Grants - Animal Testing

[epski]

Requirement for Grantees Using Research Animals (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/clinical/researchanimals/tutorial/requirements.htm)

[kpickell]

Why are government websites so messy? I couldn't figure out what to click on.

[epski]

I suppose if you had something specific to look for, it might be easier. Not that it's my site.

[mountainvegan]

Hmm...

1) The differences between what the grantee apps say and what actually happens are usually two different worlds (there is hardly any enforcement of the guidelines; therefore, the guidelines are window dressing and lip service.)

2) Animals should not be treated solely as a means to an end (i.e., brought into existence to be tortured and killed for someone else's benefit), regardless of how "humane" they are treated before torture and death.

3) Here are some links to enjoy from the other side of the fence:

http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/factsvivi.html (this one is the mother of all links) :)

http://www.api4animals.org/85.htm


I think animal testing is unethical and should be abolished, not monitored.

[Frost]

Hmm...

1) The differences between what the grantee apps say and what actually happens are usually two different worlds (there is hardly any enforcement of the guidelines; therefore, the guidelines are window dressing and lip service.)

2) Animals should not be treated solely as a means to an end (i.e., brought into existence to be tortured and killed for someone else's benefit), regardless of how "humane" they are treated before torture and death.

3) Here are some links to enjoy from the other side of the fence:

http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/factsvivi.html (this one is the mother of all links) :)

http://www.api4animals.org/85.htm


I think animal testing is unethical and should be abolished, not monitored.

It wasnt even really monitored until the ALF confiscated those videos from the U Penn lab in 1984? and they were made public.

[epski]

I agree, mountainvegan. I was just posting that because I think a lot of people don't spend enough time looking at how it all works. To defeat your opponent, you must first understand him/her.

[mountainvegan]

Thanks for the link, epski. I thought you would agree, but I didn't want it to appear like everything is hunky dory at the lab with the dogs, cats, and rodents getting good night kisses before bedtime, like the tutorial seems to imply. :)

[LudwigB]

1) The differences between what the grantee apps say and what actually happens are usually two different worlds (there is hardly any enforcement of the guidelines; therefore, the guidelines are window dressing and lip service.)


What exactly do you mean by "hardly any enforcement"? There isn't any sort of "police," if that's what you mean (although I think there should be). But labs in general aren't going to flagrantly toss the guidelines to the wind. Their protocols must be established ahead of time and approved. If these protocols are not approved, any data that is obtained cannot be published. Therefore, it is a waste of time and money for researchers to treat animals in any non-approved manner, since anything they get will be worthless. And in general they won't break the rules and then lie about it...any data obtained in this way might not be reproducible by other groups, immediately destroying the credibility of the (unethical) animal research lab. It's well-known that data is dependent on the method of measurement. Lying about one's methods is equivalent to lying about one's data. To lie about one's data is just plain stupid. You'll be found out by all of your rivals when they try to repeat your work, and then you're ruined.



2) Animals should not be treated solely as a means to an end (i.e., brought into existence to be tortured and killed for someone else's benefit), regardless of how "humane" they are treated before torture and death.


This is a perfectly valid and defensible ethical standpoint. But if you really feel this way, then you must accept (for consistency) that it means a lot of scientific advancement will be abandoned. The claims of PETA et al. that we can continue advancing science at the present rate completely without using animals is a flat-out lie. Even if animals are not used in experiments, many lab materials and chemicals can only be obtained from animal sources (usually bought as by-products from slaughterhouses or other farms). For example, antibodies. Even in cell cultures or other in vitro systems, antibodies are frequently necessary. Antibodies can ONLY come from animal sources (typically cultured spleen cells), at least with existing technology. And it would take up a thirty-page post for me to explain how essential antibodies are to the biological sciences. This is just one obvious example.

Of course, animals are frequently used when there is no need to do so. And I think testing *products* on animals is COMPLETELY unnecessary, and thankfully many companies are abandoning this practice (either due to changes in consumer feelings or to efforts to cut costs). And I would like to see tighter regulations of lab practices, including inspections and suspension of funding if regulations are not followed.

I'm really, really sorry for sounding like Tame, and I'm honestly not trying to attack your opinion. But as a scientist, I take it a little bit personally whenever anyone insinuates that all of us scientists are sick sadistic monsters who live to torture animals. Whether or not you agree with animal research, it's not going away any time soon. I think we can accomplish a lot more by building bridges with the scientific community than by dismissing them as evil, breeding mistrust and hatred.

[Tash]

Geeze.where is the thread that sounded like this-?.*looks*

[mountainvegan]

LudwigB – In your first paragraph, you seem to be talking about the ability to independently reproduce the test and results, but the guidelines, as far as I know, are referring to the treatment of animals before and after testing, which often do not have any bearing on the test results themselves. IOW, you can mistreat the animals before and after testing and get verifiable test results. What the animals go through during testing is another story altogether, which is often so painful that most people would not want to hear about it.

