Puppies Are Lucky to Be Experimented On?
Published January 26, 2009 @ 03:50PM PT
Wow, this is surreal. I don't have time to go into any deep analysis at this exact moment, but I at least want to share this notice sent out by PCRM this afternoon, even if I can't write about it just yet.
Edit: I meant to clarify this, and in my rush to post and get back to other work, I forgot--the puppy named Lucky is not the one who is experimented on in this coloring book; he's the one who benefits from research on other animals (in this case, mice). But dogs are experimented on in research labs as well, hence the title of the post and the irony of animal research being presented as great for dogs.
NIH Misleads Children About Animal Experimentation
It has just come to our attention that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in conjunction with an animal research industry trade group, is providing false and misleading information about animal experiments to children.
Alarmingly, the NIH promotes, on its Web site, a children’s coloring book that gives a skewed view of animal experiments. The coloring book implies that researchers are trying to cure animals that are already sick—rather than purposely infecting them with diseases—and ignores the fact that animals suffer and die in the process. The coloring book, entitled The Lucky Puppy, was produced by an industry trade group, the North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research, whose members have a financial interest in the continuation of animal research.
The coloring book is available through the following link: http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/images/coloring/luckycolor.pdf.
The book erroneously portrays the lives of animals in laboratories as pleasant and carefree. Published scientific research and numerous undercover investigations clearly demonstrate that animals in laboratories suffer pain and distress from experimental procedures and routine laboratory practices. The coloring book also makes misleading claims about the benefits of animal experiments, implying that research findings from experiments on animals are directly applicable to both the animals used in research and to humans.
With PCRM's help, you can send a message to the public liaison for the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, asking her to remove the link and explaining why you find it offensive, misleading, and inappropriate. Do that here.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Botox Kills Animals Even Better Than It Kills Wrinkles
-
Better LCDs Trump an Animal's Right to Live and Be Left Alone?
-
Creating and Celebrating Primate Obesity and Diabetes
Comments (24)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.
Yeah, I just saw this in my email as well. I haven't seen a stunt this grossly distasteful in a while.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/26/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is the most disgusting, sick piece of propaganda I have ever seen. That fact the NIH promotes such a twisted and false account of cruelty to animals to impressionable minds of children is unethical and morally wrong. This institute needs to be raked over the coals and cleaned up. They have lost all credibility and become the pawn of the greedy. How can we trust anything about NIH in the future? Sick stuff.
Posted by Peggy Maceo on 01/26/2009 @ 06:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I undestand animal cruelty is wrong and whatnot... but is it wrong to do cancer research on mice? I'm sure the mice that get the artificial tumors will suffer and everything but, what about all those people that you can save by following this type of research?
It is a fact that scientists don't just poke needles at mice for the sake of enjoying but because they can picture a better good for the human race.
Also dogs? Those scientists studying canine psychology and pathology are making sure those dogs do not suffer. Sure, they might be placed in a cage for the sake of keeping them somewhere. What about all those dogs at animal shelters that don't have a home or place to stay? They basically get the same treatment as the NIH dogs the only difference being is that they get taken out more often and they are asked to perform tricks such as picking the right ball over the left ball after having eaten or whatnot. Just because research is done on animals it doesn't mean it's cruelty. Just look at all those experiments being performed on humans themselves. I was part of an experiment where they made me run and took some blood. Did I suffer? Not really. If you think that was cruelty then lets start talking about our undocumented Mexicans that fix our roofings and do our lawns for minimum wage or less.
Posted by Jae H on 01/26/2009 @ 06:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jae, your comments are based on a couple of wrong assumptions. First, you are assuming that this kind of research--research on mice--is actually saving lives and that it is our best hope, when in reality much evidence indicates otherwise; we have better, more reliable options. You also put a lot of unwarranted faith in the idea that animals, dogs included, used in research don't suffer--again, the evidence does not support that, and although I don't consider research on mice to be any less morally wrong than research on dogs, you also seem to be seriously underestimating the kinds of experiments performed on dogs and other animals. Dogs are involved in painful, invasive experiments just like other animals--it's not about performing tricks. And there's just no way you can compare what was done to you in an experiment and what is done to nonhuman animals--what happens to nonhuman animals is far, far worse.
