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.

Is it true that each animal is only used is one trial, and that all animals, including controls, are put to sleep after that experiment?

Gierg I went to college and did an Animal Care qualification. Some from my class are vet nurses, others work in zoos, a few groomers and a few went into laboratory animal care like me. I worked my way up, did some more courses. There's an Institute of Animal Technicians that provides courses and conferences to keep us all linked. I moved into pharmaceuticals but moved back into research after starting a family as the hours are shorter.

If i had a choice i would rather be reincarnated as a laboratory rabbit than a childs pet neglected in its hutch the whole time due to laziness or ignorance.

Boglin honestly I think more needs to be done in that area. I'm planning on trying to encourage it at some point but it's tough when we still feel the need to be so secretive. Those in charge of the institutions etc were doing this job when the animal rights activism was very extreme. There's a fear behind talking about what we do. I personally don't think it's very good for us newer to the role and would love to see more established systems in place keeping us linked. There is unestablished care though. I worked with someone a few years ago that one morning decided she couldn't kill mice anymore. She was so worried she'd have to quit her job etc but management were very understanding and were happy for her to continue to care for them without doing any end of life. She would still do it if there was a health concern that was causing immediate suffering (open fight wounds for example) but anything else she would call her supervisor for.

Bears, on a project licence there is a section to try and use a single animal for repeated studies where possible. Sometimes they can be moved to other project licences too. In research however the animals tend to be genetically modified to have or not have a specific gene which might affect different work. Also some procedures are carried out under non recovery anaesthetic. This is for things that would cause too much suffering for the animal once they were awake.

it was me who asked about hiding a cure. I'm sorry to have upset you, but I've never had a proper scientist to ask that question and i really wanted to know! thanks for your answer, it was very reassuring and does make more sense than the anti-pharmaceutical crews' argument.

I appreciate this thread. It’s fascinating if a little uncomfortable.

I have heard that animal welfare standards for lab animals in the U.K. is the highest in the world. Do you agree?

For anyone criticising OP, do you genuinely think you would turn down the latest cancer drug or treatment?

Ummm, no worries. It was nice to finally be able to have my say on that subject. I see it a lot but I've not been in a position to discuss it before. Thank you for understanding.

Calledyou, yeah from what I've heard we definitely seem to have the best welfare laws. I've had a couple of opportunities to work abroad before but haven't taken them. And unfortunately with brexit who knows if those opportunities will continue to exist. So I've only seen research in the UK firsthand but have worked with many who have worked abroad. Things are improving definitely, the EU directive has helped that. I can't really say anything for other pets of the world. Unfortunately I doubt they're as good as the UK is.

I long time ago I saw a newsletter that talked about new drugs. I am not an expert but it seemed as if many drugs had no great new use, but they were tested as possible hair restorers or analgesics.
The test for analgesics was called the 'writhe test' and they would inject a mouse or rat's paw with formic acid and count how many times the animal writhed in pain in a set amount of time.
Does this still occur, do you know?
If animals are anaethetised for procedures 'more painful than a needle prick' how do they test new analgesics?
Even though we are not testing cosmetics, are we testing for a lot of not very useful new drugs in the hope that someone can make some money somewhere?

Thank you for this thread OP.

To anyone against animal testing. - do you vaccinate your children? If you're a pet owner, do you vaccinate your pets? If your pets are unwell, do you take them to the vets and give them medication? Or are you so against animal testing that you allow your own pets to suffer and deny them medication that will have been developed through testing on animals?

@Cornedbeefpie I’m against animal testing. I will still give medication to my pets and any future child as there is no alternative just now but I donate to charities that don’t fund animal research and will continue to push for animal testing to end. Many medications were tested a long time ago, there’s nothing I can do about past testing, it’s future testing I’m against.

We cannot choose between animal-tested and non-animal-tested medicines. If we could, the choice would be clear.

This might help to explain it some more as u expect some will say I’m a hypocrite on this without fully understanding:
veganuary.com/myths/can-vegans-take-drugs-tested-on-animals/

Garlic, I'm sorry I wish I could answer your question but I don't know enough about that area of research. I worked in pharmaceuticals for a while but I was in oncology so the drugs were trying to shrink tumours etc.

I would rather animal research be done by people who love animals, who are more likely to be careful and treat them kindly, to provide pain relief and a humane end. The alternative is people who don't like animals, feel no empathy and don't care about pain and suffering.

