I work with animals in medical research. AMA

[wokeupinnewyork]

Name changed for this, mainly to keep it separate from my usual name in case it gets nasty as this topic occasionally can.

I've worked with animals in research labs in both research and pharmaceutical settings for 6 years. My job is still controversial and secretive, despite attempts to change this, and people I tell always seem to be curious and have lots of questions. I'm happy to answer anything.

SPOFS where are these humans going to come from? Prisons? The underclass? The unemployed? Will we pay people to incentivise them? Can you see why this would be rife with problems?

"I understand that people need meds. But I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why these are tested on animals and not humans!"

You don't? Really?

And the 20 year wait to see if the treatment has any long-term side effects?

@GaryBarlowsTaxReturn

I am not seriously suggesting that we do test on humans. I said that to make people think about the argument.

Personally, I think that the world is dangerously overpopulated. If we find a cure for every disease, we will be in even more trouble. Of course, I don't want anyone, human or animal, to be in pain, but sadly, disease is a natural part of life.

Are any studies ever refused a licence because of the amount of pain they would cause the animal, or is it the case that any amount of pain is allowed, provided that the study is deemed important enough?

Animal testing for cosmetics etc was banned in the UK in 1979 and the EU in 2006.

If it is for the greater good then why don't we simply test on humans?
Take a novel pharmaceutical and - even after all the computer modelling and in vitro screening possible - 'simply' do all the tests on humans? It's not my field but I would guess anyone who says 'simply' has not given much thought to what might be required before it would be considered ethical to proceed to human trials.

If we find a cure for every disease, we will be in even more trouble
A commonly observed effect of reduced mortality rates is people choosing to have smaller families.

I find it really hard that people are minimising the pain felt by animals in testing for the simple reason that they are ‘rodents’. We are in real danger of only protecting what’s cute.

Thanks for your response OP. Although I must say I find the wording “work with animals” slightly disturbing. The animals are having awful things done to them in the name of human selfishness, and that doesn’t sit right with me. I wouldn’t say i’ve earned the title “animal rights activist” personally, but i do align myself closely with them. Not if they spit on people etc. That’s just nasty and unproductive. What we need is funding pumped into finding alternatives, and the repeal of laws making animal testing mandatory. Not attacking people for doing their jobs, however upsetting the things they do in those jobs might be.

What are your views on vivisection?

You do not 'love' animals. At the very least, you would not eat them, or eat their bodily secretions. I bet you needlessly feed other animals to your dog too.
Would you experiment on your pet cat/dog? If not, why not?

And 'interesting' you phrase it as "working with animals". Why not just say "I experiment on animals"? Own it. It is what it is.

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-- Professor Charles R. Magel

Perhaps consider working for www.animalfreeresearchuk.org/ instead. IF you love animals, that is.

And to the PP who suggested we test on criminals - no, that’s a disgusting and disturbing idea. Just no.

@whatdoiladymcbeth agreed. People underestimate how clever rats are. Even if an animal isn’t terribly clever, i don’t believe it deserves to be experimented on

Do you comfort the animal if it cries out?

Do you ever think it would be a good idea to test on people who are in prison long term? Do you think that would get a more accurate result because it's human DNA?

What type of experiments do you personally do?
I'm another one who wishes it was different but I'm eternally grateful for the testing and experiments that have happened. It's highly unlikely that I'd have any family left otherwise...

Thank you OP it's great to have someone explain this vital work!
Can you elaborate on the stages of research done before anything is tested on animals? My understanding is, that by the time you do your job, a lot of work has already been done before it reaches this stage.

Medical research and drug development will continue, if not in the U.K. then elsewhere.

The question I want to ask is this: are there currently any countries which has higher standards of animal welfare while remaining in the forefront of medical and pharmaceutical research than the U.K? If there are, how can we persuade our lawmakers to adopt those higher standards? If not, is there anything people who care about animal welfare can do to encourage the adoption of best practice elsewhere?

I don't want to get involved in the ethics of this debate but for those who have suggested trials on humans - this does happen after successful animal testing. Does anyone remember the clinical trials at Northwick Park? That was after animal testing, can you imagine if there wasn't animal testing - it would be far more common place. And who would volunteer? You can't just say "test them on criminals" that's not how it works, it would have to be on a voluntary basis and I am sure only the poor and vulnerable would be exploited.
Anyway, my point is that they are tested on humans after animal trials. My beloved late mum was part of the trials for Tamoxifen. She had terminal breast cancer and was offered Tamoxifen as part of the trials on humans as there was no other treatment. She had been given 6 months to live. She lived for 8 years.

Thanks OP for what you do.

I'm alive because the drugs I need to take every day have been tested. My dad has had chemo. My nephew didn't die in the womb.

Thank you OP, I was interested in drug development before I decided what to study, and am finding this very interesting. The people suggesting human testing or to get rid of modern medicine entirely (WTF?) seemingly aren’t thinking and I bet they don’t refuse their children treatments. This has been an interesting read and you do great work. What have you worked on previously?

You’re an animal lover who tests on animals, gives them no quality of life and then kills them when you’ve no use for them, I can’t get my head around it to be honest.
With the advancements of technology and the fact that humans and mice are biologically different I don’t see the point in testing on animals. Most medication causes more harm than good anyway

Aren’t the stats that 90% of animal testing is useless? Animals have different physiology from us, we are vastly different from mice.

Anyone else who rejects that deliberately inflicting pain on animals then killing them is how we’re doing things in the 21st century, I donate to Dr Hadwen Trust who fund animal free research into human illnesses and conditions- for example currently raising funds for innovative breast cancer study www.animalfreeresearchuk.org

I’ve done a very quick bit of reading. When you look at the net worth of the pharmaceutical companies, that tells me that have a lot of say in what gets passed etc. The thought also occurred to me that surely out of all the research that has been done by thousands of laboratories over decades, there are cures for many of the ills that plague mankind. However, we’re these cures to be released, and the human population made and kept well by the eradication of life limiting disease etc, where would the pharmaceutical industries then get their income? Please look at the net worths yourselves. I was not aware that chemicals, household products etc were stilll tested on animals. I’m thinking many cosmetics labelled as not tested on animals might have had some chemical ingredients tested. I don’t think there should be hostility to the PP, That is not helpful. I also think that there needs to be more transparency about what goes on in animal testing. Schools and universities are also involved in animal testing to a larger degree than I thought. Thank you for broaching the subject OP.

As MVLipwig says, would you reject a life saving treatment for your child if it was developed as a result of animal testing and the work of people like OP? Or would you get down on your hands and knees and thank god it existed? I think I'd do the latter.

OP is doing work that causes her discomfort in order to further scientific research that we all rely on. Most of us benefit from this type of research without realising it, and have the luxury of not seeing or thinking about it.

From an objective point of view, humans are indeed selfish in that they prioritise their own survival above that of animals, and animal testing is part of that. Scientific research has to be the most necessary and least egregious example of this, though.