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.

@bananafish81

I was involved in toxicity testing of various things, so not analgesic specific, but to answer your question about how safety in pregnancy is assessed... sorry for the length everyone!

TRIGGER WARNING - some of this may be disturbing.

The compound will be administered daily to pregnant rats (usually around 90 of them) who have been provided by a regulated supplier who has mated them on set days (they monitor their cycles so they can mate them on the most likely day and then send the ones who have mated). From day 4 of their pregnancy to day 18 or 19 (they have a 21 day pregnancy)

The compound is administered via the intended route, so if it is to be taken orally it's administered orally, if IV it's administered IV, if it's an agrochemical which humans may be accidentally exposed to its mixed in with their food.

There will be a control group who are given the same treatment without the compound, and then three or four 'does levels' with varying amounts given,

They have blood taken to check exposure levels usually on day 6 and 16 or 18, at various time points, they each have as few samples as possible, so some will have a sample taken 30 minutes after admin, some 2 hours, etc. some are sometimes kept sample free, as a control to make sure sampling doesn't confuse the results of the trial, though as blood analysis gets better less blood is needed so this is not often required and means fewer animals can be used.

They are euthanised on day 20 of pregnancy with a rising concentration of carbon dioxide (so they don't notice and sort of just pass out and don't come round), or with an anaesthetic overdose (via injection into their abdomen) - the method depends on the establishment, both are considered humane. Some people don't like using carbon dioxide, but IME if done properly it causes less distress than the anaesthetic in rats.

SECOND TRIGGER WARNING - really, stop now if you're squeamish. SKIP TO NEXT CAPS BIT if you want more info about less triggering stuff.

The deceased female rat is then opened up and the unborn pups removed, they are euthanised individually via anaesthetic overdose and/or rapid cooling.

The female rat is necropsied (like and autopsy but on an animal) in great detail to check for any abnormalities. Tissues are taken to be examined by a pathologist.

The pups are examined externally, then half are necropsied, and half are treated so that their tissues become clear and their bones and cartilage are dyed, so the formation of their skeletal system can be assessed.

OK WORST OVER

All abnormalities are recorded and then the totals compared to background data (obviously sometimes abnormalities occur anyway) and the control animals, to see if there has been any increase.

If the rat trials show the compound to be safe it is then repeated in rabbits. Which is the same protocol but they are always euthanised with an IV administered anaesthetic overdose.

Other trials will also be done where rats are mated while being dosed daily to assess effects in male and female fertility, and studies done where the pups are born after the mothers have been dosed in pregnancy and while lactating to assess the pups development afterwards.

For accidental exposure (so pesticides, etc) multi-generation studies are done where the rats live 3 generations eating treated food to ensure it won't have an effect on future generations of humans.

@Dumbledore, I asked why does Op think human lives are more important. Personally I feel all are equally important so I wouldn't prioritise a mouse over a human, but I don't automatically believe the human is more important than a mouse. Many people prioritise the welfare of their pet over that of other humans. There are of course many difficult situations where we have to make choices about priorities but in my view we can do this without allocating more value to one than the other. In my view human superiority is espoused in the bible and is as such is ingrained in our modern culture, but like you the majority of people would think that to question that stance is ridiculous.

I know doctor Banting removed the pancreas from dogs and cats and injected them with the crude insulin. It's awful but without him and those animals I wouldn't be here. Everyone always thanks him on the day it was discovered, me I always thank the poor animals. Tricky

Are you really saying that given a choice between a human or a mouse dying you wouldn’t prioritise the human? I love my cat. I’m a full on crazy cat person. I wouldn’t let a human being (even a stranger) die to save her life though.

Apologies,

I've just realised I made a mistake in that last post - pregnant rats would be given anaesthetic overdose via IV rather than abdominal injection.

