- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
animal testing
- Thread starter jkq202
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 3,969
Wait, back it up. Are you seriously saying that you feel that things like HIV that are "preventable" should not have the proper research going into them to try to find effective treatment strategies? Excuse my bluntness, but that is quite possibly one of the most narrow-minded, ridiculous statements I have heard in a long time. Who are YOU to dictate what is and isn't important enough to use animal research on? Do you know anything about HIV and AIDS statistics outside of our sheltered little country, including the absolute epidemic in Africa? Get down off of your moral high horse for a moment and do some research before spouting off such statements as these ones. The fact is, there aren't many models of research that are more effecient and effective than animal models, and trying to work ways around them is implausible given the current state of funding for health research in our country. If animal rights groups had their way, this country would begin lagging far behind the rest of the world in medical research, which certainly wouldn't help those matters at all.
Your whole "for the animals" crusade is well and good, but where does it stop? Keeping animals in cages is cruel? Let's extend that to crate training, those animals are in cages a lot. Honestly, my pets would be a lot happier if they just got to roam the neighborhood all day, keeping them in my house and yard is not ideal for them as far as they are concerned. All of our dogs and cats should just run free! That is a very slippery slope you're standing on and I would caution you to try to refine your argument a little if you don't want to sound like a PeTA wackjob.
Your whole "for the animals" crusade is well and good, but where does it stop? Keeping animals in cages is cruel? Let's extend that to crate training, those animals are in cages a lot. Honestly, my pets would be a lot happier if they just got to roam the neighborhood all day, keeping them in my house and yard is not ideal for them as far as they are concerned. All of our dogs and cats should just run free! That is a very slippery slope you're standing on and I would caution you to try to refine your argument a little if you don't want to sound like a PeTA wackjob.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 962
- Reaction score
- 2
First of all, people do need to take in cholesterol. Do some people take in excess? Yes. Do these people deserve medical intervention? Yes. The current drugs for cholesterol have a host of undesirable side effects and there are valid reasons for trying to develop safe drugs. Could everyone take the old MAOIs and tri-cyclics for depression? Sure. Have you ever met anyone on an MAOI? They have SEVERE diet restrictions and cannot take many other medications. Now, there are safer drugs, and I am thankful for that.
Try telling all the women and children getting raped in Dafur that HIV is preventable. I agree with nyanko, get off your priviledged high horse.
There are a number of reasons for testing with pox viruses. They have one of the largest genomes of any virus and most of the recombinant vaccines that YOU yourself admit to using, use a pox virus genome. Also, there are smallpox viruses still in existence and there has recently been talk of vaccinating military personnel to protect them from germ warfare. Personally, I think our troops deserve nothing less.
There are strict protocols and committees any research proposal has to go through. You should educate yourself on IACUC and the other organizations that govern the use of animals (AALAC, USDA, etc). These committees not only have scientists on them but also members of the community. The committee members have to approve the use of each and every animal. They have to show that it is an appropriate model for the disease process they are being used to study and everyone doing the studies on these animals has to adhere to these protocols to the LETTER.
You just can't beat an animal model to study on. There is no other way to do it with current technology.
There are really tight regulations on animal research (see above). If you really have problems, ask to speak to the head of your institution's IACUC committee or the lab animal veterinarian overseeing the center. They can articulate much better than I, why this is important.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
jkq202,
In the interest of addressing your concerns, I will provide you with what I know about this issue as a researcher myself. While I don't agree with some of the things you've used as examples, I can see the points you are trying to make and understand why you feel uncomfortable.
There really is nothing that can make any sane researcher feel good about taking animal life save for the consolation that maybe it will benefit human society and save some people (and other animals!) someday. Don't forget, there is a huge amount of research that goes into zoonoses etc.
That said, are you familiar with the Institution on Animal Care and Use Committee? This is a board that is in place at all research institutions. It's sole purpose is to review animal use protocols and decide if they are 1. necessary 2. humane 3. the only option for answering the question. Each board has at least 1 veterinarian on it. Additionally, abuses to animal use protocols can be (and should be) anonymously reported to the IACUC.
