity for living creatures who are being hurt, even if for virtuous ends. And yes, I recognize that they are often two separate issues - scientific research and economic standards, but because they are closely linked in today's world, I believe that researchers should be aware of the impact of the research they do.
I hope that in time we can find a reasonable medium where we can acknowledge both the necessity of such actions and the gravity of those actions.
Posted by: Sabrina | August 28, 2007 1:01 PM
What? You can't just take half the brain? We know things with half a brain can live ... just check out the comment section at Uncommon Descent.
Posted by: John Pieret | August 28, 2007 1:02 PM
New Rule: Intelligent design fans can now (finally) make contributions to science. I leave the way in which they make said contributions unspoken, but it might make PETA happier, and PETID sadder.
Posted by: Dustin | August 28, 2007 1:08 PM
On second though, extracting Dembski's brain would not prove to be instructive. So much for that idea.
Posted by: Dustin | August 28, 2007 1:09 PM
The real problem is that the anti-animal testing arguments have outlived themselves. Once, in relation to things like cosmetic industry testing, they had some validity. Many of the original targets of the idea were things (like cosmetics testing) that really didn't need to be done or didn't really need to be done that way.
But now the argument has been extended far beyond it's original valid scope, to try and include all animal testing, which invades the grounds of the scientifically necessary. I don't necessary fault those who make some of these arguments, since their motives are invariably moral and they tend to live up to them otherwise (by not consuming animal foods or products, for instance) but that doesn't mean that they have a lock on the moral equation, either.
The problem lies in the absolutist nature of the argument coming from the anti-testing side, where the only solution is of the all-or-nothing variety. Scientists, of course, decide on and design animal tests for scientific purposes and treat each in isolation (in a moral sense) based on relative usefulness in exchange for what is required in the way of harm to the animals.
It's the old problem of absolutist vs. relativistic viewpoints, with the absolutists refusing to see the utility of the relativistic approach and insisting on a moral standard regardless of consequence. It's no better than trying to get someone to compromise on any other article of faith, they won't do it. I'm afraid the only real answer is to try and spread a more relativistic attitude so that animal testing decisions can be made on their own merits.
Posted by: Stwriley | August 28, 2007 1:13 PM
Animal rights is a tough one. At root is an emotional value judgement of what is right or wrong, and unlike abortion, it is rational and not based on some ancient book.
I think both animal rights activists and biological experimenters could agree on some things: experiments on animals should be done as painlessly and kindly as possible. Captive animals should have as reasonable a life as possible. If something could be done without using animals, that would be the better way.
Animal experiments cannot be replicated on a computer simulations. Much of what we know today has come from animal studies and they will continue to be a valuable resource.
However some kind of course and prinicipals of ethics for animal researchers to sign onto may not be a bad thing.
It is also true that some of the most strident animal rights sentimentalists come from cities and know little about wildlife or animals in general (except for their own kitty).
Posted by: sailor | August 28, 2007 1:14 PM
I have never, ever known a single scientist who doesn't respect the gravity of animal testing, nor tried to alleviate potential suffering whenever possible. Unlike common media portrayals of scientists, they are human and respond with typical human empathy even through scientific professionalism. The straw-man Evil Researcher image erected by animal rights activists has little basis in the reality of animal research.
Posted by: Melissa G | August 28, 2007 1:14 PM
As someone against animal research, I think you hit on a key statement that I would argue against:
I agree. But my argument is why do we need to know these things? Just because you enjoy looking at them or understanding them isn't good enough. Nor is just knowledge. There aren't many in my boat, but I also exclude medical importance (something you admittedly aren't taking into consideration with your research which may or may not involve killing animals.Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 28, 2007 1:16 PM
I am an immunologist, and I work in infectious diseases. For years and years I have been screaming that it is not possible to reduce all in vivo host systems down to the petridish or a computer simulation (Holy Sh*t! Did I just make an argument for irreducible complexity?). Joking apart, it is not possible simply because the micro-environment of a bunch of cell in a tissue culture flask is not quite same as the micro-environment of the organ in the context of the whole body. Heck, we don't even know enough of the interactions between components of the immune system to be able to successfully model it on the computer. Again, if one does not have mutant rodent models, how on earth is one going to do predictive loss-of-function or gain-of-function studies?
It is very easy to adopt a holier-than-thou air and talk about in vitro research and simulations, but for disease research, it ain't gonna happen. Now, if only someone could get that across purposefully thick skulls of people at PETA. Someone tried to, but are they listening?
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 28, 2007 1:17 PM
Even so, it should be required to use anesthesia where doing so would not harm the experiment.
It is required.
However, the patenting of animals altered by testing recently came to my attention, and I am very troubled by the other extreme as well.
