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 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."

Surely if experiments (however cruel) have yield useful information then the results should be shared as much a possible. The last thing we want is a repeat of such an experiment.

ReallyTired if such research is rejected for publication, an incentive for higher standards of animal welfare is created and pressure is put on the scientists and governments of those countries to change unethical practices.

I would assume because when it goes into a journal, there is money to be made and recognition, you wouldn't want that rewarded and replicated. I see your point, I don't review papers, but assume this is why and I do agree with it.

damn it, I got in second and I didn't explain it nearly so well!

I see your point, Really. However, the experiments were not only unnecessary, but could have produced better results if ethical considerations had been adhered to. European and american journals also tend to have a requirement for publication that ethical standards are adhered to e.g. requiring statement of appropriate approval for the study. In the same way, studies involving humans must show proof of receiving ethical approval prior to start of the study, otherwise the study results cannot be published in peer-reviewed literature.

Another person here who has worked with laboratory animals. YADNBU. In the UK lab animal welfare is very high and incredibly regulated.

Exactly, red. Thanks.

I once got stopped from carrying out research into animal model replacements by animal rights protesters...I have never worked with animals and only the materials we hope will replace them...but apparently that didn't matter.

Another scientist here who has used animals in basic research. Yes yes to higher welfare standards, compulsory and regular veterinary care, legally-enforced space requirements, environmental enrichment, and so on.

You ONLY get good data from healthy happy animals. Anything performed under lower welfare standards is a waste.

However, I have to confess discomfort with the use of animals in pharma. As a basic scientist, animal work is as minimal as possible, never speculative, maximally efficient. I don't see that happening in pharma (or biotech), where money can be thrown at animal testing on a more speculative basis, thus the potential for unnecessary and wasteful harm is far larger.

Icebeing, those protesters were indeed idiots and make everyone else look bad.