Too think that dogs used for experments in the UK must be given the same welfare as any other service dog !

[PupsAndKittens]

Ok, so unpopular opption but if ;as a final result; dogs have to be tested on, then they MUST have the same welfare rights as any other dog in the country.

For example, these puppies are never taken for walk and they are fed the bare minimum. Any other service dog and that would be highly illegal.

Labatories don’t even attempt to rehome after the experiment, and go for the easy option of euthanasia. The police wouldn’t be allowed to do the same to a sniffer dog ( without proof that it’s for the best interest of the dog)

If the dog was cut open for surgery ( example it had cancer!) The vets wouldn’t then suggest immediately after it was euthanised ( again, unless anything went wrong and that it would give the dog no quality of life)

If a madman went to a dog park and shot all the puppies, they could’ve get up to a decade in prison.

unpopular opinion, But unfortunately drugs have to be tested on something (although I personally think it should be murderers and rapists!). However that doesn’t mean that the dogs used should be treated as second-class citizens, especially as they do just as an important job then those that work in services such as police, fire and disabilities.

What needs to happen, is two main priorities:

1. Puppies up until their experiment, must be given a decent quality of life, just like any other puppy in any other service. This includes regular food and regular walks.

1. After there operation, all dogs must be attempted to be rehomed. Sorry but if every other dog is entitled to a fresh start, including strays, why should those that have suffered the most not be.

I know they do a lot already, but I think animal shelters particularly Battersea could do a bit more ( i’m not undermining the brilliant work that place does already ). Even if they offered to take half a bunch that would be something.

I just want to know what people feel about this. What I am really asking is how much welfare They should have prior and after their experiment. Or are they born second class citizens And not entitled to normal laws, because they are born to die. And before anyone attempts to rip me to pieces, I am both vegetarian (mostly vegan) and cruelty free with my cosmetics!

( PS sorry for two post in two days, however I have just read an article on this and it’s made me really angry at the hypocrisy of it all) [ sad]

@LittleFairyWernI am not against the testing! Just the welfare of the animal before that point and after if it could be rehomed! Also I am veggie, but not fully vegan

@powershowerforanhour I personally think it is discussing that pet owners get hardly any sanctions when they hurt there own pets imprisonment for those lowlifes I say! I i’m all for euthanasia, personally Believe it should be legal for humans ( although I believe that it should be granted though a court, and there should be lots of evidence that is best for the human ). I just feel that labs could try slightly harder to realise these dogs.

why don’t we test on animals/humans that already have said disease.
We do. Once a treatment has passed animal experimental models it moves to the clinical trial phase in the target species.
The reasons you don't jump straight to clinical trials:

• numbers; there aren't enough eg children with cystic fibrosis to test every drug you think might work at every dose, in sufficient numbers to be statistically significant
• too much variation due to co- morbidities, etc: it's really going to monkey with the reliability of results when testing pharmacodynamics, for example

So the typical running order is computer modelling, then test on cell lines in vitro, then pilot test on the minimum number of healthy animals needed to get a suitable power of study re toxicity (much much more refined than the old LD50 tests- if 50% of your pilots die that would be considered absolutely shocking - I have never seen this happen) then test minimum number of sick animals (typically with induced disease) needed for reliable results, then if all OK the drug moves to clinical trials.

@everythingthelighttouches OBVIOUSLY, it would be with full content of the patient. No one should be forced into being experimented with. Unpopular opinion however, if I had terminal cancer, I would be up for having a drug experimented on me as my death would help to save lives!

@powershowerforanhour Sorry, I will admit I did not know this. Thanks for informing me

try slightly harder to realise these dogs again should say re-home

powershowerforanhourI personally think it is discussing that pet owners get hardly any sanctions when they hurt there own petsimprisonment for those lowlifes I say! I i’m all for
The trouble is there's a spectrum of causes of suffering of pets from horrid maliciousness (relatively uncommon but it makes the newspapers), through wilful neglect/just not giving a shit, to ignorance of what is best for the animal. Most welfare cases are due to neglect rather than malicious cruelty, often with a significant element of mental illness, alcoholism etc. A lot of people can't look after themselves let alone their pets.
Of course only people with the time and mental and financial resources to give the beings dependent on them at least a basic half decent standard of living should have pets - or children- but a lot of people make shit choices in life and always will.