I have a problem with patenting genes. It seems a little like patenting the liver. Sure, you found it first, but should you get all the rights to it?
However, patenting engineered animals is something that makes a lot more sense to me. It takes a *lot* of work and a *lot* of money to make a knockout mouse (granted, it takes a lot less than it used to, but still). And someone can steal that work from you simply by acquiring one of your mice and breeding it. Doesn't the massive amount of work that goes into making it deserve some protection? (We can argue about whether or not the current patent system of 17 years of protection is valid, but it seems to me the initial work should be protected). It's a crazy amount of money to make a knockout mouse. Larger animals are even crazier amounts of money. One ought to be able to protect an investment like that...
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 1:17 PM
Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it.
I hope you live up to that ideal and deny *all* medical treatment to yourself and your loved ones. *All* medical treatment was tested on animals first to tweak it and make it safe for humans.
May I suggest carrying a card in your wallet (like an organ donor card) that says the following? "As an ardent animal rights activist, I would like to not be treated in a hospital using techniques that were perfected in animals. Please respect my beliefs if I am brought to a hospital unconscious. Thank you."
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 1:23 PM
I'm with Tom here. The justification for the use of animals in research requires a little more than "but knowledge is important" or "think of the lives we'll save."
No matter how you dissect(!) it, it's speciesist reasoning. That's fine as long as the underlying assumptions of the approach are examined and found to be reasonable.
Or are we just happy to appropriate the Abrahamic tenet that God gave man dominion over all the beasts of the earth in this case because it serves us to?
Posted by: Brownian | August 28, 2007 1:24 PM
Tom- I respect you for at least being honest:
While I disagree with it vigorously, it's a consistent, non-obfuscated position. As you admit, though, it's also an extraordinarily unpopular one. Hence the sort of widespread dishonesty that PZ was attacking.
An additional note completely unrelated to Tom's post. Whenever this sort of thing is discussed I'm always dismayed to note that many people appear to be quite unaware of the stringent regulations and reviews required for experimental use of any vertebrate. The life-science community needs to a far better job of disseminating this information to the public.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2007 1:25 PM
"Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it."
And if you can't see how ludicrous that position is, then there isn't really anything left to talk about.
Bottom line for me is, I refuse to die or watch a loved one die so that you can feel good about protecting animals.
Posted by: Ty | August 28, 2007 1:26 PM
There is precious little in the way of medical care that a person taking such an extreme position can receive without being guilty of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2007 1:29 PM
I think some of the folks here don't quite understand the implications of what they are saying. Take Brownian's: "The justification for the use of animals in research requires a little more than "but knowledge is important" or "think of the lives we'll save.""
How do you predict which research will give the results most likely to give cures for disease? There's an awful lot of hope that stem cell work will cure disease, but so far there's not many cures. Would you deny all the molecular biologists who are working with mice/rats/monkeys who are doing stem cell work the right to do their work? If they can't immediately cure a disease is their work not justifiable?
Some of this work may take decades to yield fruit that is usable.
The other misconception that seems to be common here is that researchers are chopping up animals willy-nilly. I have only once had to do work with animals. I spent a month of my life writing up the animal protocol. In that protocol, I had to define how we would take care of the animals, how we would eliminate suffering and how we would euthanize them if it seemed they were suffering. There is a *lot* of care that goes into this stuff. One is not allowed to deviate far from the existing animal protocol without writing another one. Most universities are *very* careful with how they handle the animals in their care.
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Don't use dogs and cats for experiments!!!
Actually scientists use animals only when they absolutely have to. They are expensive and for most, the worst part of research is doing animal experiments. Call it squemishness or empathy or whatever, but it is not pleasant causing animals diseases and then curing them even if is necessary. Its got to be done if science and medicine are to progress. The alternative is to go directly to the large primate model known as human but they, the lawyers, and their relatives object even more to that than animal testing.
For myself, I do oppose using companion animals for experiments. For the laypeople that is scientific jargon for dog and cats. IMO, we have a social contract with them based on mutualism. Besides which, I just decided long ago that it was unnecessary and immoral and I wasn't going to do it. The dog and my cats agree with me. There aren't too many dog and cat models anyway that can't be done in other species. The very few that are such as hemophiliac dogs can be exceptions to the rule.
As odd as this might sound, many academic and industrial animal facilities refuse to house dogs and cats for experimental purposes. More power to them.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2007 1:34 PM
What would justify it? Anything reasonable?
If not, then this claim way too a priori for my taste.
Again, could anything reasonably satisfy your skepticism? I mean, why do we want to know anything at all? If medical progress or understanding the world isn't sufficient, then what would be?
Posted by: Bob | August 28, 2007 1:37 PM
Quoth Factician: "I hope you live up to that ideal and deny *all* medical treatment to yourself and your loved ones."
