> But one of Van Hooser’s biggest pushes is to make the university’s invisible population feel seen. He encourages scientists to name animal workers in meeting posters and publications. He also invites researchers to visit animal facilities (their labs are often in a different part of campus) to explain the importance of their science.
This sounds grim that this is a big push. Scientists not even working on their own animals, leaving technicians to kill them without ever thanking the technician, and the technician never knowing why animals they feed and clean after for years suffer and die.
It's not as grim as you're considering. One of the things you want is people who know what they're doing taking care of the animals in question.
When we're working with humans taking blood draws, we want trained phlebotomy technicians taking blood draws, not because we're monstrously detached from our subjects, but because our expertise is elsewhere (for example, antibody detection).
If you're working with research animals, you want their care (and yes, their deaths) done and supervised by someone who is an expert in that specifically.
Should researchers see the facilities their animals are housed in, and acknowledge the efforts of those workers? Absolutely. But that's hardly because scientists are uncaring - it's a result of things like the animal housing sites often being at the very periphery of campuses, and science generally having not done a good enough job acknowledging the efforts of technicians in all aspects of science, dating back decades.
Becoming too attached will ruin the experiment. Science is done under controlled conditions with as much uncertainty and randomness removed as possible. It's not ideal but we don't have any better options unless you want to do mass sacrifice of animals at scale and use Monte Carlo to derive results.
My mom studied xenotransplantation in non-human primates and pigs. I worked in the veterinary resources department for a couple summers and I can confirm it can be draining. Especially since like most vet resources departments it's in the basement. The best part of the baboons' day is usually when they get to watch The Lion King for enrichment. After a few times they become so familiar with it that they are excited when their favorite scenes are coming up. It's heartbreaking, but at the same time, if we can figure out how to successfully stop organ rejection then we will most likely have cured cancer on the way, and have a much better understanding of how the immune system functions.
It's not that finding a cure to cancer is not important, of course it is, but that doesn't mean the animals need to be treated in deplorable ways. Of course, it's understandable that precautions need to be met and sometimes this means animals need to have reduced contact with other animals and be kept in particular conditions; I worked in immunology for a while so I'm familiar with it.
But I believe the real reason why these animals have to suffer such torture is simply because treating them as best as we could is too expensive and no one wants to pay the cost of animal dignity. No one. So we just justify it saying it's for the greater good.
I mean, it's just a utilitarian position: the potential of millions of lives being improved is worth the suffering of these animals, after all, a human life is much more valuable than an animal life under this frame of reference.
> "if we can figure out how to successfully stop organ rejection then we will most likely have cured cancer on the way"
Genuinely ignorant and layperson curious here ... how are these two things connected? There are so many types of cancer that this sounds bold and almost too ... simple?
A dear friend who loved animals was a veterinary tech, who'd switched from pet clinic work, to a university-affiliated research lab. She died suddenly, very young, it seems probably due to experience as a vet tech at the lab.
Some of this article sounds familiar, including (near the end) the sneaking off to find somewhere to cry. Even though she was pretty tough.
I don't recall her mentioning troubles related to the animals, other than some physical pain related to some of the repetitive movements handling small cages, and being bothered if other techs didn't do the animal care properly.
She did have problems with a clique of other vet techs bullying her. Though some techs were nice, and the supervising vet and the head of the lab were nice to her, and mostly supportive, other than not managing to fix the nastiness problem.
Going only from one person's experience, and this short article:
1. Can the nature of the lab vet tech work lead to, or select for, nastiness in some people?
2. Do labs let some bad behavior slide, due to the difficulty of hiring (given that the work can be rough, and the pay is poor)?
1) Vet techs have been some of the kindest, most patient people I have met. They are humans, which means some of them are nasty, but between the compassion fatigue, the relatively low pay for the amount of training, etc., I don't think "nastiness" is selected for.
2) Difficulty hiring is one. Difficulty firing is another, if they're at a state university. But there is a national shortage of these types of technicians, and it's not a job that can't get done.
A close family member of mine runs a small animal hospital which routinely hires high school students as cage cleaners and dog walkers. Animal comfort is top priority, and the standard of comfort is very high. For instance, employees are expected to learn how to read and heed animal body language, and to control their own body language and voices to be as non-threatening and friendly as possible.
Very few new hires have any inkling about any of this when they start, so there's a period of a few weeks where they're forgiven a lot. It's a big ask, because a lot of it is new habits, and some of it can be strange new thinking, too. But ultimately the hires who can't adapt are fired.