I agree that the sanctions aren't enforced often enough. The cases that annoy me are where an owner who clearly has enough mental energy and ability to keep themselves well fed, clean, dressed, coiffed and manicured but lets their pet get into a shit state and claims depression to get off scot free.
It is also astonishingly hard to get a ban on keeping animals and this is a fault in the law rather than the enforcers of it.

I am 50, we have a breeding centre in our county, it breeds Beagles too.
Back when I was a young farmer, so about 21, our group and a neighbouring club where invited in, to have a guided tour and meal. we used to visit feed companies, tractor dealerships etc too.
I have never forgot that visit, 37 young farmers, pig, sheep. beef and dairy farmers who daily sent animals too slaughter. (I had that day selected 5 cows for slaughter and sent 20 calves to market, and I didn't make it past the second pen, not scared to say I cried)
It was the shortest visit ever, 35 grown women and men in tears and none lasted more than 5 minutes. The dogs where not treated well. small bare concrete cells, no human comfort or interaction, evil place.
Cruel and pointless, we refused their food and all agreed to petition against the plans to expand, superb misfire of PR.

I wonder if testing on rats and dogs is so good, we have had so many cases of drugs killing people, like that elephant man trial. Thalidomide anyone. Plus numerous so called tested and safe drugs have serious side effects, penicillin will kill one of our Dc if given, also would kill my late brother and I am resistant to the stuff, have been since birth, so 50 years where penicillin does not kill my infections.

I will never support testing on animals, if it so good why don't the blood scientist test it on themselves or their families? No they pay students a pittance to do it. Joke.

2Boys- The problem with Thalidomide was missed because they didn’t do enough animal testing. No tests were done on pregnant animals. The elephant man trial was 13 years ago. How many other cases of people dying in human trials have you heard about in the last 13 years? First-in-human trials are generally very safe. They would be a lot more dangerous without animal tests.

Again, you're so against animal testing so I'm sure you refuse all drugs because they've been tested on animals. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

'Madman'? Yes, all people with mental health problems go around shooting puppies, oh and kittens, and children. Nice stigmatising, fuck off.

Plus numerous so called tested and safe drugs have serious side effects, penicillin will kill one of our Dc if given, also would kill my late brother
Penicillin has saved a lot lot more people (and animals) than it has ever killed. Peanuts can kill some people but you can still buy peanut butter because it is- for the vast majority- a nutritious food.
No drug or vaccine is ever going to be 100.00000% safe or effective for everyone on the planet but the whole point of testing is to find the most safe and effective.

If it so good why don't the blood scientist test it on themselves
They used to. Halsted, the "father of modern surgery" whose principles every medical and veterinary student learns today and tutor of other greats sich as Cushing, experimented on himself with cocaine as an anaesthetic agent (it was the forerunner of modern local anaesthetics eg lignocaine, mepivacaine etc). This type of self experimentation was common. Not done today as testing requires a homogenous, young population under more controlled conditions.

LittleFairywen
No not a hypocrite, I have no choice when it comes to drugs, but I remember in my youth you could only buy cosmetics and similar which had been tested on animals, then bodyshop came along.
The same arguments where used by the companies and scientists, but now no company tests it products on animals.
So why can't people like me oppose animal testing and look for a more humane method.
I find the idea of humans using animals as lab rats distasteful, after working with and living and owning, so call dumb animals, I can tell you they are far from dumb, cattle, sheep, chickens dogs and cats are equally intelligent to humans in their own ways. They all feel pain and distress too.

We humans are the greatest threat to the future of planet earth.

I rescued two ex lab animals once. Not dogs. The poor things were riddled with tumors eventually and suffered and had to be put to sleep.

