This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2014/jun/05/animal-research-cuteness-kittens

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Animal research can be justified – but 'cuteness' is irrelevant Animal research can be justified – but 'cuteness' is irrelevant
(3 months later)
I once lost a debate with an animal rights activist. As a I once lost a debate with an animal rights activist. As a medical researcher who has been actively involved in experiments on rodents, this may come as a surprise to some. I lost the debate because once debates about the use of animals in medical research pass the facts, the stringent Home Office protocols in place to "Replace, Reduce and Refine" and the genuine care and respect for animals that animal researchers tend to have, they inevitably reach the point of the intrinsic worth of one creature over another.
medical researcher who has been actively involved in experiments on rodents, This is when my armamentarium of facts about animal research become null and void. By this point, any hypotheticalquestions such as "if you had to choose one creature to die, a mouse or a little girl, which would you choose?" become incredibly arrogant. After all, some of the greatest thinkers in history have asserted the sanctity of all sentient creatures. It was Gandhi who said “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
this may come as a surprise to some. I lost the debate because once debates The endless philosophical debate about the sacredness of all sentient creatures is one that must not be taken lightly. After all, on a Sunday afternoon, thousands of us choose the deliciousness over the cuteness of a lamb. Oh no. I just took it lightly. Nonetheless, the approach taken by the recent Daily Mail article about the use of kittens in nine UK universities was not just ignorant, it was blatantly irresponsible.
about the use of animals in medical research pass the facts, the stringent Home Office protocols in place to "Replace, Reduce and Refine" and the genuine The fact that the pictures used in the article were taken in Wisconsin is irrelevant. Its cluster-bomb approach providing honest descriptions of the various types of experiments that have taken place is effective, but also irrelevant to my argument. They even balance the article by providing honest quotes from some of the institutions in question. In University College London, Bristol University and Cardiff University, this research has not been carried out in years and a spokesperson for Cambridge University explained the importance of their research on “a small number of cats” in the development of a potential new treatment for amblyopia. Not to mention that any British universities carrying out any such research on any creatures without stringent rules in place and prior Home Office approval would be breaking the law.
care and respect for animals that animal researchers tend to have, they All of this is still irrelevant. What matters is that it is kittens! The epitome of infinite cuteness. The cornerstone of the whole internet.
inevitably reach the point of the intrinsic worth of one creature over another. The benefits of the use of animals in medical research are obvious and quantifiable. From heart transplants, scans for improved prenatal diagnostic techniques, blood transfusions and anticoagulants to medication for high blood pressure, asthma and major depressive disease – most of us have benefited from the use of animals in some form.
This is when my armamentarium of facts about animal research become null and To combine this simple fact with the importance of a moral compass, the logical conclusion to reach is to 1) Replace the use of animals with alternative techniques or avoid the use of animals altogether when possible (my gut reaction to the use of cats in medical research is "If you have an idea that needs cats, get another idea") 2) Reduce the number of animals used to a minimum (modern techniques have reduced the number of animals used to obtain the same information by factors of hundreds in some cases) and 3) Refine the way experiments are carried out in order to minimise suffering (hence the ample training required for anaesthetic administration).
void. By this point, any hypothetical questions The reality of the use of animals in scientific research is one that when we dare to confront, we must do so with as much objectivity and open-mindedness as we can muster and as little emotive use of language as possible.
such as "if you had to choose one creature to die, a mouse or a little girl, Yes, animals are put under anaesthetic before plates are inserted into their skulls, just like many surgeons do to anaesthetised humans on a daily basis. And one cannot reach the skull without incising the skin. So if we trust the scientists and experts who dedicate their lives to deciphering the intricacies and complexities of mammalian biology in order to provide us with the treatments and knowledge that we benefit from, those of us for whom the aforementioned hypothetical question has an easy answer need to accept the whole weight of the moral dilemma that animal research bestows. And those of you who would agonise over that decision, hats off to you. Seriously.
which would you choose?" become incredibly arrogant. After all, some of the
greatest thinkers in history have asserted the sanctity of all sentient
creatures. It was Gandhi who said “the greatness of a nation and its moral
progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
The endless
philosophical debate about the sacredness of all sentient creatures is one that
must not be taken lightly. After all, on a Sunday afternoon, thousands of us
choose the deliciousness over the cuteness of a lamb. Oh no. I just took it
lightly. Nonetheless, the approach taken by the recent Daily Mail article about
the use of kittens in nine UK universities was not just ignorant, it was
blatantly irresponsible.
The fact that the pictures used in the article were taken in
Wisconsin is irrelevant. Its cluster-bomb approach providing honest
descriptions of the various types of experiments that have taken place is
effective, but also irrelevant to my argument. They even balance the article by
providing honest quotes from some of the institutions in question. In
University College London, Bristol University and Cardiff University, this
research has not been carried out in years and a spokesperson for Cambridge
University explained the importance of their research on “a small number of
cats” in the development of a potential new treatment for amblyopia. Not to
mention that any British universities carrying out any such research on any
creatures without stringent rules in place and prior Home Office approval would
be breaking the law.
All of this is still irrelevant. What matters is that it
is kittens! The epitome of infinite cuteness. The cornerstone of the whole
internet.
The benefits of the use of animals in medical research are
obvious and quantifiable. From heart transplants, scans for improved prenatal
diagnostic techniques, blood transfusions and anticoagulants to medication for
high blood pressure, asthma and major depressive disease – most of us have
benefited from the use of animals in some form.
To combine this simple fact
with the importance of a moral compass, the logical conclusion to reach is to
1) Replace the use of animals with
alternative techniques or avoid the use of animals altogether when possible (my
gut reaction to the use of cats in medical research is "If you have an idea
that needs cats, get another idea") 2) Reduce
the number of animals used to a minimum (modern techniques have reduced the
number of animals used to obtain the same information by factors of hundreds in
some cases) and 3) Refine the way
experiments are carried out in order to minimise suffering (hence the ample
training required for anaesthetic administration).
The reality of the use of animals in scientific research is
one that when we dare to confront, we must do so with as much objectivity and
open-mindedness as we can muster and as little emotive use of language as
possible.
Yes, animals are put under anaesthetic before plates are inserted
into their skulls, just like many surgeons do to anaesthetised humans on a
daily basis. And one cannot reach the skull without incising the skin. So if we
trust the scientists and experts who dedicate their lives to deciphering the
intricacies and complexities of mammalian biology in order to provide us with
the treatments and knowledge that we benefit from, those of us for whom the
aforementioned hypothetical question has an easy answer need to accept the
whole weight of the moral dilemma that animal research bestows. And those of
you who would agonise over that decision, hats off to you. Seriously.
Dr Obaro Evuarherhe is a postdoctoral behavioural neuroscientist interested in understanding episodic memory. He also plays the drums in a band, Glis Glis, with SuziDr Obaro Evuarherhe is a postdoctoral behavioural neuroscientist interested in understanding episodic memory. He also plays the drums in a band, Glis Glis, with Suzi