Something awful

Moonbear

Scientists uphold very strong ethical standards when it comes to animal research. Regulations in many other countries are even stricter than in the U.S., to the point of becoming burdensome to research. They are getting that way here too. The changes still ongoing are not doing anything real in terms of improving care for animals, we already have high standards, they are just adding administrative layers and mounds more paperwork. The standards of care are also maintained by scientific journals. If you do not meet those standards of care, you will not be able to publish any of your work.

In regard to your second point, that you know what's bad when you see it...do you really? Many of the captions on that site do not fit with what is actually going on. To an untrained eye, it may sound bad, but when you really look at what's going on with a trained eye, there is no cruelty going on.

I can't comment on the farming pictures; there's no way to know if those were really the cages the rabbits were housed in, which would be considered overcrowding, or if they were placed in those smaller cages for shipping (less space during transportation means less room to slide around and get injured, just like you would put the family dog into a shipping crate to take to the vet). There's also no way to verify the claim of how that rabbit was killed, whether it really was via a blow to the head with a pipe or some other means not photographed. Once the rabbit was dead, the rest of those photos are nothing odd; when any animal is slaughtered, you cut the jugulars and hang them to drain the blood. And the method of skinning the rabbit is the way you would skin any animal. If the meat is to be used, you need to remove the intestines so the meat isn't contaminated with bacteria. Again, all done after the animal is dead, so no cruelty there.

For the photos of medical research, let's work our way through them one by one. I'll admit, I'm uncertain what the first one is intended to be. The photo is also undated, so no idea when that was done either.

In photo 2, this is a pretty proper surgical set-up. All of the brown "stuff" on the belly of the animal is the betadine surgical scrub to keep the area sterile. If you went in for surgery, they'd prep you the same way. The surgeon in the photo is properly gowned and gloved, indicating this is being done as a sterile procedure. The metal surgical table is proper as well, as that allows for easy cleanup and sanitization of the work area, so everything is on the up-and-up. That the caption says this has been witnessed being done without anesthesia is pretty unbelievable. First, that cannot be in any way verified, and second, rabbits don't just lie still if they are unanesthetized. It would be more trouble than it's worth even if someone were nuts enough to try it. Therefore, that claim lacks any credibility.

Photo 3, probably is what it says it is, a rabbit recovering from surgery. The large shaved patch of skin on its side is evidence of this. That's all that you're seeing there, pink skin where the fur was shaved to keep the surgical area clean. It's a proper surgical prep. However, again, the caption tacks on that the rabbit went on to be used for more experiments. What exactly that's supposed to mean is unclear. Perhaps the person taking photographs doesn't understand the experiment and that the surgery is part of an experiment not THE experiment. Note that any of the surgical procedures shown could be something as simple as spaying the rabbit.

Photo 4 claims to be a "teaching experiment" and argues that this is of little or no value to humans. However, they don't explain anything about what is being taught in this exercise. Are these surgeons learning to use a new piece of equipment before practicing with it on humans? Or veterinary students learning how to properly anesthetize a rabbit and treat it?

Photo 5, yes, there will be dead bodies disposed of once the animals are euthanized (you'll find the same in the freezer of any animal shelter or veterinary office). Don't you find it odd that these folks seem to have cameras with them at all times, yet never manage to get photos of their more outrageous claims, such as that live rabbits were bludgeoned with a pipe? Surely that would have been worthy of a photograph if they really saw that happening, because that would be cause for filing animal cruelty charges against whoever did that.

Photo 6 is using the ear vein to collect blood or provide an injection. This is NOT painful to the rabbit as the caption states. It's no different than taking blood from the vein in your arm, actually; the ear vein is so prominent and easily accessed that an injection or blood sampling can be done very quickly. Even if you took your pet rabbit to the vet and they needed to take a blood sample for a test or to give it a shot of medicine, or anesthetize it to spay it, the ear vein is the vein they'd use. On rabbits, it's the most easily accessible vein. The veins in the legs are deeper and would be more painful to access than the one in the ear, so unlike dogs or cats where the vet will use the leg to get a blood sample or to administer drugs, in a rabbit, the ear vein is used. Although, a few things in that photo suggest it has been staged. First, the angle of the syring/needle looks too shallow, and there's a hint in the photo past the person's thumb, that the needle has not been inserted but is lying on top of the ear. Second, the placement of the person's thumb on the ear is not in the right place (it would be in a good spot for them to stick themself with the needle though). Third, the way the syringe is being held is the way actors hold syringes in movies, but isn't the way most medical professionals and scientists would hold a syringe for giving an actual injection. Fourth, you would normally shave the ear in a small area where you will give the injection to keep it clean. And fifth, I have no idea what that restraint box thing is that's being used, but normal people giving a rabbit an injection will just hold it in their arms to do the procedure (you could be done with the injection and have the rabbit back in its cage in the time it would take you to get it into something like that). Someone giving a real injection would also be wearing gloves.