I STRONGLY oppose testing on animals. I don’t know what the answer is.

No not a hypocrite, I have no choice when it comes to drugs.

Of course you have a choice. Don't take them. If your moral indignation around how they were developed is so strong, surely you'd want no part of it?

Hi Op,
I haven’t read the full thread but I have visited a place that tests on animals for pharmaceuticals. I am also vegetarian and use cruelty free make up and I can confirm it really isn’t a bad as your sources make out

Posted too soon;
The dogs were housed together, in small groups, they had loads of space and we were allowed to take them out to play with them. They had toys and plenty of food and they genuinely looked content.

These were dogs waiting to be used in the trials.

I also saw some rats that were currently being used, again, enrichment and mental stimulation was the top priority

I'm going to chime in on this one, seeing as I'm currently an animal technician (not with dogs - however I know and network with other techs who do). I've obviously name changed for this for security as yes the crazies are a real risk to us, and the researchers/users.

Labs that use animal models are highly legislated. We're visited by the home office - and randomly too - if something is going on that shouldn't be, we would be in big trouble.

I'm not going to do a song and dance about how animals in labs have vast quantities of space - they do not, not at least in the sense pet owners would like to see (I say that as a pet owner). However, there are legal minimums. As a tech, I push my users to utilise the most space possible for the animals, usually with the argument that healthier, happier animals, will result in better research. Unfortunately from a legal standpoint - they don't have to, they only have to adhere to legal minimums. This is something I will address honestly, I WOULD honestly like to see it change, however it also has to be financially viable for all parties for it to work. You absolutely have more to worry about with the space farmed animals bred for meat get to live in though - I assure you.

The comment about the underfeeding is ridiculous - animal techs would NOT have animals underfed. Neither would researchers - unhealthy animals effects the legitimacy of their research. Researchers are often working on tight budgets and since they pay to use the animals, will not be happy if they are paying for unhealthy animals which will in turn, negatively affect their research. Animals used for research are fed extremely high quality diets - that, just for info's sake, tend to cost an absolute fortune. If for some reason you had evil animal abusing technicians and researchers who would be happy for the animals to be underfed or malnourished - the home office would certainly not. This may be different for feeding trials or nutritional experiments, - however all studies do need to be cleared first so any suffering has 'humane endpoints' that need to be followed. For all experiments and research however, the feeding is very carefully controlled, managed and a lot of research goes into the best possible diet and feeding regimes used by labs.

With regards to exercise - research dogs are socialised, played with, and exercised. Are they taken for a leisurely stroll down the road? Absolutely not. Animal units NEED to be biosecure because the procedures are scientific. The dogs could easily pick up pathogens that again, could and WOULD effect research, and potentially spread disease and parasites to all the other animals in the facility, in which case, if the pathogen is severe enough, would mean to need to cull entire lines of animals - this doesn't bode well with home office, users who have extremely important lines, or the reduction aspect of the 3 R's (replacement, refinement and reduction).

On the rehoming aspect - whilst the animal species used are (usually, but not definitely not always) domesticated, they are not pets in the way most owners think of pets. They are usually friendly enough (despite the 'torture' many think they endure) but it needs to be understood these animals are bred for specific purposes. A fair amount will be genetically modified in some way - this won't be visually apparent but will affect for example their natural immunity, antibodies, predisposition to certain illnesses - and above all they have been bred in biosecure units. Once you take that animal out into the 'real world', well you can imagine.

The rules around rehoming lab animals is very strict - and not by the labs themselves, but by governing bodies. And there is justified reason for it. Sure enough though, I know some animals have been rehomed.

Labs, like zoo's, were guilty of having atrocious standards in the past. This has massively changed as our entire society's attitudes to animal welfare have changed.

I'm afraid you're incredibly misinformed and I dare say biased.

I'm an animal lover, and an animal technician in a lab - funny that. I certainly couldn't do it if there was quite the torture many seem to imagine goes on. Are some of the experiments unpleasant? Of course. Is it carefully controlled, and managed, and where possible, pain relief etc given? Absolutely.