No, I'm saying that as much as possible I'd prioritise both. I know that's not always possible of course and it's never a clear cut choice like that. I'm not judging you or anyone else - it's helpful just to understand other people's views. You could argue that the money and care you give to your cat would be better invested in taking in a human refugee, for example, if you truly feel humans should be prioritised. I don't have a house full of refugees so again I promise I'm not judging you, but I'm trying to highlight that who we try to prioritise is usually based on who is connected to us, and important to us, because we feel we are more important . Look at all the efforts we put into making our lives how we like them and the relative time we spend thinking about others, human or animal. I'm not saying I don't suffer with this but I'm asking the question because I've spent time thinking about why do I think my life or that of other people is more important than any other species.

Hi, do you think it would be a good idea to print on all packs of medicines ‘this product has been tested on animals’?
It may go some way in order to help promote this happens and is pretty unavoidable at the moment.

AreWe, thanks so much for that. It's great to see someone so open about the work involved. Testing compounds toxicity in pregnancy isn't something I've been involved in so I wouldn't have been able to give the detailed answer you gave.

Merename, that's a tricky one to answer. I guess I feel a responsibility to improve the lives of other humans. When I was younger I always wanted to help sick people, my mum was a carer and I would go with her on school holidays and hated seeing them so ill. When I grew up and realised I didn't have it in me to become a doctor I decided to follow my second love of helping sick animals. I had volunteered in vets, boarding kennels, rehoming centres, zoos and refuges. But once I was at college and found out about the animals in laboratories (I had been quite naive to it before and didn't realise there was a role solely caring for them) I knew I had found my place. I was able to do both, care for animals and help humans too. So yes I guess I see humans as my priority, but I believe animals deserve the best care when doing that.

Meerkat, I currently earn around £30,000. A little less since I moved jobs as I no longer work weekends (animals require 24/7 care).

Belle, I know exactly what you mean. I posted a link towards the top of the thread that explains why humans aren't an option.

Biologifemini, perhaps it would. It would be interesting to see the reaction. I think people don't really want to know because it makes them feel uncomfortable. So many people take painkillers regularly, forgetting that animals were involved in the making of them. Cosmetics were tested on animals for a long time before they made it illegal. But the components of cosmetics now are known to be safe because of historical animal tests despite the cruelty free labels so many of them hold. There's no way of avoiding animal exploitation, it's how humans have got to where they are. We don't have to like it or support it, and we can do what we can to move away from it. I will always push for that. But I do think medical research should be the last thing to go. I would hate for that to stop if we're still farming animals to the same extent and etc. If that made any sense...

Genuinely call bullshit on all of the posters doing the "not in my name". Yes it's horrible, yes animals suffer, yes it would be great if this didn't need to happen, but ultimately if you or a loved one needed a life saving drug that had been tested on animals to prove it won't kill you quicker, ate you honestly, hand on heart saying you wouldn't take it???

@wokeupinnewyork

Thanks, I don't want to hijack your thread, but I used to do educational outreach as part of my role in toxicity testing as well so I'm used to telling teens all about it. (I'm a science teacher now so still do it they ask).

Like you I was naive - clueless until I got the job actually. I just knew I loved animals and thought I'd rather make sure they had the best life I could give them than leave it up to someone else. I've been involved in developing micro sampling for blood to reduce numbers required, and allow less invasive techniques in mice. Better restraint methods and better caging and enrichment, so I feel like I've improved the lives of the animals in the future as well as doing my bit for humanity.

I want to apologise to you op for my earlier comment. After reading this thread today I can clearly see you truly care for the animals and do not take pleasure in what you have to do. I do understand we need it to be done, both of my parents died of cancer before I reached 22 and the thought that a cure could be found in the future is a truly amazing thought. So I apologise for being a knob.

I hate the idea of animal testing.
However, OP the work you and others like you do has saved, and will continue to save millions of lives.

Thankyou.

Sorry lastanni, just realised I missed your question.

So there are a few different methods of euthanising the animals that depends on the species. I'll talk about mice because it's the most commonly used animal in research and what I know best.