Please see some of these resources:
http://aavs.org/researchBG.html
http://aavs.org/researchProblems.html
http://pcrm.org/resch/
You may also want to check out some books such as Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 01/26/2009 @ 07:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a scientist myself, I understand how research might not alter human life directly. For example, a study of a random fruit fly gene has probably little to do with human life. But the fact is that we do research on these little creatures because we actually share these traits with these animals. In fact, our entire branch of science called genetics was obtained through fruit fly and studies of other tiny animals. Also, yes sure we might inject some things into dogs and whatnot. But as I said before, no scientist does research with the purpose of harming the dog. As the animal gets larger, there are more strict regulations established by the NIH. For example, even if we might inject things into dogs and even monkeys, those are most likely drugs that are being worked and passing through the FDA in order to test for side effects just like they do with humans before reseasing a drug. If we didn't have this we'd be having thalidomide, if not worse, babies all over the place.
Posted by Jae H on 01/27/2009 @ 09:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jae, I am sure that all doctors who experimented on humans in concentration camps or on slaves did so in order to advance science and so forth. It still doesn't make it right.
Do I also need to remind you that thalidomide, which you used as an example, WAS tested on nonhuman animals before being given to humans and with disastrous results as have many other drugs that showed promise in other animals.
Animal research is outdated, cruel, inaccurate, and expensive. Keeping your job may be more important to you than the lives and suffering of animals, but to those animals, it's horrible.
I say this as a scientist as well. I study humans.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/27/2009 @ 10:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
AR, I used thalidomide as an example for consequences of drugs. It is my biased opinion but if we do not experiment drugs on some sort of mammal or closely related species before testing it on humans, consequences could be much worse than thalidomide.
Posted by Jae H on 01/27/2009 @ 12:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The reason thalidomide caused those consequences in humans is because it was shown to be SAFE in nonhuman animals. Antibiotics were shown to be USELESS in nonhuman animals. Tylenol was shown to be DEADLY in nonhuman animals. Vioxx was shown to be SAFE in nonhuman animals. Shall I go on?
The only safe and responsible way to find cures for human beings is to test human cells, human organs, human epidimiology, prevention of human disease in humans and human clinical trials.
On top of all of these inaccuracies, even if none of this were true, the ethical issue of using nonhuman animals in research is that it is simply wrong. We learned quite a bit from unethical testing on humans (and still do- see drug testing in Africa). It doesn't make it right.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/27/2009 @ 03:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And how would people have observed the consequences of thalidomide by analyzing epithelial or even cervical tissues? Also, what do you mean with antibiotics being useless in nonhuman animals? Antibiotics are commonly used to treat bacterial infections just like in humans. Many animals tend to possess strains that are immune but this also happens in humans as well. Vioxx is an example of a drug that it works for the purpose being just that it has a risky side effect which is why it was removed from the market. What about the fact that animal research was done in order to even produce vioxx in the first place? How would we come down to understanding and discovering that NSAIDs blocked the COX pathways if it hadn't been for rabbit chicken and dogs?
And for those who may read this and think "What? Drug that failed was studied on animals?" This COX pathway is what is being blocked by your common pain killers including Tylenol and aspirin among others and it was discovered in animals.
Posted by Jae H on 01/27/2009 @ 07:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You can test these things by using the cell cultures you mentioned as well as organ cultures, stem cell cultures (which can mimic literally any part of the body), and reduced dose human trials. All of these things will be FAR more accurate than testing on an animal.
Yes, antibiotics work on SOME animals. But when they were initially studied, they were almost tossed out because they didn't work on the animals they were using in labs. If they had used the methods above, they would have known immediately that they worked on humans rather than doing trial and error with multiple species of nonhuman animals.
Most things are understood by being studied in humans. The rest is a waste of money and time and it is UNETHICAL.
I could argue that we should use human infants or mentally handicapped people as test subjects and make a really good case for the accuracy aspect as well as the "not that advanced cognitively" aspect. But, would that make it right? Absolutely not.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/28/2009 @ 06:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I forgot to answer the cox pathway question.
We have advanced imaging techniques that are completely safe in human beings (that don't even use radiation) like fMRI that can show us things like this. WE have advanced imaging like diffusion tensor imaginf and connectome identification that can show the direction and function of brain pathways and others. There are also methods like transcranial magnetic stimulation that can even mimic lesion studies in animals but in humans.
I am not particularly familiar enough with cox pathway research to make a statement on it in particular. But, chances are, it can be studied in humans with faster, more accurate, and less expensive results.
I would like to see you address this ethical aspect of this at some point. You continue to avoid it.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/28/2009 @ 07:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
AR, when it comes down to obtaining proteins from living specimens or studying the brain composition after this and that. There is no substitute even with the technology that we have. You can't solely rely on physics and chemistry in order to study biochemistry.
Ethical aspect : How's this fair? It's not. But as I said on my first comment, I rather lose 100000 mice over 100 humans.
Also read my last reply to Alex M.