I think you'll find that it is very difficult to do research on primates. Most labs use rodents or rabbits. For these animals, life in a cage is not so bad. Perhaps the most objectionable practice in the use of lab animals is the extreme inbreeding that they're subject to.
Additionally, it is not as though researching on higher order mammals is the ultimate goal for researchers. Quite the opposite. The best approach is to do your research in the simplest (most appropriate) model possible. For some, it's drosophila or C. elegans. For others, it's rats and mice. There are even those that work on zebrafish.
No one will argue with you that life is worth preserving. Whether or not animal life and human life are equivalent- that's rather an unproductive argument based more on emotion and belief than logic or reason.
The reason that animal testing is common is because it's very difficult to look convincingly at etiological factors ex vivo. When you isolate cells from the animal and start screwing around in vivo stuff tends to get a little wanky. Thats why most researchers work in vivo and in vitro. It's hard to characterize a system (for example, a signaling cascade) if you don't have all the players. Additionally, it can be quite difficult to understand the "greater good" of every study unless you are fairly familiar with the very long-range goals of that work. This is why the IACUC exists. For example, my lab looks at 1 protein in part of a larger signaling system during development. What do we gain by looking at it? Well we can understand a little more about development in general, but someday maybe somebody else will use what we've learned in conjunction with a bunch of other stuff to cure developmental diseases you know? Additionally, brain development is very similar to tumor development, so we can start to tease out some of the factors involved with that as well.
I do take issue with your stipulation that we should only use animals to research disease that are of an epidemic proportion. That's just not fair; however I will say that there ought to be more emphasis on studying those diseases (but because they affect 3rd world countries rather than our own there is a disheartening lack of urgency- I'll stay off that soapbox for now).
Anyway, this was a long post- probably filled with things that you already know. If you want to talk more about this issue, feel free to respond of PM me. It's an important issue, and I wish that more researchers took the time to explore their own ethical and moral thoughts on animal use.
In the interest of addressing your concerns, I will provide you with what I know about this issue as a researcher myself. While I don't agree with some of the things you've used as examples, I can see the points you are trying to make and understand why you feel uncomfortable.
There really is nothing that can make any sane researcher feel good about taking animal life save for the consolation that maybe it will benefit human society and save some people (and other animals!) someday. Don't forget, there is a huge amount of research that goes into zoonoses etc.
That said, are you familiar with the Institution on Animal Care and Use Committee? This is a board that is in place at all research institutions. It's sole purpose is to review animal use protocols and decide if they are 1. necessary 2. humane 3. the only option for answering the question. Each board has at least 1 veterinarian on it. Additionally, abuses to animal use protocols can be (and should be) anonymously reported to the IACUC.
I think you'll find that it is very difficult to do research on primates. Most labs use rodents or rabbits. For these animals, life in a cage is not so bad. Perhaps the most objectionable practice in the use of lab animals is the extreme inbreeding that they're subject to.
Additionally, it is not as though researching on higher order mammals is the ultimate goal for researchers. Quite the opposite. The best approach is to do your research in the simplest (most appropriate) model possible. For some, it's drosophila or C. elegans. For others, it's rats and mice. There are even those that work on zebrafish.
No one will argue with you that life is worth preserving. Whether or not animal life and human life are equivalent- that's rather an unproductive argument based more on emotion and belief than logic or reason.
The reason that animal testing is common is because it's very difficult to look convincingly at etiological factors ex vivo. When you isolate cells from the animal and start screwing around in vivo stuff tends to get a little wanky. Thats why most researchers work in vivo and in vitro. It's hard to characterize a system (for example, a signaling cascade) if you don't have all the players. Additionally, it can be quite difficult to understand the "greater good" of every study unless you are fairly familiar with the very long-range goals of that work. This is why the IACUC exists. For example, my lab looks at 1 protein in part of a larger signaling system during development. What do we gain by looking at it? Well we can understand a little more about development in general, but someday maybe somebody else will use what we've learned in conjunction with a bunch of other stuff to cure developmental diseases you know? Additionally, brain development is very similar to tumor development, so we can start to tease out some of the factors involved with that as well.
