To think that many pets suffer more abuse than animals kept for experiments

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25888372

I am in favour of animal experiments when there is no viable alternative in medical research or medicine testing. Animal testing has saved lives and improved the quality of life for people all over the world.

Many animal extremist exaggerate the cruelty involved. Britian has the strictest rules in the world. Every experiment requires ethical approval.
In the UK rats have more toys, social interaction, interesting cages than most pet rats. I believe that many laboratory rats and mice live longer than domestic pets.

I feel that animal rights protestors should focus their attentions on pet owners who neglect their animals. Many pet shops have far poor standards of care than animal research facilities, but pet shop owners don't get threatened with bombs.

Ironically bomb threats increases animal cruetly because many pharacutical companies choose to do their animal testing in India where the laws are far more relaxed.

I should probably all add that yes, I am sure that there are some labs out there that do unnecessary experimental trials on animals , but most don't.

We do our trials for the sake of animal and human health and some of the work that has been done has lead to vaccines and other treatments to protect animals against disease.

Someone I knew used to work in a research lab, first with rodents then with farm animals.
He said there was far more interaction with the small animals than the average pet would get, as for an animal to be healthy, they need to be happy. A lonely rat isn't a healthy rat.
Like someone above said, they had toys, mazes, were held and played with regularly.
The farm animals were kept in far better conditions than on most farms, again, they need happy, healthy animals.

There are a lot of badly kept pets out there I do know that.

The pproblem for rspca is that they get criticised for prosecuting people too much but then they get complaimts for doing nothing. They have no powers to take people's animals unless the police get involved and to take them permanently they have to go through courts.

lab

I don't doubt for a second that there are decent people working in labs who do treat the animals with kindness and who care that the animals are fed and played with etc.

But there are things that go on that people like you aren't aware of because no doubt you couldn't envisage anyone being so cruel as to do it.

I have searched for links to the books I read but with no title I remember it's proving difficult.

I agree that in Britain our animal welfare laws are superior to many other countries. Not ideal by any means but a lot better.

www.veganlondon.co.uk/factsheets/scientific_fraud.pdf

But I do think people need to be aware that for many it's not a happy place with toys and food. I really wish I could find the link to the book. It was heart breaking and done purely out of curiosity no medical use at all.

it doesn't have to be one or the other, does it? People shouldn't treat their pets badly, and should be prosecuted if they do so. We definitely should not test on animals for toiletries or household products. I'm not sure about drugs, like many people I don't suppose I would refuse a drug that could save my life, or DD's - DH is very anti testing so I'm not speaking for him on this point.

As a vet nurse I completely agree OP. Pet owners are largely unaware that their legal responsibilities extend to ensuring their pets emotional needs are met by for example housing them with other animals in the case of social animals, providing company and allowing natural behaviours such as burrowing or running. Many medical and behavioural problems are caused by incorrect care. Labs on the otherhand have very strict guidelines regarding husbandry.

everyone performs experiments on lab animals in the uk undergoes extensive training and licensing by the home office. i know much more about animal welfare with respect to the animals i have used in the lab than i know about my own pet cat, having never studied cats.
think of all those poor little neglected rodents living in children's bedrooms. cramped conditions, under/overfed the wrong types of foods, not given fresh water daily.
OP - you are absolutely right - the average pet is treated much worse than the average lab animal.

I think the difference though is intention. I've worked with animals myself and have seen misguided attempts to help which were IMO so cruel. But the owners did live and care for their pet and usually had no idea.

Of course it's down to them to research etc and I agree fully that many pet owners are cruel and misguided but usually NOT intentionally. I did see cruelty cases but not many.

However, in a lab, no matter how much u feed or play with the animal. You will at some point be intentionally giving them something that will cause pain or death, there's no getting out of that.

And no, I do not believe that blowing up labs and hurting people makes anyone any better. Fighting cruelty with violence merely loses you any moral high ground.

I think all any of us can do is try to live as ethically as possible and avoid buying things that support animal cruelty where possible.

And I am realistic, I do know sadly that in many cases it's unavoidable. And to those of you in labs who do take care of those animals and make them as happy as possible , thank you. Because it's going to happen no matter what and I'd hope that those looking after the animals do care about them. They deserve to be cared for.

most lab animals don't suffer any pain actually. they are euthanised routinely though. but many pets are too - when the owner and vet agree that the animal's quality of life is poor and it is cruel to keep them alive. if a lab mouse is clearly starting to suffer, it will be euthanised immediately. if a pet mouse is starting to suffer, most owners are not rushing to the vet to have it put down are they?

sorry - just read my post and it's a bit contradictory.
people routinely take very old/ill cats and dogs to the vets to have them put down, but they don't do that for smaller animals usually.

"However, in a lab, no matter how much u feed or play with the animal. You will at some point be intentionally giving them something that will cause pain or death, there's no getting out of that. "

That beef steak that you ate the other night suffered pain and death. Certainly pets suffer pain and death as well. (Intentional cruetly may be rare, but simple neglect is a horrible death.) Most of us prefer not think about cruelty in the farming industry.