I could not agree with this more. I have no problem at all if a person believes that the lives of animals are as sacred as those of humans. But to deny others medical treatment based on those beliefs is exactly the same as anti-choice proponents seeking to ban abortion on their moral grounds. If you are against the use of animals used for experimentation, do not support any of the end results. But do not try to remove the option of those treatments for others simply because your morals lead you in that direction.
Posted by: PuckishOne | August 28, 2007 1:40 PM
Speciesist ?
I'm happy to admit guilt of that particular charge.
How does anyone live without valuing their or their species life above other species on this planet?
Posted by: MartinC | August 28, 2007 1:43 PM
The comments about not using animals for research are just silly. All new medical treatments and drugs are extensively tested in animal models for safety and efficacy. Without that, drug development and medical research would screech to a halt and never move again.
Even with the extensive animal testing, potentially lethal drugs still rarely slip through the screens and get tested on humans. You read about it in the headlines of the papers. Patient(s) die in phase 1 trial, clinical trial halted, Vioxx or whatever taken off the market.
Not seeing much difference from using a dozen mice in an anticancer experiment and eating a Big Mac made from dead cows and pickles or a tuna fish sandwhich.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2007 1:45 PM
Several good points have already been made. As a scientist that has used animals (mice) in infectious disease research for over 30 yrs. I'd like nothing more than to use valid computer models or tissue culture models instead of mice. Protocols take weeks-months to write and get approved. Mice are extremely expensive ($15-75 each) to purchase and even more expensive to house. Animal costs are always the second largest item on any research budget.
Also, it's even more difficult when investigating immune responses to parasitic organisms that cause diseases that cannot be modeled in tissue culture. Not to mention the complexity of the host/parasite interaction with the immune system.
Posted by: Pdiddy | August 28, 2007 1:46 PM
Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it.
How do you justify killing and eating plants? How do you justify your immune system's destruction of invading organisms? I don't pose these questions with hostility. But presumably in a moral debate they demand answers, and I can't think of any answer that doesn't seem ultimately arbitrary.
Posted by: tim | August 28, 2007 1:47 PM
To make things easier for the non-speciest folks here, I've prepared a card you can place in your wallet demonstrating how strongly you hold your beliefs that animal experiments are wrong. You can find it here.
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 1:48 PM
factician- excellent!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2007 1:49 PM
Sure, but you can't wave off ethical concerns about cruelty to animals the way you can religious idiocy. I imagine you didn't intend to, but it comes across like that.
It's foolish to ban all animal experiments; it's not foolish to say that there need to be limits, and "guinea pigs" do deserve humane treatment.
Posted by: Amit Joshi | August 28, 2007 1:50 PM
Janet D. Stemwedel has a recent post on this same topic which is well worth reading:
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/08/discomfort_with_the_gray_areas.php
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | August 28, 2007 1:51 PM
I object to eating salads. The belief that a latuca sativa is less important than a homo sapiens is speciest sentiment.
Posted by: Dustin | August 28, 2007 1:53 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2007 1:53 PM
I worked on zebrafish - a vertebrate, non-mammalian, model organism - for several years. Rules at my academic institution were stringent, anesthesia was used, and great care was taken with our animals, even when a study required a formalin-fixed (this kills them) series of fish. Research animals are valuable and expensive to care for, even zebrafish, which are far cheaper and typically easier than, say, mice. People who work with lab animals do not run around saying "la la la I kill stuff today." Yeesh. Good animals = good data. Sick animals = no chance for good data . . . .
Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | August 28, 2007 1:54 PM
It's foolish to ban all animal experiments; it's not foolish to say that there need to be limits, and "guinea pigs" do deserve humane treatment.
I agree with you 100%. And in the vast majority of cases, this is already done. I suspect that the folks here that are calling for "more humane treatment" of animals have never seen an animal research facility. They live exceptionally well-treated lives. Their suffering is minimized in every possible way, and experiments are designed in a manner to reduce suffering. Granted, you can never *eliminate* suffering entirely, but in many cases you can reduce it to near zero.
I grew up next to a beef feedlot when I was younger, and I've been in animal research facilities. I guarantee you, that the cattle live an infinitely more miserable life than the relatively Gucci lifestyle of a research mouse.
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 1:55 PM
Posted by: factlike | August 28, 2007 1:55 PM
Most scientists would agree with that. There are in fact, such rules and regulations about humane treatment of animals, using the minimum necessary, housing them properly and so on.
Scientists don't use animals because they want to. They use them because they have to or give up progress in medicine and related biological fields forever.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2007 2:00 PM
I try to be pragmatic about these things. I think using animals to test a new hairspray is almost certainly unwarranted. Testing a drug, or even the activity of a gene is perfectly valid. Where the are the most appropriate tool for the job they should be used. On the same note, like any tool they should be taken care of and respected, and as living things they should be treated as well as practical. (As noted above, this is pretty much standard practice.)