I do take issue with your stipulation that we should only use animals to research disease that are of an epidemic proportion. That's just not fair; however I will say that there ought to be more emphasis on studying those diseases (but because they affect 3rd world countries rather than our own there is a disheartening lack of urgency- I'll stay off that soapbox for now).
Anyway, this was a long post- probably filled with things that you already know. If you want to talk more about this issue, feel free to respond of PM me. It's an important issue, and I wish that more researchers took the time to explore their own ethical and moral thoughts on animal use.
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
The answers above have covered everything pretty well. But from my current experience working in a lab with TB infected guinea pigs, their treatment and care are watched closely by the vets on staff and we have a whole room dedicated to 'enrichment' tools to keep them content as possible.
I was also wondering with the views you had, why you would want to do an internship in a research lab that uses animal models? I would think they would have warned you ahead of time.
I was also wondering with the views you had, why you would want to do an internship in a research lab that uses animal models? I would think they would have warned you ahead of time.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 2
When you applied and accepted the position you had, did you not take a tour of the lab and know what you were getting your self into?
Your comment about high cholestrol was way out of bounds, especially for someone who wants to be in the medical profession. Your sensitivity needs work. You won't keep any clients if you preach to them that the problem their beloved animal is facing was "preventable". "Mr. Jones, your dog would not have to have the rod installed in his leg if you had just held onto the leash." Yup, I'd come back to that clinic~!
And as far as your comment "In my opinion, animal testing should be an occasional, rare last resort type deal for diseases that threaten large amounts of people" - so helping those who are affected with something that doesn't exist on a large scale is out of the question? Remember that when a loved one contracts a rare disorder!
Spend a day in the life of someone who doesn't wear your golden slippers. I too believe in ethical treatment of animals, but you never know when one discovery will lead to another.
Your comment about high cholestrol was way out of bounds, especially for someone who wants to be in the medical profession. Your sensitivity needs work. You won't keep any clients if you preach to them that the problem their beloved animal is facing was "preventable". "Mr. Jones, your dog would not have to have the rod installed in his leg if you had just held onto the leash." Yup, I'd come back to that clinic~!
And as far as your comment "In my opinion, animal testing should be an occasional, rare last resort type deal for diseases that threaten large amounts of people" - so helping those who are affected with something that doesn't exist on a large scale is out of the question? Remember that when a loved one contracts a rare disorder!
Spend a day in the life of someone who doesn't wear your golden slippers. I too believe in ethical treatment of animals, but you never know when one discovery will lead to another.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
- Reaction score
- 34
Perfectly preventable? You must have been in the test group for the vaccine or something, because HIV is far from perfectly preventable.
You do realize that anyone working in the human medical field with exposure to blood is at some level of risk? I am sure you would feel all hunkey dorey holding down the drug addict having seizures while someone else is trying to place a catheter in them. There is no level or precaution that would make HIV "perfectly preventable" in that case short of not treating the patient.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 2
You started an internship at a med school as a prevet?😕
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 2
No it is a question (if you knew me you would not even ask me that question, it is almost too funny the irony in you asking me that). I did not know there were internships in lab animal medicine for prevets at the med schools.
So now that you know, is your internship actually in lan animal medicine or are you assigned to research?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 2
okay so what is confusing is:
1. your species breakdown- Most of the Med schools have at least 90% rodents, so if you're seeing all of what we call (if you have not figured it out yet, I work at a med school😉) "large animal species", you are not likely to be doing any veterinary work, but more likely research.
2. What you're describing (I could be getting this wrong) sounds like you are working for one of the labs that conduct research, a very different perspective than a lab animal "internship" would be.
3. I find it hard to believe that it would be called an "internship" if it was in lab animal medicine, as that usually means post DVM paid position (extern or preceptorship maybe but intern hard to believe) if you were an intern in a research lab, now that is a whole other story.
So can you clarify, or would that possibly out the institution for which you work (it is a small world after all)😳
I assume that you were open enough to explain your reservations/beliefs to your mentor, it is only fair, that is if you are truely trying to be open minded and all🙂
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 17,079
- Reaction score
- 15,949
There is never going to be a cure for AIDS (this is not my opinion, it is what I have learned through the aforesaid people as well as lots of articles). There is the possibility of developing better drugs to treat it, but there will never be an effective vaccine to completely cure AIDS. And as depressing as that sounds, it is most likely true.