Consequently a lot of the hires end up studying animal science or veterinary medicine later on. My point is: the nature of the work that comes before the lab tech work can have an impact, too.
I was once in a running group with a guy who worked for Stanford inducing cancers in dogs, to trial and error test various treatments.
Personally I find this unconscionable, as there's an endless supply of all cancers in most species which would benefit from treatments.
It was an hour run, the time he spoke of it, of absolutely disgusting shame for our species and in particular because these experiments were largely grant securing.
I would argue we treat pigs (which are comparable to dogs in terms of intelligence) raised for slaughter much worse than these dogs. Yet I still eat bacon.
Moral consistency on animal welfare is really hard because we have so many blind spots due to how commonplace some practices are. There is definitely a push for ending things like cosmetics testing on animals[1], but I'm not sure we can or should stop testing things like cancer treatments on animals. At least not until we have viable alternatives.
It's a slippery slope. You can't test on people, and need animals that have similar drug kinetics. That being said, so much drug research is unnecessary garbage, and living beings pay the price.
I worked in immunotherapeutics and gave cancer to ~25 mice. I can't say it helped progress the field much, and I still feel bad. Cannot imagine what it's like to give cancer to a dog.
To study cures for cancer you need to induce the exact type of cancer you are trying to treat in dozens of identical animals that are as similar as possible to humans, and do so in a reproducible way. suggesting you could just go and work with any old animal that happens to have some sort of cancer is incredibly naive.
Perhaps something about caring for animals attracts depressed or possibly suicidal people in the first place.
Just an anecdote, but within 1 month in 2018, the lady I adopted my dog from(Stacey Radin), my dog walker, and a lady who ran a horse rescue in my hometown all committed suicide(none knew each other). I don't think I know anyone else directly who has committed suicide, and they all worked with animals.
Very interesting article that brought up many memories, but this feels like too public a space to discuss given the stigma and anger that can get focused on animal research topics.
It seems like modeling clinical conferences that discuss patient cases that have been particularly upsetting to staff could be a model for animal care staff as well. Something like a monthly meeting where animal care staff and research staff could decompress and discuss the importance of the research that is being conducted while acknowledging the unique emotional toll of working with animals.
There's not much you can do to "decompress" when you go to work, sentence dogs to death, and then go home to your family pet and look at them thinking they could've been one of those dogs. I've met meat packers who still are haunted by the animals they killed.
It's because humans have moral and ethnical frameworks. Despite a document drafting XYZ is okay because "its for science" it still is wrong in the sense you are sacrificing something with a memory, sadness, happiness, etc for a possible "greater good". Especially for dogs, an animal deeply engrained and coevolved with humans, I cannot imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance, or more likely, sociopathy that would be required to engage in such experiments.
We trivialize the fact it's unethical to experiment on humans. I am not a treehugger or anything but to suggest talk therapy will help solve a very real moral and ethical problem...well I'm not sure you understand. Veterinarians have an extremely high suicide rate for a reason. Moreover, I will never forget the callousness of the veterinarian who suggested I put my family dog down for something that wasn't immediately fatal. It's only a small step from that asshole to these assholes and that step is complete transcendence into pathological psychopathy. We simply sometimes benefit from these psychopaths gassing dogs and pigs. It does not imply such a thing is either morally or ethically correct and no amount of "decompressing" will fix it. It just is what it is and some people have developed the pathological brain wiring to allow themselves to do it.
I might add a devil's advocate position, albeit colored by my own experiences.
We're predators. We consume other animals. The fact we have found other ways to consume them doesn't make for a moral conundrum.
Indeed, true to the empathic nature of a social species, we even go out of our way to minimize the suffering of our prey.
Do you think the bear does that, as it eats its pray alive? Or the animals that swallow whole & alive, and kill during digestion only? Or parasitic wasps?
You can be as self indulgent and narcissistic as you want, but if you see a loved one painfully dying of a disease that 10 years of no-holds-barred (FDA-unencumbered) medical research could have have prevented, we'll see how quickly your narcissist "think of the animals" self-indulgence will be replaced by "why are authorities letting this happen" self-indulgence.
Virtue comes from doing what is painful but must be done, not indulging in your high horse like a child who's yet to understand the world.
In college, one of my friends worked in an animal lab on campus.
There were something like 3,000 dogs... all in one building... all penned up from birth.
And upon hearing about the 3,000 dogs, I was like, "Can I see them?"