Of course treating most animals well is not that demanding. For a mouse, a wheel and a cardboard tube is as good as a playstation and cable tv.
If someone wants to call be speciesist, then so be it. But if it is going to save my life, or improve the lives of people in general, go ahead and throw the kittens in the blender.
By the way, I am vegetarian, but I wear leather shoes, they are the best tool for the job.
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | August 28, 2007 2:11 PM
In all seriousness, the animal rights activists would probably find strong allies among the scientists if they'd stop targeting the scientists and painting them as sociopathic bullies who enjoy vivisecting kittens for nothing more than giggles.
For example, most of the scientists I know do not eat at KFC. Most have donated time or money to shelters or rescues and have, more than once, helped an injured animal in some way. They are, as a group, probably among the first to decry whaling as inhumane and wrong, and probably out of nothing more than respect for the whale. They're the ones who give the scientific basis to environmentalism, and the ones who can pinpoint threats to ecosystems. And they aren't likely to stop acting in a humane and responsible manner because some half-cocked hippies like to raid labs, either.
Saying otherwis is the same thing as pointing the finger at an Ob/Gyn in some third-world shithole who is only there to help and accusing him/her of being some kind of meniacal eugenecist.
Posted by: Dustin | August 28, 2007 2:12 PM
As someone who works with animals on a daily basis (and yes, I do also have to sacrifice them with some regularity) I felt it necessary to build upon what Steve LaBonne alluded to: the lack of public understanding of what goes into animal research.
A brief explanation of one element:
Any facility that is using animals for research must, by law, have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that determines what protocols can be used at that facility. These committees typically consist of scientists, veterinarians, ethicists, lawyers and "citizen advisors" with the aim of have sufficiently varyin viewpoints as to perform an actual regulatory function. They do not simply rubber stamp approvals on research proposals. Every protocol that is submitted must have an adequate justification for the use of animals and a strict accounting of how the animals will be used (i.e. all treatments, surgeries, etc.) with assurances that each animal is necessary for the purpose of the research project in question. It is also required by these committees, and the law, that all measures must be taken to ensure that the absolute minimum of pain is caused to the animals including anesthesia during and analgesia following any invasive treatment. In addition, most reputable facilites place an emphasis on "enrichment" for all animals including items for them to play with when they are in their cages. For anyone who would like to educate themselves more on this topic I would suggest simply googling "IACUC" as I'm sure that will give much better inforlamtion than I've provided.
Now if you would please excuse me, I must return to the butchery that some would accuse me of.
Posted by: Shaun | August 28, 2007 2:18 PM
I'm sure the bible says something really meaningful about the number of cells that have to be present in a particular organism's central nervous system to be deemed appropriate or not to experiment with.
I go for Nx7x2 (see Genesis 7.2).
I know, still got to determine N, I'm not exactly sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if N is not hidden somewhere in that bible.
Or is it the number of letters in the Septuagint ?
Well, if noone contradicts me, it will be deemed peer reviewed...
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 28, 2007 2:24 PM
Tom said: "Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it."
"Not the health of the human race"? I too respect you for being honest and forthright about your position, but I don't believe that you'd rather let Homo Sapiens go extinct, or even endure widespread suffering, due to some horrible pandemic than run tests and experiments on animals if that's what it took to find a cure and save humanity.
Posted by: NeoGothic | August 28, 2007 2:24 PM
"You can't replace animals with petri dishes and computers"
Truer words were never written. I tried, and you wouldn't believe the mess it made in the aquarium.
Posted by: True Bob | August 28, 2007 2:24 PM
I'm thinking meat; the other animals are (possibly) thinking meat. It's all just meat doing stuff to other meat. Let's lose the cosmic significance. We prefer not to kill our own brand of meat because that's not good for society and surely there are strongly embedded evolutionary reasons not to commit murder against one's own species. But other animals? We've been eating them and killing them for a very long time. I'm edging up to the naturalistic fallacy and I'm trying not to cross that line, but what I'm trying to say is, society has held itself together thus far with the killing of animals--through sport hunting, through medical testing, etc.--so I fail to see why attaining knowledge for its own sake is somehow categorically wrong
Posted by: Mike P | August 28, 2007 2:26 PM
Well, it took me a little while to get this written, so some people have already covered some of this (particularly the posts about how animal suffering is supposed to be minimalized during testing), but I'm posting it, anyway...