TRIGGER WARNING

They're called schedule 1 methods and are dictated by the home office within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. We must use one method and then perform another as confirmation of death, to ensure no mistakes were made. The most common methods are cervical dislocation, rising concentration of carbon dioxide or overdose of anaesthetic. Personally I prefer using cervical dislocation. It's a physical method so it very difficult emotionally but I believe it's the kindest method. It is very quick and is often over before the mouse realises it's even been picked up. I prefer it because if an animal is suffering, perhaps they have open fight wounds, I want to stop the suffering as soon as I can. If I was to use the other methods I would have to leave the animal while I go and get the equipment. At end of studies the animals are not suffering so a different method might be ok, they are both like when a human has general anaesthetic, like falling asleep. Especially is certain tissues from around the neck are needed, the thymus for example can give so much information when looking at immune system.

For the other part of your question, I actually started the other way. I was an animal care technician first and was asked to join a research group to care for their animals. I have continued to work for qualifications making me also a scientist now.

My family all know and support me, even my vegan dad and vegetarian sister. My husband I met in the industry and his sister was also in it so we have support there too. My baby is too young right now and we're not certain how we will broach the subject with her. I think we will leave it until she's old enough to understand the controversy of it too. I don't want her to suffer for our career choice if she comes across someone that disagrees. As I'm sure you can see upthread, some people are very passionately against it and aren't afraid to voice that. Once she can fully understand what we do, she will then be able to form her own opinions on it and we'll go from there.

OP, I just want to say thank you for the work you do, in challenging circumstances. I couldn't do it myself, but I work in a healthcare field and can appreciate how some things are not as black and white as some people like to think.

My aunt works in a similar field to yourself and she is 100% the biggest animal lover I know. I equate it to almost like being a doctor and having to perform procedures you morally may not 100% agree with but have to do out of necessity. Others won't agree, everyone has a right to an opinion but there's a way to respectfully voice it.

Kittykat, I really appreciate that. Knowing I've been able to help someone better understand that we're not cruel people means a lot to me. In fact, everyone that has been so kind on this thread has made my day. Many people don't really think about this side of medicine and it's not until they're faced with the reality of it that they realise they're actually ok with it. Those that disagree with it are often the loudest because they are so passionate about it. It can be hard sometimes to remember that there are people out there thankful for the role animals play.

Spades, that's it. My friend says a similar thing. She's a vet nurse and hates some of the things she has to do.

Thank your aunt for me

I understand why humans can't be tested on op x shame tho but definitely support you on this you realise something's are not so black and white lack of understanding until someone like yourself explains it

Hi OP, I’m a vegan and reading this thread has been really enlightening and interesting. Thank you.

I'm glad this has given you a look into the other side of the story. Normally the argument for the use of animals in research is very evidence based whilst the argument against is more emotional based. I think many people forget that there's humans with genuine emotion involved too.

OP, thanks for the work you do. I’m on the clinical side so understand what’s involved with in vitro and in vivo research. I’ve witnessed stroke testing on rats. Yes in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to test on animals but we’re so far away from that at present.

More light hearted question, do you have a favourite genetically modified rodent? Zucker diabetic fatty rat has always been a favourite of mine

Ooh tough question! I think it would have to be ob/ob mice! There's just something about the little fatties isn't there. They're always so chilled and happy to have cuddles. I think it's a mix of being too fat to care and just being handled regularly for GTTs.

I haven’t hand,ed a ZDF, my only first hand experience is with the SHRSP (spontaneously hypertensive stroke prone) as it was stroke research. I was a student at the time so only an observer. I watched a PhD student induce a stroke on a rat - he was a vegetarian and said he felt conflicted.

OP, you do vitally important and very difficult work. Always remember that the majority of people who rely on medications themselves, or whose loved ones do, support you and your colleagues.

Thank you .

I’m sure the general public would be supportive of your work if they were better informed about the facts and understood more about why it is so necessary, but the issue is so emotive that that’s probably unrealistic, sadly.

OP do you think that Linear Poisson Modelling will help in regard to the ethics or the 3R's? It's something I came across a while ago and I know it's been put up for an Innovation Award. Any input would be welcome.