I have never worked in an animal laboratory, I did analyse the stastics from experiments and developed a database of animal experiments so that no experiment was ever repeated.

I think we are missing a rather large point here apart from the fact many of those against experiments are not blowing labs up or making threats AND that people who are against it possibly are also against badly kept pets but why does that mean they can't focus on one thing? campaigning is a time consuming process, it is very difficult to have the time to act on both passionately.

The other large thing no one seems to have touched on is the actual experiments themselves, many are quite horrific. Most animals are killed after, but often you are deliberately trying to cause pain or illness to an animal, giving animal cancers and all sorts. It is also on the increase. A lot of science is done for particular agendas, they're not all done to cure cancer.

It is true that it is very hard to not have products that don't contain ingredients that at one time in their existence weren't tested on animals, but why does that mean we can't try to support those that no longer test? Why can't we try and support new techniques and investment into them? Why do we have to say 'well I know someone who treats their pet rat badly and since the Benzopheone-3 in your lipbalm was once tested on animals in the 60s then you're being ridiculous to try and buy it from a company claiming not to test on animals and support a non-testing company'.

One wrong doesn't make everything else right. I work in science, I am quite aware of some of the experiments that go on and the lack of funds to try new techniques.

I would of course support a loved one when they have a drug to help a disease that was tested on animals, I still value my family over animals, but it doesn't mean that I can't support the hope of an alternative.

'most lab animals don't suffer any pain actually. they are euthanised routinely though. but many pets are too - when the owner and vet agree that the animal's quality of life is poor and it is cruel to keep them alive. if a lab mouse is clearly starting to suffer, it will be euthanised immediately. '

I don't agree with this, the point of many experiments is to measure pain and give them ailments.

Alternatives have to be used by law if they're available.
Just to throw a few figures out there, annually in the UK 5 million animals are used in medical research, 200 million wildlife are killed by the 8 million cats kept as pets and 2.5 billion animals are consumed each year in the UK for no other reason than we like the taste of them.

YANBU. As you say, better here than forcing companies to do it in many other countries. As the OP link says, 'The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 enshrines the policy of "three Rs'": replacement, refinement and reduction. '

The efforts of animal extremists might be better directed into conservation work - do something positive for the world.

Still boggling at Giles anal make-up testing ...

My phone is giving up the ghost these days :o

It's not even Friday yet

Velvet, do your figures only cover rodents or are you including fruitflies and zebrafish?

Sorry -- mammals is what I meant rather than rodents!

The 200 million wildlife killed refers to small mammals and birds. I thoroughly researched these figures for an essay I wrote on animals and ethics.

45redballoons you might not agree, but i suggest, if you are really interested, you read up on the home office statistics and inform yourself a little better.
most lab animals are not given "ailments" and they do not have their pain measured. most are used as sources for primary tissue culture, which means they are given terminal anaesthesia and tissues are removed and grown up in cultures.
yes, some lab animals do suffer terribly, but they are in the minority.

Yanbu. And it isn't just obvious neglect - starvation, abandonment etc. there is plenty of harm done to welfare by idiots who over feed their pets and refuse to let them exhibit natural behaviours in a safe manner.

Animals in research are generally extremely well treated, with high levels of basic care and minimal active inducement of pain or injury in so far as is possible.

Animals don't need lots of wuv and cuddles. The do need food, water, shelter and an appropriately stimulating environment / interaction with others.

Have worked with lab animals and abused pets in the past. I worry less about the former.

45redballons, have you actually ever worked in, or even been into a lab where research is being carried out? Your assertion that "many [experiments] are quite horrific" is not my experience in 20 years as a research scientist.

Do you buy food at all? All pesticides, herbicides, insecticided etc are, by law, tested on animals. Nutritional studies can and do sometimes rely on animal studies. Research into diabetes, coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's disease to name but a few, often use animal studies. Research particularly into neurodegenerative disease is difficult to do on humans because you have an issue with getting samples from healthy control individuals.

Scientists are not stood around cackling and rubbing their hands in between putting eye drops into unsuspecting bunnies, though this is the image that certain animal rights groups like to portray. Animal studies in this country are highly regulated and, because we live in an imperfect world are, unfortunately, necessary. I have. been asked to peer review results of some studies which I rejected from publication on the basis of animal ethics. These studies were, without exception carried out in countries such as China (and others) where ethics regulations are not so strict as in the UK.

Icingmyback, I have worked in many labs, I may not know exact numbers of different experiments nationally, but I certainly know about much animal research, so I think I'm informed enough to suggest that pain and ailments are the reason for using many animals.

Yes nerds I have and I currently do. Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I have some fake image of scientists, thanks.

Yes I am well aware of all the things in my life that are animal tested, should I starve? I have said I would agree wholeheartedly with anyone using animal tested medicines as I still value humans over animals, that doesn't mean I think all experiments are a lovely experience for the animals.