This is an issue I've grappled with for a long time, and even moreso since I've become an atheist. At least when I was a christian, I could say that humans were the most important animal, since we were God's goal (I believed in theistic evolution). But the way I see it now, we're just another species on this planet. Sure, we're the smartest (at least, I'm pretty confident in saying that - I wouldn't be too surprised if I learned that some species of cetaceans were as smart as or smarter than us in certain areas, but because of their environment and lack of hands, just never developed sophisticated technology), but I'm pretty sure that other animals still experience emotions, and feel physical sensations like pain. So, is their lower intelligence really our only justification in saying it's okay to experiment on other animals? Would it then be okay to experiment on mentally retarded humans, or infants whose brains haven't yet developed to the point where they're very intelligent? Or is our empathy and morality really based on how much DNA an organism has in common with us?
I understand that some scientific knowledge could be impossible to discover without animal studies, and that certain animal studies can lead to reduced human suffering. But doesn't that seem a bit Machiavellian, saying that the ends justify the means. Do you take a similar view of human torture, or Guantanamo, saying that because in the end more people are made safe, it's okay to torture a handful of people? If not, why? And again, what is our justification for saying humans are so much more important than other animals?
Posted by: Fatboy | August 28, 2007 2:38 PM
factician - I agree that there may be some compelling grounds to patent an organism or a technique for creating an altered organism FOR RESEARCH. But if you read further in the link I posted, there are animals that were essentially crippled AS A RESULT of testing - a rabbit that was made blind due to damage to its eyes from chemicals tested on it for lethality. There is a signficant difference between those two situations on economic, research, and ethical levels.
Posted by: Sabrina | August 28, 2007 2:39 PM
Well Fatboy, I can only emphasize that if you genuinely believe that, you should be carrying one of factician's wallet cards. You can't, on pain of hypocrisy, receive most kinds of medical treatment. Have you really thought seriously about that?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 28, 2007 2:43 PM
It's messy, and unpleasant, and frankly, I don't like doing it. But my animals are happy and well-treated, and my lab is making progress toward understanding the molecular basis of neural development. I can sleep at night.
Posted by: Mollie | August 28, 2007 2:44 PM
As a vegetarian, my personal choice is that I contribute to (or support in some way) as little animal abuse as possible. I think it's reasonable that a biologist or virologist doing front-line study will occasionally have to examine the actual inner workings of animals in order to do their work.
It is my hope that this work is important, though-- and not just smearing shampoo in some rabbit's eye, or seeing how much of a cleansing agent it takes to make blisters.
On the other hand, it also seems reasonable that students shouldn't be presented with actual animals for dissections-- these are easily modeled on a computer. It seems to me that many other experiments could be computer-modeled as well.
....
As for the squeamishness of testing on companion animals, etc, it seems to me that this is little more than stupid emotionalism, and no more intelligent than creationists arguing against evolution because they don't like being "from monkeys." There is no way to get around the fact that when an animal is being forced to act as a test subject, it is abuse. No matter the outcome, this animal will suffer-- and it is only our ability to disengage from this fact that allows us to continue. The more inhuman the subject, the easier it gets... we've all surely killed our share of flies and ants and germs, yes?
The problem is that animal rights folks (and I'd count myself among their number) see how this sort of thinking is on a continuum with the sort of thinking that allows us to wage a senseless war that claims lives of innocent civilians halfway around the globe. Like the otherwise harmless "magical thinking" that writers like Randi and Dawkins see leading mankind towards places we should not go, the animal rights community often sees this us-versus-them mentality of animal research and consumption.
It is most sad, however, to see the front-line scientists and researchers I mentioned earlier become the first "target" of animal rights attention. I'd sooner see all the more obvious (and less useful) examples done away with first-- then get everyone to be a vegetarian-- before I bothered with this sort of research, which surely cannot be all that great a percentage of animal abuse in total.
Oh, and by the way-- I hate PETA.
Posted by: DaveX | August 28, 2007 2:44 PM
Eariler in the posting I said:
"However some kind of course and prinicipals of ethics for animal researchers to sign onto may not be a bad thing."
Clearly things have come along way since my youth and this is very well in place.Thanks Shaun form posting the IACUC.org web
It was not always that way - sometimes as species we make progress, and this would seem ot one area in which we have.
Animal rights fanatics should take advantage of facticians cards (#26) and leave the rest of us alone. What they do is not useless - if they can get eveyone to agree there will be no more demand for animal testing and out medical bills will go down. Those willing to sign the card might even get one of the HMO's to offer heavily discounted medical care rates.
Posted by: sailor | August 28, 2007 2:46 PM
factician, wow! Just wow! I am so impressed by your cogent arguments. Great job!
Raven, I understand your point about companion animals, and I do believe we don't really need hairspray or shampoos to be tested on dogs. However, dogs are considered essential for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling and toxicity testing of new chemical entities in the pre-clinical stage. There is a clearly defined FDA guideline on this.