First of all, how do you know that if you don't research it? Developing better drugs will also require animal models before it can go into human testing.
Do you believe that everyone who acquires a preventable disease has no right to a cure?
Because that is what it sounds like you're saying. Please correct me if I am wrong, but realize that you are coming off that way and it's quite offensive.
As for cures vs palliative medicine, there is also benefit to research supplemental medication even though it may not be a miracle cure. This summer I'm using dietary modification and supplementation in mice with induced autoimmune nephritis. We induce disease in this animal, yes. Is this going to be a cure for lupus-associated nephritis? No. But you go one step at a time.
And if they aren't cleaning the pig pens, they need to be cited. I worked as an animal care technician for a year for all of the laboratory animals here at VMRCVM, and have personally hosed and cleaned our pig rooms DAILY.
They are species specific poxviruses such as monkeypox, mousepox, etc. So why are we worried about them?
Well maybe, just maybe, we're researching to find cures for animal diseases too. Maybe not at a medical school, but veterinary schools certainly do. In fact, a large proportion of our research goes towards animal-related diseases, and not specifically zoonoses.
And you still haven't backed up your AIDS is preventable statement and should receive less funding, which is preposterous.
Again, think of the millions of people who did not choose to get this disease and are dying from it. They deserve just as much care and research put into a better medication/vaccine/cure/what-have-you.
I can't believe you suggested funding be cut from such AIDS research and go towards education about prevention, when you said a few sentences earlier that people with preventable diseases (i.e. the "preventable" form of AIDS as you insinuate) don't even deserve care. Why should we be putting money towards their education then, hmm?
First of all, how do you know that if you don't research it? Developing better drugs will also require animal models before it can go into human testing.
Do you believe that everyone who acquires a preventable disease has no right to a cure?
Because that is what it sounds like you're saying. Please correct me if I am wrong, but realize that you are coming off that way and it's quite offensive.
As for cures vs palliative medicine, there is also benefit to research supplemental medication even though it may not be a miracle cure. This summer I'm using dietary modification and supplementation in mice with induced autoimmune nephritis. We induce disease in this animal, yes. Is this going to be a cure for lupus-associated nephritis? No. But you go one step at a time.
And if they aren't cleaning the pig pens, they need to be cited. I worked as an animal care technician for a year for all of the laboratory animals here at VMRCVM, and have personally hosed and cleaned our pig rooms DAILY.
They are species specific poxviruses such as monkeypox, mousepox, etc. So why are we worried about them?
Well maybe, just maybe, we're researching to find cures for animal diseases too. Maybe not at a medical school, but veterinary schools certainly do. In fact, a large proportion of our research goes towards animal-related diseases, and not specifically zoonoses.
And you still haven't backed up your AIDS is preventable statement and should receive less funding, which is preposterous.
Again, think of the millions of people who did not choose to get this disease and are dying from it. They deserve just as much care and research put into a better medication/vaccine/cure/what-have-you.
I can't believe you suggested funding be cut from such AIDS research and go towards education about prevention, when you said a few sentences earlier that people with preventable diseases (i.e. the "preventable" form of AIDS as you insinuate) don't even deserve care. Why should we be putting money towards their education then, hmm?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
- Reaction score
- 34
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 962
- Reaction score
- 2
Since you are well acquainted with IACUC, why don't you report what you've found to the person overseeing your institution's committee? You can do that with impunity.