Also, I should have said “no enforcement.”

In your second paragraph, I would agree that we would abandon SOME scientific advancement, but from what I’ve read, not enough to justify putting animals through hell and back like we do now. We can and should take far more effort in reducing animal torture in tests that are essential and eliminate those which do not show us anything worth while.

I don’t know about PETA, but if you are including PCRM in your groups who are lying, I believe you are incorrect. Read the following link and you will see that PCRM is helping to pave the way for alternatives to animal testing:

http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/position.html

Although I said animal testing should be abolished, not monitored, it would be more accurate for me to say that I am not against using animals in medicine, including HUMANS, as an ABSOLUTE rule, I just think we take it way too far, and much or most of it should be abolished. I think too many researchers have demonstrated a complete disregard for the welfare of their animal subjects, especially when it comes to the business and money end of research, as this is well-documented by lab technicians and others involved with research facilities, including at least one VB member whom I’m aware of..

So, I did not say that all researchers are evil torturers, but unfortunately, many are. I think it will take nothing less than a huge attitude adjustment on the part of the AMA and the biomedical research community before we should be comfortable about animal treatment, whether before, during, or after testing. Although, as you can see in the above link, some progress has been made with this attitude, it appears we still have a long way to go.

[LudwigB]

the guidelines, as far as I know, are referring to the treatment of animals before and after testing, which often do not have any bearing on the test results themselves.

The treatment of animals before and after testing does indeed have a bearing on the test results (depeding, obviously, on what you're testing for). Storing animals in hot, confined, poorly-ventilated areas, for example, will grossly skew the results of metabolic assays. As for the tests themselves, rules do apply to how they must be conducted (e.g., any surgical procedure on vertebrates must be conducted under anesthesia)...although here we run into the enforcement problem mentioned before.



Although I said animal testing should be abolished, not monitored, it would be more accurate for me to say that I am not against using animals in medicine, including HUMANS, as an ABSOLUTE rule, I just think we take it way too far, and much or most of it should be abolished. I think too many researchers have demonstrated a complete disregard for the welfare of their animal subjects, especially when it comes to the business and money end of research, as this is well-documented by lab technicians and others involved with research facilities, including at least one VB member whom I’m aware of..


agreed. :yes: But like I said before, I think the only realistic solution to this situation is to build links between the AW/AR people and scientists. I am very troubled by the cultural divide between the scientific and activist communities, for which both sides share some responsibility. Communication, not sweeping characterizations, is the only way we'll get anywhere. (I'm not saying you're making sweeping characterizations...just suggesting to be a bit more careful in wording).

I'm not familiar with the PCRM stance on alternatives to animal research, but thanks for the link. I know this group has made some scientifically questionable claims, but if they are indeed trying to engage the medical community in looking for alternatives, then they need to be commended.

[mountainvegan]

The treatment of animals before and after testing does indeed have a bearing on the test results (depeding, obviously, on what you're testing for).

I think we agree here. Sometimes it does matter and that is why I said "often."


I think the only realistic solution to this situation is to build links between the AW/AR people and scientists. I am very troubled by the cultural divide between the scientific and activist communities, for which both sides share some responsibility.

I agree. We need more researchers concerned about animal protection. This can come from new people entering the field and converts who have been in the field and want to see change. I also agree that more dialogue is needed and that is where PCRM plays a big role. The money side of research really needs to be examined closely also.


I'm not familiar with the PCRM stance on alternatives to animal research, but thanks for the link. I know this group has made some scientifically questionable claims, but if they are indeed trying to engage the medical community in looking for alternatives, then they need to be commended.

I'm sure PCRM has said things that others have disagreed with or questioned, even scientifically. They probably wouldn't be doing their jobs right if that wasn't the case. PCRM is a very good resource for researchers who are concerned about animal protection and spends a large portion of their efforts searching for alternatives, where they have made some good progress. They are well worth supporting.

[Sevenseas]

Although I said animal testing should be abolished, not monitored, it would be more accurate for me to say that I am not against using animals in medicine, including HUMANS, as an ABSOLUTE rule, I just think we take it way too far, and much or most of it should be abolished.

Could you specify what you mean by this?

[epski]

I posted this for a number of reasons.