But I agree with you and a lot of others here that research needs to use the minimum level of animals needed to get good results. I think, the animal protocols of different institutions are written to emphasize on reduction, refinement and reasonability. Scientists who work with animals are not really inconsiderate, compassionless jerks as they are usually made out to be by the so-called anti-vivisectionists.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 28, 2007 2:52 PM
Fatboy,
first, there is a difference between killing and torturing.
Second, for one life form to kill another life form in order to survive is quite(!) common in nature.
This reminds me a bit the discussion I has with a friend who is a hardline vegetarian. The fact that homo-sapiens exists because it started hunting for food and killing other animals and thereby evolved into a more intelligent being seems to be of no value to him.
So, if we humans, need to kill (not torture) other life forms (however intelligent) in order to survive (ie find cures for deseases that kill some humans), I do not see a reason why this should be deemed as going against nature.
Kind regards from a meat eater. (I actually eat a bit of everything, and agree that there is no reason to overdo it on meat, it's probably even harmful)
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 28, 2007 2:54 PM
Tom wrote:
"Bottom line for us animal rights activists, even in scientific and medical research, is that the outcome doesn't justify the means of killing the animal. Not my health, not your health, not the health of the human race justifies it."
So what do you choose if you have been in a car accident (you are still conscious), you've lost a lot of blood, and the paramedics arrive and want to start a saline iv?
The saline, needle, bag, and tubing have all been lot-tested for endotoxins using animals, so accepting the iv creates new demand for other animals to be used.
I've heard a lot of people blathering about animals having rights, but strangely, I've never heard of anyone turning down a saline iv. Why is that, Tom?
Posted by: John | August 28, 2007 2:58 PM
We have a long way to go before humans as a whole can live up to the humanity scientists show their research animals.
Look at the media attention of Michael Vick gets for dog fighting... its all about how he lied, let down his team, engaged in illegal betting and when he'll be able to return to the NFL, not about the monstrous activity he participated in.
How can we as a society have serious conversations about animal research when we are so flippant with the express abuse of our "best friends" for entertainment? It may be best to address this seeming indifference to inhumanity before trying to raise the already high standard of animal use in labs.
Posted by: Martha | August 28, 2007 3:08 PM
First of all, I said it was something I was grappling with, not that I'd actually decided upon. I was trying to point out some issues that a lot of the commenters here were glossing over. I guess my main question, was whether or not the ends justify the means, and it would appear that many of the commenters here do feel that way. Fine.
The next big question was what makes humans so much different from any other animal - why is it okay to study other animals? I realize it's the way our society works, and will be for a long time to come, but I wondered if there was any rational basis for it, other than saying humans our closest kin.
I do understand the difference between killing and torture. Maybe instead of torture, I should have said intentional suffering. Unless I'm missing something, when animals get infected with diseases to test the efficacy of a treatment, they do have to suffer the symptoms of the disease.
And yes, I am a hypocrite. I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and in the meantime I go on eating animals. But, factician's card still seems silly to me. It's a bit like saying, if you think slavery is wrong, don't use any of the infrastructure in the south that may have been built by slaves, or else you're a hypocrite. We can't change the past. If as a society we were to decide that animal testing were wrong (fat chance), we wouldn't be compelled to throw out all the knowledge we'd gained up till that point. So if as an individual I decided I didn't agree with animal testing, why should I be compelled to avoid using any treatments from the past? I could see all future treatments, but then factician would have to make a multipage form, and not just a simple card.
And finally, as others have pointed out, for the most part, research facilities do treat their animals pretty well, so this is one of the smaller issues in the world today, and it's not something worth spending too much time on.
Posted by: Fatboy | August 28, 2007 3:15 PM
Where? We do those studies as a matter of course constantly, part of ADME-tox. Never have used a dog or cat. The FDA requires it for drug preclinical but certainly has no requirement for those two animals. Usually it is rodent and sometimes primate.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2007 3:25 PM
Fatboy wrote:
"Unless I'm missing something, when animals get infected with diseases to test the efficacy of a treatment, they do have to suffer the symptoms of the disease."
You're missing almost everything, not just something. Most animals are not used to test the efficacy of treatments.
"And yes, I am a hypocrite. I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and in the meantime I go on eating animals. But, factician's card still seems silly to me. It's a bit like saying, if you think slavery is wrong, don't use any of the infrastructure in the south that may have been built by slaves, or else you're a hypocrite. We can't change the past. If as a society we were to decide that animal testing were wrong (fat chance), we wouldn't be compelled to throw out all the knowledge we'd gained up till that point. So if as an individual I decided I didn't agree with animal testing, why should I be compelled to avoid using any treatments from the past?"
This is ignorant and/or dishonest, because accepting any medical supplies directly increases the exploitation of animals, BECAUSE THEY ARE LOT-TESTED. It's not just science and drug testing.