And I'll take the hit on cholesterol, you're right. But not everyone chooses your lifestyle. I have no intention of giving up meat or animal products. I've been on commercial farms. I know the conditions. Yet I still make the choice to eat meat. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Honestly, if you are so well informed on your studies' IACUCs, why did you still choose to take the job? You can get through vet school without doing this type of work. Lab animal research is not for everyone. If you want to do research, you can get involved in retrospective studies, studies using cell cultures or studies involving client-owned animals with informed consent. I'm sure you're going to slam me because you already know this or have done it, but if so, why aren't you doing it now?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 2
I thought so. So the OP actually took this to pad his/her resume when his/her moral beliefs do not agree. Wow what a hypocrate
In that case I will not even try to explain. Hopefully you are not one of my students😡
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 3,969
You know what, it's not worth it. Obviously all the OP wants is a circlejerk hugbox where everyone just agrees that he/she is right and animal research is completely evil and all those ho-mo-sexuals, hookers and drug addicts who have AIDS don't deserve to be taken care of and anyone who eats meat deserves to have a heart attack. I'm done here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,709
- Reaction score
- 3
Actually, pressmom, they are currently vaccinating U.S. troops against smallpox pre-deployment. So you're even more right than you knew. 🙂
To the OP: Despite the huge public health success (smallpox eradication) accomplished by means of the smallpox vaccine, it's still a fairly scary vaccine. The list of contraindications is enormous. And with the increasing immunocompromised population in the U.S. and abroad, it's really a poor vaccine should we ever need it again. The use of a BT agent is probably not high, but man is smallpox a good candidate. (Although there is some disagreement on this among experts, there are very compelling arguments for why smallpox would be a really great agent to chose for BT.)
Also, monkeypox does cause disease in humans. More prevalent in Africa for sure, but it's not a non-threat. Plus, ever heard of viruses jumping the species barrier? I'd say aside from the BT/BW concern, that's probably why people are still very concerned with poxviruses.
Not to mention every (nearly every?) species has their own specific poxvirus. Humans, animals, plants, you name it. Crazy, huh? Gotta think there's more to study there than just, "Hey, we humans don't have it anymore, who cares!?" Not to say this idea in and of itself justifies using animal models to study smallpox. But similarly the fact that we've eradicated naturally occurring smallpox infections from humans is not a full enough reason to not study it or other orthopox viruses anymore.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
you're welcome, JKQ-
While I disagree with some of the things you've said, I disagree EVEN MORE with Nyanko- it is NOT "more fun" when there's an actual debate going on...
it's more fun when we have rational discussions which work towards benefitting everyone in the community and avoid pissing people off... what good does that do?
so, you're welcome JK. And please do PM me if you want to have a grown-up people discussion about the concerns you've raised.
But seriously- if you're observing despicable conditions for the pigs at your institution PLEASE blow the whistle- you can do so anonymously! And it's the right thing to do.
While I disagree with some of the things you've said, I disagree EVEN MORE with Nyanko- it is NOT "more fun" when there's an actual debate going on...
it's more fun when we have rational discussions which work towards benefitting everyone in the community and avoid pissing people off... what good does that do?
so, you're welcome JK. And please do PM me if you want to have a grown-up people discussion about the concerns you've raised.
But seriously- if you're observing despicable conditions for the pigs at your institution PLEASE blow the whistle- you can do so anonymously! And it's the right thing to do.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 3,969
nevermind, done here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 194
- Reaction score
- 1
I had to post even though there's not much left to be said. Although I do not share the views of the OP, I do believe we are each entitled to our own opinion and no matter how right we believe we are, we must understand there are others who feel just as convicted in their opposing beliefs.
I also must say that although I do believe all animals' lives are of value, I doubt a rat or rabbit is going to contribute as much to our society as (most) humans. I don't think we're sacrificing the next Mother Teresa and if we used humans, we could be.
However, I don't think anyone, in any argument, should be against something (in this case animal research) unless they have already determined a better solution to the problem. It's easy to say you're against something, it's hard to find a better, more appropriate solution.
So, you're against using animals in research - what do you suggest is better? Because definitely not having research at all is not an option.
I also must say that although I do believe all animals' lives are of value, I doubt a rat or rabbit is going to contribute as much to our society as (most) humans. I don't think we're sacrificing the next Mother Teresa and if we used humans, we could be.
However, I don't think anyone, in any argument, should be against something (in this case animal research) unless they have already determined a better solution to the problem. It's easy to say you're against something, it's hard to find a better, more appropriate solution.