So she snuck me in.
And they were all bred to have some disorder, I don't remember what now, but like the article said... it was fatal.
And we got to the lab at like 9 PM and nobody else was there.
The dogs were all so happy to see us. God they seemed lonely. They were kept in these little like 10x14 pens, 2-3 dogs per pen. Some dogs were in cages.
But like... they were just dogs. Y'know? Most were just happy and looking to be pet, and it was overwhelming to be there.
I got to give some treats.
One of the pens had a dead dog in it, and my friend agonized over dealing with it or waiting until her shift officially started -- she didn't want to leave the dead dog in the pen, and she didn't want people to know she was sneaking her friends in to play with the dogs. So she decided to deal with the dog, and just tell her supervisor she came back for her wallet or something.
Anyway, for a kid 2,500 miles away from home... who missed his dogs... it was really nice to have an hour to play with puppies and young dogs.
As we were leaving she said that most of the dogs were euthanized at the 6-month mark to check for heart defects, or heart issues. Even the healthy dogs.
Fuck it was devastating to hear that.
I'm sure there's a reason and I'm sure we benefit somehow... and a dog who has never seen the sun, and will never see the sun, probably doesn't know what all they are missing... but they have to know, right? Like every living thing has to know they weren't made to sit in a little pen waiting to die.
I don't know, just felt like they should be outside, playing in a field, all that stuff... being mentally challenged and taught how to fetch and instead... they were bred just so their hearts would fail, or so they could be killed and dissected to see why their heart didn't fail.
Most people at the school didn't even know there was a dog lab like that on campus.
> we entered freely and unsupervised in a lab full of animals valued in several ten thousands where anybody could swap the tags of two puppies and ruin the life of a young scientist just for fun, or accidentally introduce a parvovirus after playing with their own pets. And then we touched and played with all the cubs.
Yeah, sure, lad. This is not how it works in the real life.
> a dog who has never seen the sun, and will never see the sun
Why? there is not a sun in your planet?
There is a fair chance that when this dogs are walked in the streets or the university gardens by its caretakers will be able to see the sun, sniff the sun and even to pee in the sun
Maybe it should have been clear after trying to get high off breathing dry ice and alcohol as a kid (urban legend), or reading about experimental methods to elicit panic response, but it became undeniably clear after a bunch of rat sacrifices that CO2 asphyxiation is one of the most unpleasant ways to die. Surprised it's still allowed
Three months ago, there was a post on HN about Neuralink's treatment of animals. I mentioned that I struggled with the idea of animal testing and meat eating, generally. [1] I was surprised by the lack of empathy for the sentiment. Most were arguments for the necessity of the practice, but I don't think many of the people arguing for the necessity of animal testing could handle being the animal technician. As this article shows, even people in the field struggle with it. I'm not sure it creates a more compassionate society to outsource your industry's cruelty.
That is how slaughterhouses work, at least in the US. Poor migrate workers get to work on the killing floor for low wages and dangerous work. Keeps it out of sight and minds of the more affluent people that eat those animals.
I sympathize. My wife once told me I could not be a vet, because I would need to be able to put the animals down. The more I learn, the more I understand what she meant by it.
I dislike unnecessary suffering and some of it does sound very unnecessary. I can give some level of dispensation for necessary pain, but even then it should be a good reason ( and it seems sometimes the reasons are in the 'not great' category ).
All that said, what are the options here with regards to research animals?
1. We stop research on all animals
2. We don't stop
3. We research even more
4. We adjust it to some more acceptable status quo
Personally, I have a recent opinion that may jar some as I am more and more leaning towards #1. I think what eventually got me was dog cloning services in US.
What will follow is a move a different type of testing ( and hopefully more humane ): human testing.
It will come with its own set of issues, but, at least, subjects will be able to consent.
The impact, I suppose, is uneven. Anecdotally, I knew a young woman who wanted to help people and ended up as a biotech intern at a regenerative medicine institute where she spent her summer giving puncture wounds to rats. It was very hard on her.
This topic is essentially why I postponed my PhD work. I’ve worked with animals for years and I finally found a PhD mentor that I saw my own vision and understanding of neurology in, I was elated. However, after two years, I simply couldn’t work with animals any longer. This essentially has ended my career path in translational medicine. For a long time I was able to continue doing lab work with animals due to the motivation of the “bigger picture.” It seems that is no longer enough. I’m still trying to decide what to do and where to go from here. Psychopharmacology is all I want to do and the kind of research I want to be involved with. As to the techs described in the article, I feel for them. It is evident that their job takes a heavy toll and their role is invaluable in research, yet severely undervalued and under recognized.
