Animal experimentation and my empathy
I also posted this topic in another forum some time ago, but the topic got closed after a while because this is an emotional topic after all and some people get a little upset, I hope we can discuss this topic in a mature way because I would not like it if this topic also get closed!
Anyway, lets start......
I could never be a scientist myself because I could never do these tests on animals because of my empathy for them, but my husband is a scientist and he has no problem with it in the name of science.
My husband is very well informed about animal experimentation and different levels of its use in contemporary science. He is also aware of the regulations of the ethics committees that take part in granting scientists permissions for use of laboratory animals in research.
One of the most common examples is the use of animals for testing of new pharmaceuticals before they enter extensive testing on humans in clinical trials. As I was told, animals provide a genetically stable and controlled background for vaccination experiments (there are specific breeds of animals with a very well defined genetic background such as the well known BALB/c mice, nude mice (no immune system), Wistar rats etc. which have been produced through controlled breeding through many generations).
Another technique very commonly applied is production of monoclonal antibodies to human proteins or other types of antigens which are normally coupled to "keyhole limpet hemocyanine" (KLH) and this together with an adjuvant for the innate immune system (like Freud´s incomplete adjuvant) is injected in mice or rats and over the course of several weeks, the animals are put under anesthesia, their spleen removed, and they are then humanely euthanized by a inter-cardiac pentobarbital injection together with lidocaine followed by mechanical cervical dislocation or decapitation. The antibodies produced by the B-cells in the spleen are then immortalized through fusion with mouse myeloma cells and are then screened against the antigen in several immunological assays to find the best clones which produce the desired antibody.
He also told me that there are certain things for which the use of animals (or at least organisms other than human) is absolutely unavoidable, but there are cases where humans could be used more (like for pharmaceutical testing trials) but are not because of several important practical as well as some ethical issues. These were just a few examples that he told me about.
- And now comes my dilemma. He told me that there are very strict animal welfare committees which grant or denie permission to scientists to work with animals. In a way I am okay with it, but at the same time I'm not okay with it.
Because I fell sorry for all those little animals who are used for human purposes without it being their choice. What do you think? Do you think that the end justifies the means or do you think there are some other points to this that neither the scientists or the animal welfare personnel have thought about?
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MixMastahTee