Not all animal research involves pain either. The studies I get involved with are later stage, but might only involve having to be combed for parasites on a weekly basis. We have to do target animal safety studies, which require euthanasia at the end of the study, but during it, all that happens is a daily dose of medication and occasional blood sampling. They live comfortable lives with more enrichment than many pets. Then the end of their life is quick, quiet and humane which is better than can said for a lot of human end of life care.

No one like the idea of animals having to die, but they aren't all sitting there screaming in pain as some posters here seem to think. That simply wouldn't be allowed.

We're just hopping on to ask that PAs are avoided, please. We know it's a controversial and emotive topic for many - but please do keep Talk Guidelines in mind when posting.

*Correct me if I am wrong but, all drugs must be tested by law in two separate species before even being allowed to go into human drug trials?

If the legal requirement is there for animal testing then I would rather testing be carried out by compassionate people using compassionate methods. If the idea of testing is so intolerable to people then we must work to change the law.*

Well exactly. There plenty of demand for medicines and accordingly this means animal testing has to take place. The legal requirements in situ are hardly the OP’s doing.

I think you’re really brave OP. You know that people have strong opinions on this subject matter but you’re willing to answer questions in a reasonable and informative manner. Regardless of whatever people think about your job they should respect that.

Great thread OP.

I just wanted to answer the PP who asked about analgesics, as I've some experience in this area myself, though now changed career.

Analgesics will be chosen based on computer models and ex vivo (lab based, using tissues or cells, not animals) trials to give compound that will theoretically work.

They will then undergo basic toxicity testing, the same as all potentially useful compounds that may come into contact with humans (including drugs, pesticides, and household products). To make sure they are safe as a short term course. This will involve a very limited number of animals.

They will them be efficacy (effectiveness) tested in humans. Usually this involves the application of capsicum to the skin and the subject giving a pain rating with and without. Not my area, so don't know all the details.

If shown to be effective the compound will then undergo further toxicity testing in animals to ensure long term safety and if required safety in juvenile and pregnant populations.

Thank Arewe, that's really interesting. I give analgesics to animals often but never been involved in the creation of them.

@AreWeDoingThisNow thank you both for sharing this and for your work more generally. As someone who depends on analgesia to manage day to day (long term chronic pain after a spinal injury) I am extraordinarily grateful for the quality of life these medications give to me

Could you explain what kind of testing happens for safety in pregnancy?

My pain consultant and OBGYN were both very nervous about me continuing with tramadol and oxycodone while undergoing fertility treatment, and were concerned about the possibly teratogenic effect of tramadol. However a consultant obstetric physician (who literally wrote the book on prescribing in pregnancy) advised based on experience what meds he thought would be reasonable if I got pregnant. He advised that his practice - management of maternal medical disorders in pregnancy - was challenging because of the ethics of running trials with pregnant women, and the safety profile of various medications. His recommendations were empirical because of the limitations of the research, but would be fascinated to understand more about this

Thanks for all the work you and OP do!

Why do you believe that human lives are more valuable than animal ones? I'm not trying to be goady and I appreciate that you find the harm you cause animals difficult. But presumably from what youve said you believe that humans are more important. Why?

Don’t the overwhelming majority of people think that human lives are more important than animal lives. I’m an animal lover but I can’t think of a single animal lover that prioritise the life of a mouse over that of a human. If anyone had the opportunity to save only an animal or a human in, for example a fire, and they chose a mouse over a human I’d find them pretty morally repulsive.

Would it be too personal to ask how much you earn?

Thank you for the work you do OP, I'm grateful for it.

I don't believe in karma anyway, but I wish you well.

That's because (unpleasant though the thought is) animal testing has absolutely saved my life and my husband's, and countless, countless others.

People are so very strange about this topic.

They're often happy to kill ants and spiders and flies and rats, and don't care about their little souls or lives.

They're often happy to live massive consumer lifestyles, and don't care about the forests and resources decimated for it, or the other people's lives destroyed or used for them.

They're often happy to often eat meat or know people who do without treating them like this, they don't burn down supermarkets or attack farms.

But an intelligent person tests a life-saving treatment, under very restricted ethical conditions and they call you a monster.

It's strange and deeply childish.

So thank you again for your work.

I also hope no one at Mumsnet HQ is an animal rights activist who doxxes you or others.

How do you euthanise the animals at the end of the research?
At what stage of your career as a scientist did you decide to qualify in animal management?
Do your children/family know what you do?
(None of these questions are meant to be judgy or goady, by the way - hard to convey tone!)

Actually we should be using pedophiles and child Murderers to test on not animals although I'm not whole heartedly against animal testing if my relations needed a certain drug and that's what needed to be done to save lives so be it