The 9 Most Tested Lab Animals 235
An anonymous reader writes "Discover Magazine has this odd photo gallery in which they explain why certain animals are used in scientific research. Why are high-tech contact lenses always tried out in rabbits? Why do we study monogamy in prairie voles? Etc. They say of the 9 animals: 'Taken (or stitched) together, they form a kind of laboratory doppelganger for humans.'"
Ok, new plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lest I be accused of being inhumane, any such web developer who can show that his boss forced him to do so may personally perform the experiments on his boss.
Re:humane testing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:humane testing (Score:3, Insightful)
Pigs (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that they don't mention pig skin grafts for burn victims. I guess today, those are considered sub-par to human grafts.
I owe a lot to a pig - 25 years ago or so, I suffered a major burn on my head. I was rushed to UW/Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, which besides being a welfare hospital, is one of the premier burn units in the U.S. So, I was lucky that I was only a few miles away from it. After the "scrubbing" (which you do not want me to describe here) they had to come up with a graft that would act like human skin, but not be rejected by my immune system. Pig skin grafts were the hot (if you'll excuse the pun) medicine at the time, because pig skin actually has a lower rejection rate than donor human skin (the only other alternative being, removing and grafting skin from another part of the victim's body, which I'm told is very unpleasant, albeit less than "scrubbing".)
So after a third degree burn, and a successful pig skin graft, I was released after about a week or so. Without the pig skin graft, I'm told I would have spent months in the hospital dealing with the effects of anti-rejection drugs.
P'raps the pre-graft typing of human skin tissue has improved, reducing rejection. That's great. But I still owe a lot to a pig.
Re:humane testing (Score:3, Insightful)
I will qualify this with the fact i don't think all animals are equal. an ant for example doesn't feel the same pain as an animal with a more complex nervous system.
And you see here's the thing about animal cruelty. it invariably leads to cruelty to humans, because such a low value is placed on life and it desensitises people to suffering. you'll find a direct correlation between people that are cruel to animals and how they treat other people.
Re:humane testing (Score:4, Insightful)
It is definitely the case that people who take up animal cruelty, for its own sake, are Seriously Bad News. It also wouldn't surprise me if 40 hours/week of slaughterhouse or animal tech work lends one a certain detachment.
However, it is also the case that people are really good at compartmentalizing what they do. It isn't obvious that people whose motive is research, rather than animal cruelty for its own sake, are especially disposed to be cruel in other areas. Indeed, it isn't even necessarily the case that they are placing a low value on life. Medical research does tend to imply minimum ratios between the values of various lives(how many test animals used vs. how many lives saved) which can be uncomfortable; but assigning ratios is not necessarily the same as devaluing.
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
mod parent up!
The gallery is terrible. And the slashdot title is totally wrong. It is not 'The 9 Most Used Animals'. It was more like 9 animals that have been used to make interesting discoveries.
I work at Princeton University in Molecular Biology. The most studied animals are fruit flies (drosophila), c. elegans, zebrafish, mice, and rats. Frog embryos are commonly used, because they are massive. Songbirds are studied quiet a bit in neuroscience.
The vole research is interesting and well known, but it is niche. There are very few vole labs.
I do not know any lab at Princeton or NYU (my alma mater) that studies naked mole rats, moths, rabbits, pigs or dogs.
I also found it offensive that Discovery, a site supposedly dedicated to science, seem to be pandering to animal rights activists. Why mention some rare case of abuse? You want to talk animal abuse? Look at the food industry. You want to talk abuse? Look at how humans treat each other.
Re:humane testing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:humane testing (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't test (for example) shampoo by giving the test animal a nicer shower. You force the animal to ingest (to test what would happen if a child drank the bottle). Or dripping the shampoo into the test animal's eye. I'm sure you can imagine other scenarios.
These tests are often unnecessary & you can't really be sure that the test animal & a human subject would react in the same way in any case.
Sure, but its a lot better for a dog to lose an eye than for a human being to. Or to kill a few mice rather than someone's toddler. And sure, you can't be 100% sure that they will react the same, but you can sure weed out any disastrous effects.
Seriously, if you thought about this for a fraction of a minute before posting, you would've figured this out. Are you some sort of retard who types without thinking?
Are you some kind of bleeding-heart idiot who thinks that a mouse's life is worth more than a human's life? Guess what? I think -all- of us have gotten shampoo in our eyes and probably managed to get some of it in our mouths at one point or another. I think you would have a quite different opinion of this issue if you were blinded/killed by your shampoo.