A lot of people are assuming this is purely about research for human products/treatments.
The researcher who was the most drained from her work was doing work that was entirely focused on the animals she works with. Veterinary schools use research animals as well.
It's akin to how most people would be disgusted if shown how animals are slaughtered for meat but most people also have short memories - they will have their outrage and make some commitments about vegetarianism - the equivalent of the Twitter morale outrage but soon their current events catch up with them and the thought and emotion are swept away by the next thing.
I recall a NYT article recently titled something along the lines "you'll forget most of the Covid pandemic and that's a good thing" - and as angry as that title made me I know its right - Solzhenitsyn talked about the memory of the Gulag years fading away from him, getting fat and complacent, turning back to old things - so even if such great trauma is lost in time I have no doubt most people just forget about how pigs are slaughtered in a week or two.
I almost think its almost by evolutionary design, to live otherwise and carry and accumulating all that weight over the course of a life time is very hard. The alternative is to turn into a stone and abandon your humanity altogether. I don't mean to be cynical, it's just an observation.
There seem to be all sorts of coincidental mechanisms that help people move past or forget trauma. A simple example is poor memory formation when sleep deprived; I note that many of my most difficult times have included significant sleep deprivation...
Definitely interesting to read an article about the emotional suffering humans experience due to their proximity to animal suffering. We must be at the center of any story for it to matter.
Bitterness aside, I feel for these animals and for the people trying to make their short lives better.
In the UK, all abattoirs have to have a vet in attendance when they are slaughtering animals. I always thought finding that your job as a vet must feel like a weird career turn. You become a vet to help sick animals and now you're helping kill healthy ones.
I know a couple veterinarians who bounced off this during large animal medicine training, but those that did take an approach not dissimilar to a lot of Heroic Defense Lawyer Protagonists on television: This is going to happen, and its their job to make sure it happens with the absolute minimum of suffering (and also that the animals are indeed healthy).
[+] [-] PuppyTailWags|3 years ago|reply
This sounds grim that this is a big push. Scientists not even working on their own animals, leaving technicians to kill them without ever thanking the technician, and the technician never knowing why animals they feed and clean after for years suffer and die.
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
When we're working with humans taking blood draws, we want trained phlebotomy technicians taking blood draws, not because we're monstrously detached from our subjects, but because our expertise is elsewhere (for example, antibody detection).
If you're working with research animals, you want their care (and yes, their deaths) done and supervised by someone who is an expert in that specifically.
Should researchers see the facilities their animals are housed in, and acknowledge the efforts of those workers? Absolutely. But that's hardly because scientists are uncaring - it's a result of things like the animal housing sites often being at the very periphery of campuses, and science generally having not done a good enough job acknowledging the efforts of technicians in all aspects of science, dating back decades.
[+] [-] KRAKRISMOTT|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pazimzadeh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerojero|3 years ago|reply
It's not that finding a cure to cancer is not important, of course it is, but that doesn't mean the animals need to be treated in deplorable ways. Of course, it's understandable that precautions need to be met and sometimes this means animals need to have reduced contact with other animals and be kept in particular conditions; I worked in immunology for a while so I'm familiar with it.
But I believe the real reason why these animals have to suffer such torture is simply because treating them as best as we could is too expensive and no one wants to pay the cost of animal dignity. No one. So we just justify it saying it's for the greater good.
I mean, it's just a utilitarian position: the potential of millions of lives being improved is worth the suffering of these animals, after all, a human life is much more valuable than an animal life under this frame of reference.
[+] [-] emptybits|3 years ago|reply
Genuinely ignorant and layperson curious here ... how are these two things connected? There are so many types of cancer that this sounds bold and almost too ... simple?
[+] [-] neilv|3 years ago|reply
Some of this article sounds familiar, including (near the end) the sneaking off to find somewhere to cry. Even though she was pretty tough.
I don't recall her mentioning troubles related to the animals, other than some physical pain related to some of the repetitive movements handling small cages, and being bothered if other techs didn't do the animal care properly.
She did have problems with a clique of other vet techs bullying her. Though some techs were nice, and the supervising vet and the head of the lab were nice to her, and mostly supportive, other than not managing to fix the nastiness problem.
