• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    as he called the practice “cruel.”

    Cool. Then we can agree that fishing, animal-based agriculture, hunting, fur farms, and puppy mills should be banned, too? Right, Doug?

    • Sunshine@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s all or nothing. Might as not do anything according to that logic…

  • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Wait I had no idea this was even allowed to begin with

    That led to an article published earlier this month that found the dogs — mostly puppies — were used for tests and killed before their internal organs were removed for further examination.

    What the fuck?

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      Animals are property in Canada. We have perhaps the worst animal rights in the western world. You can ship a hundred thinking, feeling creatures in an open grill trailer, 500km in -40C or +40C weather, without water, KNOWING for CERTAIN that most of them will arrive dead, and it is still not a crime. Animals need your attention and protection, because the people you trust won’t do it for them. Please go vegan.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Testing should be limited to the researchers and owners trying to make money out of their questionable concoctions.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      What is the decision framework they used that led to them approving inducing 3hr heart attacks in beagle puppies before killing them?

      People here seem happy to have blind faith in the system when it produced results that are objectively horrific. I would genuinely like to understand what the cost/benefit analysis was, what alternatives methods of research were considered, and why they weren’t viable.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Animals can only be used in research when there is convincing scientific justification, when expected benefits outweigh potential risks, and when scientific objectives cannot be achieved using non-animal methods. In Canada, there is federal and provincial legislation overseeing the humane treatment of animals.

        This type of intervention makes scientific evidence appear secondary to partisan political opinion, weakening the integrity of the research enterprise. Moreover, such actions embolden activist campaigns that often misrepresent the reality of modern animal research and are usually counterproductive. These campaigns frequently ignore or sidestep the strict welfare standards and regulatory requirements that govern research facilities, as well as the medical breakthroughs that benefit both human and animal health.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Blah blah blah.

          Again, tell me the specific justification in this case, given what they were doing to beagle puppies.

          I’m not interested in just hand waving it away and saying “trust the system”. If the system produces horrific results, the system should be able to openly justify why they were necessary.

          • Binturong@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            The WHOLE POINT is that it was NOT justified in this or any case! Someone broke the law AND all strictly developed regulatory practices! You should be focusing on the individual who committed the offense and tortured animals, not attacking science in Canada, and I’d argue you don’t even care about research at all and are just reacting to an emotional headline for clout.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Oh my god, someone disagreed with you, they must be arguing in bad faith!!! Run back to your curated filter bubble, don’t let a real conversation spoil your brain rot.

          • Slowy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Dogs are a particularly useful model for heart problems in humans because they naturally get several of the same conditions and diseases humans do. You can try to create genetic variants of mice to have these conditions but it’s not nearly as good as a species that naturally experiences the condition. You may waste hundreds of mouse lives for poor quality research that way.

            All studies involving animals require ethical approval involving a detailed assessment of the protocol by a committee that must include veterinarians, managers of the facility (not the lab members but outside of the research team), technicians who work directly with the animals, other researchers doing unrelated work, and a community member otherwise uninvolved in research at all. This is just for the ethical approval, they will also have to go through scientific merit evaluation by a different committee before this step. They must lay out exactly what they are doing and why it is necessary and how they are mitigating pain and distress. They may be under anesthesia for the entire heart attack, and then euthanized without waking up, or receive painkillers and be monitored constantly by a veterinarian. If they don’t do this, the work wont happen, and results wont be publishable either. Without being at that meeting we can’t know the exact technical justification, but there is a very strict process to follow and often everyone has more feelings about it when they are companion animals and they receive a lot of scrutiny.

            I’m not all for animal research, some of it is poorly done and wasteful and doesn’t have any practical use. Or the data suffers from human incompetence. But a lot of it does help humans and animals. And there is a lot more tendency to intervene on pain and distress than you’d think - a distressed animal with no pain mitigation is not a good representation for your average human receiving treatment for something at a hospital. Your average local veterinary clinic almost certainly sees far worse cases of neglect and festering horrifying injuries and disease at the hands of incompetent dog owners than a study like this would ever produce.

  • Zephorah@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    In regard to some avenues of research that’s too bad. Cats are a point of study for weight gain and loss since they appear to have issues similar to us. Some cats gain and hold weight faster than their mates with similar amounts of food. Some cats compulsively overeat while their mates do not. And so on.

    • Slowy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah not to mention animal testing isn’t just for human medical advancements… a lot of animal testing is to develop treatments for animal diseases, test new diet ingredients (after which the animals are adopted out), etc…

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sadly most aren’t adopted out as their systems/organs are wrecked so they get euthenized