This is my last reply up here since I doubt we'll get anywhere and you seem fixed with your opinions.
Just my last comment, the pathways you refer in your examples are not substitutes for the mechanisms we obtain through in vivo experiments.
Ex. 2006 Nobel prize in medicine. Discovered by inserting dsRNA into living C. elegans.
Posted by Jae H on 01/28/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's never 100,000 mice for 100 humans though. It's millions of mice often for nothing. It's thousand of nonhuman primates often for interest. It's millions of beagles often for weapons or household products. Then you have to subtract the millions of people that have died because of nonhuman animal research. So, your ratio doesn't really make sense.
Most of the scietific advancements you discuss are interesting but not necessary in that human research could teach us what we need to know about humans, which is the reason people claim to be doing the research on animals- humans.
Overall though, mice deserve not to be imprisoned and deserve not to suffer simply for another species. It stops the progression of all rights for nonhumans and humans in our society to act as if nonhuman animals are not deserving of freedom.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/28/2009 @ 06:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jae, there's no such thing as "race." That's a term uses to create false impressions of difference. By your logic, why shouldn't we inflict cancer upon humans in order to save mice?
Posted by Luella - on 01/27/2009 @ 04:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By "human race" I meant our species homo sapiens. Good question though, why shouldn't we sacrifice human lives to save mice. Well first of all, it takes 9 months to give birth to 1 specimen while mice take 3 weeks to give birth to 3 ~ 14. They are the better system to study on. It's pretty much a sacrifice, would we sacrifice 1/100000 or 1/100 in order to save (100000 - 1 +100). I am not assuming that this research is 100% guaranteed and that it's all about chances. I might sound like a heartless human being but for the sake of saving humans, even if it is just for a chance I'd rather risk the life of mice than ours.
When you go to the doctor, you're basically utilizing the information and drugs that have been gone through all this research (including pain-killers.) It all comes down to the scientist and where to draw the line: e.coli - bewers yeast - fruit flies - roundworms - fish - mice - dogs - monkeys - humans
We call them model organisms.
The way I like to think of it is that medicine has changed to what we have now thanks to research on these poor creatures. Without it we'd still be poking fingers through bullet holes killing people and we wouldn't even have anatomy. Think of all the animals (including humans) that have been saved thanks to the drugs that have been discovered through research.
I'm not trying to say animals are inferior or that they shouldn't be saved. It's just an opinion that I hold that research has brought has far and that it shouldn't be stopped. As a matter of fact there are very promissing studies of breast cancer tumors being performed on rats as of today. Did you know that testicular cancer can be treated through a platinum treatment which brought survival rates up to 95% even after 5 years?
Posted by Jae H on 01/27/2009 @ 10:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think we should be focusing so much more on prevention. The vast majority of us are dying from preventable diseases/illnesses. Heart disease, high cholesterol, several cancers (etc.) can all be prevented by being HUMANE to animals! This isn't humanity vs. progress. We can have both. Instead of walking around smoking, eating poorly, and expecting to be totally healthy, we should be taking better care of ourselves and leaving animals alone.
Great quote: "I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." -Twain
Posted by Lisa R on 01/27/2009 @ 10:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
" Well first of all, it takes 9 months to give birth to 1 specimen while mice take 3 weeks to give birth to 3 ~ 14."
By that logic: It takes elephants 22 months to gestate a fetus compared to the human 9 months, so we'd make great models for curing elephant diseases.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 01/27/2009 @ 12:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sure, but mice a better models.
Posted by Jae H on 01/27/2009 @ 12:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Quote:
"I'm not trying to say animals are inferior or that they shouldn't be saved. It's just an opinion that I hold that research has brought has far and that it shouldn't be stopped."
Jae,
We understand your point.
However, pragmatic issues aside, the moral question remains. How can we justify causing harm through experimentation to nonhuman animals when we couldn't justify doing so to human animals?
Don't you think it’s necessary to articulate a defense that goes beyond “because it works,” which, at its root, is a utilitarian calculation. However, if this is so, you need to defend your arbitrary exclusion of nonhuman animals from the class of beings whose suffering/interests/preferences are being considered in the final calculation. Would you, for example, perform an experiment that promises results in the case of cancer treatment on a severely mentally handicapped adult human?
Parenthetically, indeed, I use drugs that have been tested on nonhuman animals; however, I also drive on roads that were built on the backs of slave labor (black American and Asian American labor). However, you cannot use this fact to infer that I believe it's justified to continue to enslave black Americans for the purpose of better outfitting or repairing our roads. I might also say that I benefit from the past (and ongoing) oppression of women because of my male-ness, but it isn't fair to argue that I'm necessarily a sexist or a hypocrite if I'm against sexism.