So, you're against using animals in research - what do you suggest is better? Because definitely not having research at all is not an option.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 17,079
- Reaction score
- 15,949
You know what, it's not worth it. Obviously all the OP wants is a circlejerk hugbox where everyone just agrees that he/she is right and animal research is completely evil and all those ho-mo-sexuals, hookers and drug addicts who have AIDS don't deserve to be taken care of and anyone who eats meat deserves to have a heart attack. I'm done here.
:
:
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2003
- Messages
- 641
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm just gonna add my little $0.02, here.
Hello? Everybody here took or will take biochem.
Humans make their own cholesterol. They also make cholesterol from plant "sterols" and oils,too. It doesn't have to be meat.
So, there are some people that make too much cholesterol, naturally. By the OP's assumption, these people shouldn't get the meds they need to survive, because of the blanket assumption "they eat meat".
Hello? Everybody here took or will take biochem.
Humans make their own cholesterol. They also make cholesterol from plant "sterols" and oils,too. It doesn't have to be meat.
So, there are some people that make too much cholesterol, naturally. By the OP's assumption, these people shouldn't get the meds they need to survive, because of the blanket assumption "they eat meat".
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 18,997
- Reaction score
- 11,455
My, my. Count me out for this one. *waves hands in air*
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
Boy, what you miss in an evening...
I'm staying out of this one, but I'd like to suggest to the OP (both due to this thread and the other one that was referenced) that s/he volunteer at an animal shelter as well. It will give you the inverse perspective and help to show varied experiences on your app.
I'm staying out of this one, but I'd like to suggest to the OP (both due to this thread and the other one that was referenced) that s/he volunteer at an animal shelter as well. It will give you the inverse perspective and help to show varied experiences on your app.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 0
It's funny, but I don't think sheltering is much of an inverse. Having done both kinds of work, I see a lot of similarities in shelter vs lab animal practice. In both situations, you are keeping a large number of animals in a relatively small space. You need to focus not only on the health of the individual animal, but on the health of the population at large. Animals who are ill or injured are often likely to be euthanized where they would be treated in private practice (I know this one is incredibly situational in both shelters and labs.)
The major differences, for me, have been that most of the lab workers I've met have received some sort of training. Many of the caretakers have at least a bachelor's degree. Shelters are often staffed by people who really do love animals, but who may not really know what they're doing. Also, laboratories have the benefit of an IACUC and of SOP's. Those don't exist in sheltering. If the animals are neglected or mistreated, there's often no organization to complain to. At least not effectively.
So yeah, the similarities are kind of funny. And I have to say that I feel the lab animals are treated better than the animals in some (though certainly not all) of the shelters I've been to/worked with. Not because shelter workers don't care. Just, again, because they often learn on the job and have to develop protocols and rules and etc as they go, as opposed to having them written in a top down fashion by an experienced lab manager or veterinarian.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 17,079
- Reaction score
- 15,949
^^^ true, I would even go farther to say that (depending on the place and project) oddly enough some research species are routinely treated just as well, if not better, than pets.
Our research horses (we have about 10-12 in actual projects - COPD, obesity, and melanoma studies - and 20 or so for procedural teaching purposes) have the easiest life ever. Pasture all day, good grain and hay depending on the year, customized diet plans courtesy of our nutritionist, acupuncture courtesy of our lab animal vet who's very into holistic med, lots of people (techs and volunteer students) grooming them .....they're spoiled rotten 🙂 but they deserve it. The research cattle are also treated very well too.
Our research horses (we have about 10-12 in actual projects - COPD, obesity, and melanoma studies - and 20 or so for procedural teaching purposes) have the easiest life ever. Pasture all day, good grain and hay depending on the year, customized diet plans courtesy of our nutritionist, acupuncture courtesy of our lab animal vet who's very into holistic med, lots of people (techs and volunteer students) grooming them .....they're spoiled rotten 🙂 but they deserve it. The research cattle are also treated very well too.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
By inverse, I meant the stated purposes of each type of institution. I also worked in both, one right after the other, and was blown away by the similarities. And I agree with you on many of your points and opinions; I just didn't want to get into all that, lest I influence the OP either way 🙂
