Not sure which makes me rage harder:
People who proudly proclaim that they refuse to support ALS research because they use embryonic stem cells, or the people who proudly proclaim they refuse to support ALS research because they test on mice.
Some people are…
I think it’s funny that people seem to think that laboratory/research animals are treated like garbage and are not cared for. There are rules and stipulations in place. Ethics, guidelines, and safety measures must be followed by researchers. If they aren’t, the program is shut down.
Also, from some googling, from what I can find, the only animal models ALS uses at the moment are worms, flies, fish, mice, and rats. From what I understand, they’ve used primates in the past, but have stopped and there is no funding for primate research in their organization at the moment.
For the future, non-animal research testing would be optimal. ALS is already making strides to create non-animal testing a thing. Every research scientist is. It would be easier, more manageable, and probably more effective. But we are not quite there yet.
So instead of complaining about animal testing, or gosh embryonic stem cell testing (please stop and just take some time to learn some biology), people should find ways to educate themselves about research testing and support methods to produce non-animal research models.
Speaking of funny it’s down right hysterical that you want people to educate themselves on the ethics and execution of animal testing. When you seem to be so vastly uninformed yourself.
I literally work in a research lab. I had to read all the guidelines and rules for animal welfare. I had to meet with the board members of IACUC to discuss how to properly care for laboratory and research animals. I used to be extremely anti-animal testing, until I researched the topic more and learned about animal testing and how there are strict rules in place to keep animals unharmed and free from cruelty.
Also, thanks for the link. I already read that article yesterday! If you had bothered to read my response, you would have noticed that I actually agree with the major point in article- that non-animal models of testing should be produced.
My other main point and what animal rights activist don’t seem to understand is that there are excessive rules in place to keep these animals from harm and cruelty. We need these animals in top care. We don’t just point and laugh at these animals when they are in pain or discomfort. We continually, round the clock observe them for signs of distress and act accordingly.
Also, next time, please try to find scholarly articles, websites, or publications rather than a .com website. It’ll prove much more reliable than a news media website. .edu or .gov or even .org (if you thoroughly research the information) are great places to start.
Lastly, Pamela Anderson is speaking about things that she can not give sources for. Please try to remember this.
Please read up on these links I have provided! I might be able to provide more later but these are the first ones that came to mind and I also have to get ready for my college classes soon.
THIS. I have worked in an animal research lab as well and I wish more people were educated about what really happens in there instead of spreading a bunch of outdated or manipulated unsourced information to push their ARA agenda.
The regulations vary a lot in different countries but in most countries there are lots of procedures in place to reduce stress or pain for the animals. All and every parts of a research project MUST be approved by an ethics committee, made of different people from different backgrounds, including people who have nothing to do with animal testing. Research labs must obey certains rules and undergo regular inspections by an external ethics group in order to get government funding, which most labs could not survive without. It really is a complex world.
It really does suck that we use animals in our research but it’s also not realistic to say we could do research without animals right now. Some types of research could never be done on artificial specimens even if we were more advanced in technology, and most of the technology we have right now still isn’t enough for most types of research that is done on animals. It’s in the researcher’s best interest not to use live animals, as it is much cheaper and requires less maintenance. It’s also more predictable and reproducible and the external conditions can be controlled more effectively. I do believe we can and will find ways to reduce our use of animals in research eventually, but it’ll require time, and there will always be a certain need for live animals in some types of research (behavior, neurology, teratology, pharmacokinetics, etc).