We exist in a context that is and has been defined by certain oppressions, and, therefore, I will benefit from this past. It doesn't follow, however, as an effective challenge, to cite this because it is beyond my control.
What you are really defending is the status quo, which is a moral issue. As above, then, you need to answer the moral question.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 01/28/2009 @ 11:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Would you, for example, perform an experiment that promises results in the case of cancer treatment on a severely mentally handicapped adult human? - yes, if the person is considered a lost case. By severely handicapped I do not include trisomy 21 or living ALS patients) I'm in fact pro stem cell research. I wouldn't want massive production of zygotes but I wouldn't mind the usage of embryos that are already going to waste. Which if passed would definitely decrease animal "cruelty." Even if these animals being kept in lab have 0 chances of survivability in the "real world."
Look at all those people aborting babies (not gonna get into the morality of this issue). If we utilized these fetuses instead of throwing them into the garbage can for research, we could get a lot more from "waste."
That's my two cents.
Posted by Jae H on 01/28/2009 @ 12:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jae,
First, how would you define "lost cause" as it regards a mentally challenged human? Second, in keeping with the substance of my question, there are human animals who will lack the capacities traditionally assumed to be "what make's 'us' better than 'them'" (e.g., some with down syndrome), which raises my question again: How do you justify experimenting on nonhuman animals who possess more rationality (e.g., an adult dog), objectively measured, when you wouldn't do the same to human animals lacking the capacity?
To derive your answer from "lost cause" is a rhetorical tool, not a substantive and reasoned response.
Your use of rhetoric may have engendered your fallacious and invalid conclusion about "agreeing with stem cell research." That is quite beside the point: stem cells do not suffer, and, therefore, do not have interests in not being in pain, for example. So let's discuss the issue at hand.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 01/29/2009 @ 05:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Stem cells do not suffer, and yet they grow to become full sized human beings. So they don't suffer yet but they could suffer?
It was an animal behavior class I took once that said that it is incorrect to project human emotions and feelings upon animals. Just because they look it it doesn't mean they feel it. In short, I'm pro animal research and you're not. Lets leave it at that.
Now to answer your questions :
-lost cause for me is defined as vegetative state for over 3 months.
-As I mentioned several times, animal research does not hurt animals for the sake of hurting them. Just because dogs are kept in cages and asked to do tasks like picking things or going through mazes does not make them suffer. In fact, NIH rarely issues permission to cut open or even poke needles on "non human animals who possess more rationality." Also, canines are not valid candidates for human drug testing.
This is my last reply on this article since it has moved to the 2nd page of the blog. If you're interested in discussing this issue further you may contact me through messages.
Posted by Jae H on 01/30/2009 @ 12:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Utilitarianism...
What's the point of it if you don't care about any of the individuals?
I say that as a recovering utilitarianist.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 01/30/2009 @ 09:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jae,
Stem cells may grow to become full sized human beings, who will then die. Therefore, can we, on your own logic, treat human beings - you perhaps? - as though they were dead today (they will die, after all) and use them for medical purposes - organ transplant, for example? Your logic (potential?) clearly doesn't follow.
Therefore, on matters of "rights" and "interests", the question remains: How do you justify your pro-animal testing position? Notice, you have yet to defend that argument.
Your appeal to anthropomorphism is patently absurd. On the principle of parsimony, unless you can defend some missing premise, on whatever grounds I can assume that you suffer and feel Jae (common physiology, movement away from a source of pain, e.g.), I must, logically and rationally, assume the same for dogs, cows, mice, rats, pigs and the vast majority of the nonhuman animals we exploit. Indeed, if these animals didn't share a similar physiology, doesn't that imply the flaws in animal experimentation if it is to be applied to human animals? The answer is yes.
Your absence of a defense has led you to the absurd: you have to claim that animals, other than humans, don't suffer. That is unfortunate for your credibility.
Quote:
"lost cause for me is defined as vegetative state for over 3 months."
So, those human animals that do not fall into this category, yet still lack the cognition of an adult dog, should not be experimented on because you find it unethical? My question remains asked and unanswered.
Quote:
"As I mentioned several times, animal research does not hurt animals for the sake of hurting them."
You should notice that this isn't my question. Regardless of the intent or the impetus for the exploitation, the fundamental "Why?" still remains. On your logic, without an argument to the contrary, this principle can be extended to human experimentation: as long as the test isn't done for the sake of hurting them, it's okay.
AR Philosophy,
Was that meant for me?
Posted by Alex Melonas on 02/03/2009 @ 10:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.