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
For anybody supported by contemporary agricultural techniques eating animals is optional. All the suffering of animals in agricultural situations is basically inflicted because they are delicious.
By contrast, until we come up with some truly amazing advances in tissue culture and computer modelling, animals are non optional for medical research. You can either stop research, and accept massive additional morbidity and mortality, or you can kill a whole lot of animals.
And yet, for whatever strange reason, medical researchers are a whole lot more likely to get a firebomb through their mail slot. Even fur farming seems to get off more lightly. I don't understand it.
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Thanks for articulating what I was thinking but too pissed off to explain.
I propose that every time anyone goes to the doctor/hospital, they have to sign a consent form acknowledging that their treatment was developed using animals.
I think that would wake people up to the reality of the situation.
Although, i think this is changing. People are becoming more educated about the food industry. At least were I live in the north east US, there are tons of vegetarians.
Re:They forgot one (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to have people saved by doctors/hospitals to sign a form saying that they were saved by science, research and hard-work, entirely without the assistance of God.
I imagine the researchers get a bit frustrated when they spend 3 years of their life figuring out a cure to something using scientific research... The doctor spends hours applying the vast quantities of knowledge he's gained through school. In the end, GOD gets the thanks??? The doctor gets a nod, and the researchers get ZERO recognition. How the fuck does that work?
Re:humane testing (Score:5, Insightful)
if you are putting a chemical into a shampoo you think might blind someone, wtf are you doing?!?!
This is a common misconception.
The truth is, every scientist in industry (ie: making products to sell) wants all of the animals in their experiments to come out completely safe and healthy.
Why? Because the company has already spent a LOT of money in development by the time it gets to animal testing. Animal testing is expensive (but required by law) and it only comes after everything else has been tried. At this point, the company believes the product to be safe. It then becomes the toxicologist's job to make sure it's absolutely safe on actual living beings.
They start with the lower order species such as mice and if the mice are okay, they move up the ladder of complexity (with the top being primates), and finally they test humans. Yes, humans. Human volunteers are the final stage of testing. If there are any problems along the way, the project is stopped there. The company loses their investment, but it is less than what they would pay in lawsuits should their product start hurting people.
If all the animals and humans are safe, then the company gets to make money on whatever they developed.
If you don't believe these companies are ethical, at least believe that they want to make money. Animal testing is the last step, and every company wants the animals to remain healthy.
Re:They forgot one (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, I think God gets a lot of the blame when things don't work out, too. And how many atheists do you think thank the researchers instead of just the doctor?
That said, most people I know thank God for providing a good doctor who performs their treatment effectively, as well as for putting them in the 80% (for example) of people for whom the treatment works. I don't know anyone who doesn't thank the doctor as well.
Re:They forgot one (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never understood why people seem to freak out so much more over lab animals than they do over agricultural ones.
Because people are ignorant.
Most people, when they think of animal research, think of animals being tortured. Those same people, when they think of agricultural practices, think of happy little family farms where animals live a wonderful life and then eventually die a quick and painless death for the greater good.
They think this way because they are also selfish. Being opposed to animal research is easy. Being opposed to animal food, on the other hand, means actually changing the way they eat. And, hey, meat is tasty. Eating it gives pleasure. Few people are willing to give up pleasure for a little thing like ethics.
Those same people usually can't be bothered to do a little research and boycott products that do invasive animal testing.
Morals are okay as long as I don't have to change my ways in order to have them.
Re:They forgot one (Score:3, Insightful)
In a generation the absurd notion that animal testing is bad will die out.
Don't count on it. It doesn't matter if it happens after reproductive period. And such people are among those who usually reproduce, well, like rabbits.
Re:They forgot one (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhm, no. There's this "Satan"/etc. safety valve that stops people from blaming gods too much. And even if gods are held responsible, it's always: "I wasn't good enough, I wasn't praying enough, gods are testing me, it is beyond our understanding" - they always have some excuse
And please, religious folks understanding medical statistics? Where on Earth have you seen that?
Consider: if they would understand statistics, there would be no miracles. But you hear about one from time to time, when the patient simply managed to be in the very small group that survives serious condition. But...why it's not a miracle when somebody dies from flu? Why? The mechanism is the same.
Re:They forgot one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They forgot one (Score:5, Insightful)
So are "Virgin" and "Mother".