You will not find people who care more about animals than the technicians that work with them, and are responsible for their care on a daily basis. Many of the increased standards of welfare are a direct result of technicians. I work in the industry I do because I want to be a part of making sure the animals are treated the very best that is possible, and I've been responsible for positive changes to welfare myself, and pushed bloody hard for it.

Everything in the scientific field has to be 'justified'.

Oh, and I'll just add on about your 'opting for the easy option - euthanasia' comment.

It is far from easy I assure you. It is humane, it is quick, it is carefully monitored and you need to properly trained and competent. Being competent and assured through scientific research and legally approved methods of euthanasia does in a sense make it easier to PERFORM, but the emotional aspect is NOT an EASY OPTION - what an offensive comment. A lot of people who have to do this actually need emotional support whilst doing their jobs and it is something facilities recognise.

It is not easy for the techs, not easy for researchers, and every SINGLE euthanised animal has to be reported to the home office - to monitor numbers and identify how we can better reduce in future. Nor is it easy for the 'big bosses' who need to be able to justify the number of animals used.

In all honesty, if you do want to learn more about the topic in the hopes of having a better understanding of how to increase animal welfare in labs - stay away from PETA.

“I will never support testing on animals, if it so good why don't the blood scientist test it on themselves or their families?”

Yes. Let’s test cancer drugs on children because puppies deserve better. Children may die but that’s FINE, because they aren’t beagles. You’re missing the whole point. Drugs are being TESTED so they don’t kill children and people. It’s not because it’s so good they just want to try them out loads for fun. Jesus H.

Thank god for you @username241

@username241 thank you for your comments. I understand that it is a tough job ( although ultimately people decide to go into its and they must know that killing dogs regularly it’s going to have an emotional toll) personally I still believe that labs could at least try and relieve some of the puppies though. The not bred as pets argument still doesn’t wash with me, Neither is the argument that they are not used to the real world! As Mentioned in previous posts I have watched documentaries where the RSPCA have rescued dogs on meat farms, dogs from poppy farms and dogs from abusive homes. Trust me if they are rehomeable so are these. There are around 7 million vegans in this country and plenty celebrity animal rights activist. I would put money on the fact that at least 50,000 would be open to adopting one of these labdogs!

Pupsandkittens - Do you understand what immunocompromised means? Do you understand what it means to have little to no neutrophils or macrophages - and thus what that actually means in regards to health and immune system of any animal? Do you understand how the phenotype of an animal will affect these, along with other characteristics?

A puppy farm, abusive home or the meat trade are NOT the same as a biosecure laboratory - quite the opposite. You cannot compare apples and pears.

RSPCA also liaise with animal labs - in fact they often set guidelines related specifically to animal lab welfare and humane culling. They've been a valued part of my training. Oops, I think I may have just burst the bubble of many RSPCA supporters on that one. In fact, it was only a few months ago I had conversations with an RSPCA inspector on lab welfare and emotional well being of techs.

Yes people do know what they are getting themselves in for usually. As I said, most people who do it are passionate about animal welfare and that's why they go for it - because they feel they can make a difference. I definitely wouldn't have gone for the job if I didn't feel I could bring something worthwhile to it. To say euthanasia is the 'easy option' is completely ignorant. Sorry, but it is.

If there are 50,000 homes waiting for lab dogs why aren't these people going to rescue centres? Sorry but that makes no sense. We as a nation over-breed animals to the degree that HEALTHY animals are being killed in some centres solely because demand cannot cope with supply - yet there at least 50,000 waiting - waiting for what?!