Going only from one person's experience, and this short article:
1. Can the nature of the lab vet tech work lead to, or select for, nastiness in some people?
2. Do labs let some bad behavior slide, due to the difficulty of hiring (given that the work can be rough, and the pay is poor)?
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
1) Vet techs have been some of the kindest, most patient people I have met. They are humans, which means some of them are nasty, but between the compassion fatigue, the relatively low pay for the amount of training, etc., I don't think "nastiness" is selected for.
2) Difficulty hiring is one. Difficulty firing is another, if they're at a state university. But there is a national shortage of these types of technicians, and it's not a job that can't get done.
[+] [-] JellyBeanThief|3 years ago|reply
Very few new hires have any inkling about any of this when they start, so there's a period of a few weeks where they're forgiven a lot. It's a big ask, because a lot of it is new habits, and some of it can be strange new thinking, too. But ultimately the hires who can't adapt are fired.
Consequently a lot of the hires end up studying animal science or veterinary medicine later on. My point is: the nature of the work that comes before the lab tech work can have an impact, too.
[+] [-] pmarreck|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|3 years ago|reply
Personally I find this unconscionable, as there's an endless supply of all cancers in most species which would benefit from treatments.
It was an hour run, the time he spoke of it, of absolutely disgusting shame for our species and in particular because these experiments were largely grant securing.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|3 years ago|reply
Moral consistency on animal welfare is really hard because we have so many blind spots due to how commonplace some practices are. There is definitely a push for ending things like cosmetics testing on animals[1], but I'm not sure we can or should stop testing things like cancer treatments on animals. At least not until we have viable alternatives.
[1] https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/timeline-cosmetics-t...
[+] [-] y-curious|3 years ago|reply
I worked in immunotherapeutics and gave cancer to ~25 mice. I can't say it helped progress the field much, and I still feel bad. Cannot imagine what it's like to give cancer to a dog.
[+] [-] DangerousPie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Invictus0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpaceManNabs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zdw|3 years ago|reply
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2019/09/04/veterina...
[+] [-] oh_sigh|3 years ago|reply
Perhaps something about caring for animals attracts depressed or possibly suicidal people in the first place.
Just an anecdote, but within 1 month in 2018, the lady I adopted my dog from(Stacey Radin), my dog walker, and a lady who ran a horse rescue in my hometown all committed suicide(none knew each other). I don't think I know anyone else directly who has committed suicide, and they all worked with animals.
[+] [-] dangle1|3 years ago|reply
It seems like modeling clinical conferences that discuss patient cases that have been particularly upsetting to staff could be a model for animal care staff as well. Something like a monthly meeting where animal care staff and research staff could decompress and discuss the importance of the research that is being conducted while acknowledging the unique emotional toll of working with animals.
[+] [-] checkcircuits|3 years ago|reply
It's because humans have moral and ethnical frameworks. Despite a document drafting XYZ is okay because "its for science" it still is wrong in the sense you are sacrificing something with a memory, sadness, happiness, etc for a possible "greater good". Especially for dogs, an animal deeply engrained and coevolved with humans, I cannot imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance, or more likely, sociopathy that would be required to engage in such experiments.
We trivialize the fact it's unethical to experiment on humans. I am not a treehugger or anything but to suggest talk therapy will help solve a very real moral and ethical problem...well I'm not sure you understand. Veterinarians have an extremely high suicide rate for a reason. Moreover, I will never forget the callousness of the veterinarian who suggested I put my family dog down for something that wasn't immediately fatal. It's only a small step from that asshole to these assholes and that step is complete transcendence into pathological psychopathy. We simply sometimes benefit from these psychopaths gassing dogs and pigs. It does not imply such a thing is either morally or ethically correct and no amount of "decompressing" will fix it. It just is what it is and some people have developed the pathological brain wiring to allow themselves to do it.
[+] [-] jalapenos|3 years ago|reply
We're predators. We consume other animals. The fact we have found other ways to consume them doesn't make for a moral conundrum.
Indeed, true to the empathic nature of a social species, we even go out of our way to minimize the suffering of our prey.
Do you think the bear does that, as it eats its pray alive? Or the animals that swallow whole & alive, and kill during digestion only? Or parasitic wasps?
You can be as self indulgent and narcissistic as you want, but if you see a loved one painfully dying of a disease that 10 years of no-holds-barred (FDA-unencumbered) medical research could have have prevented, we'll see how quickly your narcissist "think of the animals" self-indulgence will be replaced by "why are authorities letting this happen" self-indulgence.