Posted by: John | August 28, 2007 3:26 PM
2 things. First a horror story for everyone to chew on:
My grandfather was a research chemist quite a while ago (probably in the 40's-50's) and had to take part in some animal testing. I don't remember what they were testing, but it involved the use of guinea pigs (yes, the animal). I understand it was almost a thousand.
The testing wasn't particularly harmful to the animals, but the company he worked for had no use for them after the tests, so they were to be killed.
seems kinda wasteful enough, neh? but my grandfather who was just an assistant at the time walked in on the project leader as he was doing the dirty deed: apparently, he had decided to cut costs, and not euthanize the guinea pigs by putting them to sleep. No. this jackass was injecting them with air and letting them squirm in pain as it killed them slowly.
My grandfather relates that he said something along the lines of "what the hell are you doing!?!?"
in the end he found out that the project leader there was quite religious and believed that God had put animals on the planet for man to do whatever he wanted with them, and thus there was nothing wrong with killing them that way.
My grandfather could only get him to stop by promising to kill them himself, and had to, by hand, break each one's neck. A much more humane way to kill them. (but still cheap. yeesh that project leader was an ass.)
And now i forgot what the second thing i was going to say was.
Though I think this story shows that we have come a long way in our treatment of test animals.
P.S. my grandfather is very religous and uses this story to talk about how other christians can sometimes not get it. he hopes that man gets what's coming to him.
Posted by: catofmanyfaces | August 28, 2007 3:28 PM
I find myself nodding my head in agreement with DaveX. I, too, am a vegetarian for health & environmental reasons. Causing less cruelty is an added bonus. I dislike PETA, even though I try to be as cruelty-free as possible when I consume.
Someone mentioned animals being a front-line instead of humans, due to our litigious culture (among other things). The truth of it is, if you are an animal rights activist and want to see the end of animal testing, the only substitute will be human testing. Who will agree to be tested upon, perhaps killed, for the sake of science? If we exclude tests that require killing the animal and move on to more even-footed territory, like pharmaceutical assays, what human wants to be a guinea pig for that (pardon the reference)?
Remember at these early phases, it's not like it is now. The doctor won't be coming to you and saying "there's this poorly tested, possible cure for your condition." Nope. The conversation would be more like, "there's this new drug that Pfizer has no idea what it will do to you, but take it, and in a few weeks we'll cut out your liver and see how it compares to a normal one." You *can't* do this testing on humans. We *have* to use animals.
I was going to post about how there would have to be a trade for legal immunity for human testing if people seriously became interested in banning animal testing... but even then, that just wouldn't cut it.
You have on idea how much animal testing has improved your life. None. I'm not only talking about pharmaceuticals, but even food additives, preservatives, and more. Heck, animals were at one point used to test for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in mines. Are you going to go without electricity (almost all of our plants are coal-burners), or without metal of any kind?
Saying that one animal life is worth more than the human race is the same kind of twisted argument we are seeing from the Bush administration, which said they would oppose even an HIV immunization due to fears of promiscuity. It's complete, utter, raving, loony BOLLOCKS.
And I'm ->
So to update, to live completely cruelty-free, in addition to eating no animal products, you must stop using cosmetics and soaps (revert back to ashes and oil, since soap was traditionally made from rendered fat - if we can stop animal testing now, it's because we so thoroughly tested in the past). Brush your teeth with baking soda and twigs, swear off all modern medicine completely - I see you reaching for that aspirin now, you better stop - and go off the grid completely. In fact, you can't even generate electricity with a water wheel, because you might knock down some animal habitats when you cut down the tree, and you'll disrupt fowl and fish ecosystems while you're using it. You'll have to grow your own food, and spin your own fibers, because there's no guarantee of getting cruelty free produce even when it's organic. Sometimes organic farmers exploit insects to cleanse their fields of pests, and even if not, you can bet that slave horses are having all of their manure stolen to use as fertilizer. You'll just have to crap in your own field to fertilize it, and eat the bugs off your plants to get a healthy crop. Or can you do that? Could you even kill the insect that's eating your only food?
This exercise might never end.
Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2007 3:35 PM
I'll be upfront with you all: I'm neither a vegetarian, nor am I a priori against animal testing.
However, the speciesism inherent in animal testing has serious implications for many of the conclusions drawn in biology and from evolution itself. We claim all life on the planet shares a common ancestry; we claim the concept of species is a relatively flexible one, particularly when it comes to paleontology and the fossil evidence for evolution; we claim humans share 90-some percent of their DNA with chimpanzees; hell, some of us even claim that genes are somewhat independent agents whose importance in evolution rivals the individual, the population, and perhaps even the species.
Then, as soon as Grandma's diagnosed with cancer, we turn around and say "Screw that! I'm human and Grandma's human, and all the rest of you organisms can go fuck yourselves."