I know a scientist through my wife (getting her PhD in molecular epidemiology) who lamented after not being approved for a grant that he should have added animal tests to his studies, since all the money seems to go to those labs. He's certainly no vegan (in fact, the guy is on Atkins of all things, though he can't stick to it at all), but I thought that was an interesting comment. My wife also knows some scientists that work with animals (she doesn't personally, though I believe some of her lab materials may be animal-sourced... just like the rest of the world, I suppose), and many of those people have expressed their dismay at how they have to treat the animals, but they feel there are no better alternatives. Until those alternatives become apparent (aside from prevention in the first place, obviously), animal research will continue, whether we or even the scientists like it or not.

Additionally, I do know (through the same connection) that ethics are slippery among scientists as they are in many other fields, like finance, law, etc. Numbers do get fudged, credit does get stolen, etc. Science isn't all that dry a field once you catch on to all the exciting detective work inherent in experimentation and the politics and conspiracies that seem to show up in all fields.

[mountainvegan]

Could you specify what you mean by this?

Sure. It is misleading, especially saying “much” should be abolished. If the harms of a specific test to the individual animal, human or non, are very small and the benefits to others are large, I think the test is ethically fine; therefore, in an absolute sense, I am not against all testing. As it turns out, very few tests would actually turn out that way, and if they did, humans would probably be used.

My ethical stance on any use of animals (food, clothing, tools, etc.) can be boiled down to this one statement: If you would not use a mentally disabled human orphan, then don’t use an animal from another species.

Does this stance mean less scientific advancement? Probably, but I’d much rather live with the potential harms of less scientific advancement than multiply, magnify, and transfer the harms to other beings just because we can. Scientific advancement is surely not the highest good, despite the western world’s vision of it as such since Descartes.

[mountainvegan]

I know a scientist through my wife (getting her PhD in molecular epidemiology) who lamented after not being approved for a grant that he should have added animal tests to his studies, since all the money seems to go to those labs.

This is more evidence (as if we don't have enough already) of the attitude of society, grantors, and scientists that makes me distrust the biomedical research industry so much. Maybe I should be careful with my wording, but then I'm reminded that maybe no care is necessary.

[LudwigB]

I know a scientist through my wife (getting her PhD in molecular epidemiology) who lamented after not being approved for a grant that he should have added animal tests to his studies, since all the money seems to go to those labs.


That may be true in his case, but it doesn't apply universally. It all depends on what your field and sub-specialty is. My own lab has done fine without ever writing animal studies into our grants...but our work is mostly chemical in nature, so it's unnecessary.



Additionally, I do know (through the same connection) that ethics are slippery among scientists as they are in many other fields, like finance, law, etc. Numbers do get fudged, credit does get stolen, etc. Science isn't all that dry a field once you catch on to all the exciting detective work inherent in experimentation and the politics and conspiracies that seem to show up in all fields.

You got that one right. :brood: Maybe that's why this guy didn't get funded.

[epski]

That may be true in his case, but it doesn't apply universally.

No kidding. I think you're trying to read some subtextual argument into what I wrote. Do realize that there is a bias in grant-giving, though. It's too prevalent not to be acknowledged. That is my sole point there.


My own lab has done fine without ever writing animal studies into our grants...but our work is mostly chemical in nature, so it's unnecessary.

Lucky for you. Unfortunately, when it comes to the life sciences, like molecular biology, a large number of researchers have little option than to work with what tools are currently state of the art, and most of those include animal products or derivatives.


You got that one right. :brood: Maybe that's why this guy didn't get funded.

Um, no. He didn't get funded because his proposal wasn't competitive enough or well-written enough, perhaps, but certainly nothing to do with ethics. It's shameful for you to suggest otherwise.

[The Rev]

I wonder if I could get a grant for testing the effects of compassion on animals, then give the money to Farm Sanctuary...

:think:

The Rev

[LudwigB]

a large number of researchers have little option than to work with what tools are currently state of the art, and most of those include animal products or derivatives.


animal products or derivatives, absolutely...there often are no other options. You're right about that. I thought you meant conducting experiments on animals or generating transgenics.

What was shameful about the politics comment? I'm just saying maybe there was somebody out there with preconceived opinions about his specialty. That isn't your friend's fault. It's just bad luck he got a doubter to review his grant. Sort of like getting a conservative anti-drug judge when you've been caught with a dime-bag of marijuana.

I'll shut up now.

[epski]

What was shameful about the politics comment? I'm just saying maybe there was somebody out there with preconceived opinions about his specialty. That isn't your friend's fault. It's just bad luck he got a doubter to review his grant. Sort of like getting a conservative anti-drug judge when you've been caught with a dime-bag of marijuana.

Maybe I misconstrued your meaning previously (and I'm still kind of confused by this post), but basically my impression was that you were implying he was turned down due to lack of ethics... I guess it was a miscommunication.

[Mycoolcats]

Why are government websites so messy? I couldn't figure out what to click on.


pickell if you worked where i do, youd understand what kind of people are making these pages lol