You cannot just send genetically modified animals into the hands of the general public. Even for non-GM lines - I genuinely mean this kindly and I'm sorry if it causes upset, but for precisely posts like yours - because many, many people like yourself clearly just don't understand the impacts on the animals themselves because of their breeding, biosecure accommodation, genetic differences and predisposition to particular illnesses and what complicated consequences they have for that animal. It's clear you don't understand that animal carcasses must be sent for incineration because of the exposure to bioharzards. Forget your usual zoonoses, what about more serious zoonoses that the particular line may carry/have introduced and mean techs/researchers need serious PPE? Have you considered that techs need to be trained on animal cadavers? Whether that be euthanasia, dissections or operations? All this in addition to researchers needing to study the effects of the experiment on the animals anatomy?

When I originally replied - I thought it was because whilst admittedly I felt you were ill-informed on the matter (as in, completely one sided) I also thought you were interested in why things are the way they are. Yet you've just had an animal tech chime in, and are refusing to even slightly consider what you've been told, AND still think you know better than scientists on why most lab animals are not suitable for rehoming.

It is based on science & responsibility to the public and the animal itself - not because people can't be arsed finding a home for an animal and therefore go for the 'easy option' and think 'fuck it, I'll just kill it instead'. I mean really.

Advances are continuously made in animal welfare - not just for labs but pet ownership, zoo's, and general husbandry. Standards are continually improving. That being said, there will still be lots of animals unsuitable for rehoming precisely because of the experiments performed on them - nevermind the demand issue.

You and I likely care for animals and their welfare just as much as each other. With animal welfare issues within society though, you really do need to research and openly consider ALL aspects and reality, not just your personal ideals.

I think we can all agree and certainly in my ideal world, no animals would be tested on. It is not the reality in the here and now.

Out of interest - is just cute dogs that deserve rehoming, or the fish, amphibians, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, primates and many many DWA that deserve it. Speciesism is not 'animal loving'.

Lots of the dogs we rehome... aren't really rehomeable.

Many of the dogs saved from meat farms were already pets, snatched off the streets - those tend to rehome ok.

Dogs that have always been street dogs do not do well when 'saved' from their freedom to do as they choose, and are locked up in houses, held on leads and forced into close contact with people.

These dogs bolt as soon as they can in many cases, or end up bouncing from rescue to rescue and frequently end up euthanised when their behaviour problems become dangerous.

Many ex puppy farm dogs are also unwisely rehomed, and live miserable, stressed lives because they have neither the genetic temperament or the life experience from an early age to cope with pet life (being a pet is HARD work and requires an enormous amount of resilience!).

Very few lab animals are ever going to be suitable as pets for a wide variety of reasons.

I don't like it, but lab dogs are raised like livestock, they are socialised/habituated for the life they will lead which is very limited, institutionalised if you will.

They don't see the outside world, they don't spend a lot of time interacting with sufficient variety of humans, they don't experience anything like a home life... taking one of the very few that can be rehomed on, is a serious rehab job that requires far more than simply the desire to love them and help them, it takes huge amounts of time, money and behaviour knowledge and even then.. often does not result in a well balanced, happy animal.

I don't like it - but then again without lab animals, I'd be dead. Since it has to happen, I'd far rather it happened HERE in the UK where our laws are some of the most stringent around, not only on how animals are kept, handled etc, but on what experiments can actually be run.

If it doesn't happen here... the fact is it WILL happen somewhere else instead.

Btw, please don't think I don't understand why you feel how you do - I really do get it.

There have been occasions I've had to cull animals and think to myself "What a waste, I wish I could take even one of these and spoilt them rotten".This is my emotional brain. My rational brain knows however that it's not possible (for the aforementioned reasons) and that it is most definitely NOT a waste - in fact it will, and has benefited millions of people's lives.

If you take any medication or vaccines, or give any medication to your children, elderly parents etc to better their quality of life - then you have animals technicians, researchers who test on animals and ultimately those animals used in the research to thank for that. In addition, you are entirely supportive on animal testing. It is a choice - you can absolutely refuse medication on animal ethical grounds if you want to (although I don't recommend it) - even if it's just because the animals are being killed rather than rehomed afterwards, rather than the fact they're actually tested on.

If you use medication, you morally and financially support ALL the standards, not just the research.