I'm probably running out of room here. I think you get the point. Oh, also take note that photo #13 is identical to photo #3, except they've fiddled with the color and contrast to make the healthy pink skin seen in #3 look harshly red in #13.

cronxeh

Moonbear have you ever done experiments involving animals (that would die)?

My father is a surgeon and back in the old USSR I remember his research - as a matter of fact I'd bury 5-6 rabbits a week, and we farmed them by the dozens. So in regard to 'other countries' I'll agree to disagree. Ive seen many other institutions that would conduct such research, and this wasnt done in some Nowhere, Russia place either.

Huckleberry

I can understand your empathy for animals. I believe empathy is a sign of intelligence. At the same time I don't trust the webiste you used as a link because it has its own proactive agenda and makes claims to the emotional states of people in photos who are obviously just doing their jobs.

What I do have a problem with, and did before I saw your link, is factory farming. It's not just with rabbits. It's with all farm animals. There definitely is a lack of empathy for these animals that is frightening to me. I can understand the raising and slaughtering of farm animals for food. What I don't understand is that economy seems to be more important than compassion. Living in tiny cages and being fed the cheapest food and growth hormones. There should be some respect for life even if it means we pay a few more cents/pound at the market.

I'm rather glad that testing is done on animals first rather than humans. On a large scale I value human life over animal life. What I'm afraid of is that the same lack of 'economy at the expense of compassion' mentality holds true for the scientific community as it does for factory farming. Those pictures of the rabbit with the burns, for example, bothered me. I can only imagine they were testing some new skin grafting technique or some salve for healing burns and they needed to let the burn heal in order to test the procedure. (The site doesn't go into detail but conveys only the information they want us to believe. It's highly slanted) They also claimed that sometimes the rabbits are discarded while still living, yet offer no evidence. I don't doubt at all that there are abuses and there should be concern for the treatment of animals, but it is easy to make laws that promote economy and impossible to make laws that promote morality. Morality is a choice.

On a side note, I read that the first vaccinations for malaria were tested on prisoners. I believe the prison was near Chicago.

What was the question?
Huck

The Bob

Can I ask what these photographs show as I have had bad experiences with looking at pictures that I haven't seen before. What I am asking is for some detail before I look.

The Bob (2004 ©)

Huckleberry

I would not consider them too gruesome. They are photos of rabbits. Some are kept in cages too small for them. Others have received some nasty burns. Some are in the slaughtering process and have their throats cut and blood spatters on the wall. Some have been skinned and there is a bag of rabbit parts left over from different surgeries. Hmm, that does seem rather gruesome I suppose. That's the worst of them I believe.

What was the question?
Huck

The Bob

The question, I suppose, I do I really want to look at them?

Cruelty to animals is mean but also necessary to human research. Although people say 'Would you like it done to you?' the point is that the rabbits don't know differently and adapt, I suppose, like a new born child would if caged. I may now sound like a cruel person but my real, real reason would take this on a religous or philosophical path and that is not what I want to do in a maths and science forum.

Sorry to anyone I may have insulted.

The Bob (2004 ©)

Huckleberry

I higly doubt it will give you nightmares or cause any serious stomach disturbances if that's what you mean. Most of it is every day stuff that would see at a slaughterhouse. I suppose it depends on your frame of mind when your looking at the pictures. If your thinking 'people kill and gut and skin animals for consumption and that is a normal every day event that I apreciate every time I go to the supermarket' then you won't have much problem. If you believe as the website does that 'this is senseless, inhumane torture done for no purpose besides complete avarice' then you might find it very upsetting. Use that as a scale and decide where you fit into it.

What was the question?
Huck

The Bob

Ok. Cheers.

The Bob (2004 ©)

Moonbear

Yes. My research requires the use of animals. I'm also a strong proponent of ensuring the proper animal models are chosen for experiments. I participated in a workshop last year intended to discuss the bias in grant review panels toward rat and mouse models when they are not always the best model, and a white paper is nearly completed as a result of that workshop to provide recommendations to funding agencies on this matter. For the work I do, rats and mice are not the appropriate species (nor are rabbits), because they are too different from humans in the systems I want to study. It is always important to choose the best species for what you want to study, not just the most convenient or cheapest or readily available. But, if your work CAN be done in a cell culture or other in vitro system, then it SHOULD be done that way. Keep in mind there is also a difference between drug testing, which is the final stages of a long progression of experiments developing the drug, and experimental biology, in which we are still trying to understand the basic functions of many systems. We can't set up a computer or molecular modeling of something if we don't know the mechanisms of action in vivo. In neuroscience, we're still mapping out circuits. No computer can model the brain if we don't know the circuits to include.