Fatboy and Tom have made all the standard arguments against animal testing, and Factician and the others have made all the standard arguments for it. That's not to say that they're not good arguments; they are. But if we're to let our knowledge of the world inform our ethics rather than relying on sky daddy to tell us what to do, then we've got to be reevaluating our claims as more information comes to light.
Fatboy hit it on the head when he asked if "our empathy and morality [is] really based on how much DNA an organism has in common with us."
Maybe that's fine. As a non-photosynthesiser, my very existence so far necessitates the deaths of thousands of organisms. But where is that line drawn? I stated up front that I'm not a priori against animal testing, but I realised long ago that I can no longer justify being a priori against murder either.
I suspect, based on the comments here, that Martha's right: "We have a long way to go before humans as a whole can live up to the humanity scientists show their research animals."
But do not dismiss out of hand the questions that Tom and Fatboy raise. That's not rationality; that's dogmatism.
Posted by: Brownian | August 28, 2007 3:41 PM
I have two dogs. I have also had cats in the past. I figure that if there is some act that I wouldn't want done to them, I shouldn't want it to happen to other creatures of similar cognitive capabilities. That certainly rules out testing on dogs and cats, but also on any primate (and I haven't seen them mentioned yet), or pigs, or indeed most mammals. My reasoning may not be sophisticated, and I can't claim to be fully consistent (I do, for example, feed my dogs meat-based food, although I myself am a vegetarian). But I don't see why my pets should enjoy special moral status just because I know them, any more than child slavery should be acceptable in kids I don't personally know.
And here is Mike P.'s comment, slighted edited:
That's the problem with the standard speciest argument -- it can be so easily applied to other, more distateful domains.Posted by: Tulse | August 28, 2007 3:46 PM
I did not say that I thought most testing was done to test the efficacy of treatments. I was bringing up one example I was pretty sure of that did cause suffering in animals, specifically in response to negentropyeater's comment #50, "first, there is a difference between killing and torturing."
So, if as a society we decide animal testing is wrong, we should throw out all the knowledge we gained from it? Or were you referring only to the latter part of that statement, where I make an individual choice. If that's the case, maybe it is something worth looking into more. I didn't realize established technologies/treatments/medicines were still regularly tested on animals. I admit to being ignorant to a lot of what goes on in the medical community, particularly on the research side.
Look, I'm not trying to be a jackass here. I'm not saying that I think animal testing is necessarily wrong. I'm just trying to figure out a rational basis for my morality. Like I said, I used to be a Christian, so I was always told that God was the final authority, and I didn't spend as much time as I should have thinking about these things.
I thought of maybe a more succinct way of asking my questions. If the ends justify the means in non-human animal testing, causing the suffering of at least some non-human animals in the present so that there will be less overall suffering in the future, can you similarly justify torturing a human terrorist, which could result in less overall suffering in the future. If not, do you have any rational basis for morality, or is it based mostly on our instictual empathy?
Posted by: Fatboy | August 28, 2007 3:48 PM
Brownian,
I personally didn't dismiss any of the arguments made by the animal-rights crew. I took them to their logical, non-hypocritical conclusion. What I pointed out was that we are all speciesist, whether we admit it or not.
I tend to compare the animal-rights crowd with meat-eating hypocrites. They love their steak, but boy they look down their noses at butchers and slaughterhouse workers. One can't say "I don't think animal testing is ethical" and then turn around and enjoy the results of those people who are willing to do the animal-testing. It's hypocrisy.
Let's pose the question slightly differently. Imagine a loved one, dying in a hospital. All you need to do is kill a zebrafish to save her. Would you do it? How about a mouse? How about ten thousand mice? How about a guinea pig? Dog? Monkey? I think most of us would do all of those things. If we're being honest, the question isn't "Would you do it?" or even "Is it ethical?". The answer to both those questions is obviously yes. The only question is, "Can you do it in the most humane manner?" and to a large degree, that is being done.
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 3:52 PM
Let's extend my earlier analogy a little bit.
You're in a burning building. Your dog and your lover are both passed out due to smoke inhalation. You're only strong enough to take one of them with you...
Are you sure you're not speciesist?
Posted by: factician | August 28, 2007 3:54 PM
And let's not kid ourselves... those mice would extract our brains in a second, if there was something in it for them.
(Sorry; I can't pass up a chance for a good Douglas Adams reference. Carry on.)
Posted by: markbt73 | August 28, 2007 3:56 PM
If animals are sufficiently similar to us that eating/using them is wrong,
then
it is also wrong for them to eat/use each other.
but
they do it all the time.
Therefore - we must not only not use animals, we must stop them from using each other.
Posted by: dAVE | August 28, 2007 3:56 PM