Virtue comes from doing what is painful but must be done, not indulging in your high horse like a child who's yet to understand the world.
[+] [-] dbg31415|3 years ago|reply
There were something like 3,000 dogs... all in one building... all penned up from birth.
And upon hearing about the 3,000 dogs, I was like, "Can I see them?"
So she snuck me in.
And they were all bred to have some disorder, I don't remember what now, but like the article said... it was fatal.
And we got to the lab at like 9 PM and nobody else was there.
The dogs were all so happy to see us. God they seemed lonely. They were kept in these little like 10x14 pens, 2-3 dogs per pen. Some dogs were in cages.
But like... they were just dogs. Y'know? Most were just happy and looking to be pet, and it was overwhelming to be there.
I got to give some treats.
One of the pens had a dead dog in it, and my friend agonized over dealing with it or waiting until her shift officially started -- she didn't want to leave the dead dog in the pen, and she didn't want people to know she was sneaking her friends in to play with the dogs. So she decided to deal with the dog, and just tell her supervisor she came back for her wallet or something.
Anyway, for a kid 2,500 miles away from home... who missed his dogs... it was really nice to have an hour to play with puppies and young dogs.
As we were leaving she said that most of the dogs were euthanized at the 6-month mark to check for heart defects, or heart issues. Even the healthy dogs.
Fuck it was devastating to hear that.
I'm sure there's a reason and I'm sure we benefit somehow... and a dog who has never seen the sun, and will never see the sun, probably doesn't know what all they are missing... but they have to know, right? Like every living thing has to know they weren't made to sit in a little pen waiting to die.
I don't know, just felt like they should be outside, playing in a field, all that stuff... being mentally challenged and taught how to fetch and instead... they were bred just so their hearts would fail, or so they could be killed and dissected to see why their heart didn't fail.
Most people at the school didn't even know there was a dog lab like that on campus.
Easier not to think about this stuff.
[+] [-] pvaldes|3 years ago|reply
Yeah, sure, lad. This is not how it works in the real life.
> a dog who has never seen the sun, and will never see the sun
Why? there is not a sun in your planet?
There is a fair chance that when this dogs are walked in the streets or the university gardens by its caretakers will be able to see the sun, sniff the sun and even to pee in the sun
[+] [-] throwaway2037|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carabiner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xkcd-sucks|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerE|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pazimzadeh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madrox|3 years ago|reply
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33874163
[+] [-] valgor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|3 years ago|reply
I dislike unnecessary suffering and some of it does sound very unnecessary. I can give some level of dispensation for necessary pain, but even then it should be a good reason ( and it seems sometimes the reasons are in the 'not great' category ).
All that said, what are the options here with regards to research animals?
1. We stop research on all animals 2. We don't stop 3. We research even more 4. We adjust it to some more acceptable status quo
Personally, I have a recent opinion that may jar some as I am more and more leaning towards #1. I think what eventually got me was dog cloning services in US.
What will follow is a move a different type of testing ( and hopefully more humane ): human testing.
It will come with its own set of issues, but, at least, subjects will be able to consent.
[+] [-] sclarisse|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohbleek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
The researcher who was the most drained from her work was doing work that was entirely focused on the animals she works with. Veterinary schools use research animals as well.
[+] [-] rafark|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carabiner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euix|3 years ago|reply
I recall a NYT article recently titled something along the lines "you'll forget most of the Covid pandemic and that's a good thing" - and as angry as that title made me I know its right - Solzhenitsyn talked about the memory of the Gulag years fading away from him, getting fat and complacent, turning back to old things - so even if such great trauma is lost in time I have no doubt most people just forget about how pigs are slaughtered in a week or two.
I almost think its almost by evolutionary design, to live otherwise and carry and accumulating all that weight over the course of a life time is very hard. The alternative is to turn into a stone and abandon your humanity altogether. I don't mean to be cynical, it's just an observation.
[+] [-] ip26|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DangitBobby|3 years ago|reply
Bitterness aside, I feel for these animals and for the people trying to make their short lives better.
[+] [-] swayvil|3 years ago|reply
Big-time cognitive dissonance there.
[+] [-] gadders|3 years ago|reply
In the UK, all abattoirs have to have a vet in attendance when they are slaughtering animals. I always thought finding that your job as a vet must feel like a weird career turn. You become a vet to help sick animals and now you're helping kill healthy ones.
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danbmil99|3 years ago|reply