For the last decade or so, and up until the last couple of months, my work in science has been in academia’s ivory towers. Working as an academic, particularly as a student or post-doc with little responsibility for bringing in grant money, allows for a lot of high minded philosophizing (hence the Ph), grand rhetoric and remarkably little gray for all the black and white.
For example, not so long ago I wrote in response to a post by cyber-friend Maggie about animal research. In the post, I zealously defended the ethics of high-minded scientists performing life-saving research. Funny thing is, and in my defense I stated this clearly in that post, I’m not now nor have I ever been an animal researcher. I’m a plant geneticist, which means that the closest I ever got to animals was chasing the occasional raccoon out of my corn field.
Until now. One of my two current jobs brings me a step closer to the world of animal research. You’ll have to pardon me if I’m not specific enough for your inquiring minds, but it’s all about self-protection. This job involves writing up research for a company that is within the broad umbrella of the “Pharmaceutical Industry”. Sitting at my desk in a building downtown, I’m still not any physically nearer the animals than when I was fannying about in corn fields or greenhouses full of Arabidopsis. In fact, I’ve been intentionally avoiding a trip down to the animal house as I’m a bit squeamish about blood. But in the reports that I write up on a daily basis, I’m exposed to a bit of the reality of animal research and, out of the abstract, it’s not particularly nice. Sometimes these mice don’t have it easy. Sometimes they’re exposed to what turn out to be toxic chemicals and all sorts of unpleasant things happen to them. Sometimes, technicians make mistakes and the mice deal with a bit more than they should have to deal with.
But, and this is a crucial but, these things happen so that they don’t happen to people. It’s a decision that we’ve collectively made as a society. The alternative is either we test drugs on people or that we don’t develop drugs at all. My company, like most of them, is not one that is working on cosmetics or things to make your erection function. They’re, quite literally, trying to ‘cure cancer’.
Nonetheless, Big Pharma is no place for an animal loving socialist botanist. Sometimes I just have to put my precious, delicate academic morals in the cupboard and get on with the business of business. And sometimes I just have to laugh at the disconnect of it all. In a recent report I wrote the following sentence in the “Results” section:
“X days after treatment one of the mice suffered a rectal prolapse.”
Which prompted a visit a couple of days later from my boss who reminded me, “Chris, mice don’t suffer. The ethics people get very unhappy if the mice suffer. ‘The mouse developed an rectal prolapse.’”
Reallllly? Shall we ask the mouse?
—————–
Smashing Pumpkins’ “Gish” is available from
.
Popularity: 38% [?]

Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz














by maggie, dammit
21 Aug 2008 at 09:28
In my (probably not too popular, we’ll see) opinion, it’s the questioning itself that keeps us bobbing above that murky ethical water line. As long as we continue to challenge our belief systems (because really, who among us is absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are right?) we will be OK.
This post makes me respect you even more.
maggie, dammits last blog post..awards, dammit
by A Free Man
21 Aug 2008 at 09:38
Wow, Maggie, you’re awake early! I actually am always, without a doubt, right.
by A Free Man
21 Aug 2008 at 09:42
Right, not early in Wisconsin at all. About 8 pm, in fact. OK, I just totally blew my Oz to Wisconsin time zone conversion and beautifully illustrated the exact degree of my rightness to the entire blogosphere. Go Chris!
by maggie, dammit
21 Aug 2008 at 10:54
Weeeell, plus I got the pingback on my old post. Don’t give me too much credit.
But 8pm is awfully late for me, actually.
*yawn*
maggie, dammits last blog post..You probably won’t see this here again
by SSG
21 Aug 2008 at 17:28
haha
nice post though
by Angel
21 Aug 2008 at 19:19
It’s not like those of us who support animal testing actually agree with it or see nothing wrong with it. It’s just the lesser of two evils, I guess?
Like you mentioned, I don’t think we should be doing it for nonessential reasons. Don’t put questionable things in my blush, and you won’t have to put makeup on a mouse.
But I think many times it boils down to what you’ve experienced in your life, or even what someone you love is going through. There are tons of people out there who will scream about drug testing on animals… until they get a life threatening illness and need that drug themselves.
I feel bad if I kill an insect. But at the same time, speaking as someone who has been diagnosed with not one, but two terminal illnesses, it may sound cruel, but if you need volunteers to help in the animal areas, let me know.
“Pinky and the Brain” is my favorite cartoon. I LOVE it. But given the choice of those two living out a nice long life or me seeing my daughter grow up, get married, and have a family of her own… I’m really sorry, but I’m going to choose to live.
by admin
21 Aug 2008 at 21:23
SSG – you need to post something!
Angel – we’re on the same side on this one. You know that, right?
by arizaphale
21 Aug 2008 at 22:20
You’re ‘admin’ now? Very coy.
Anyway, what you said. Totally. And all credit to those who have the courage to do the dirty work so that the rest of us can get our (therapeutic) drugs.
But sorry Angel, I don’t feel bad killing insects, perhaps because we have so many killer ones over here, and after having lived through a mouse plague I really don’t mind too much what they do to them either……
arizaphales last blog post..Just An Excitable Girl*
by Jessica K
21 Aug 2008 at 22:40
Hahaha, that cartoon made me giggle, and I haven’t even finished my first cup of coffee. Nothing makes me giggle pre-coffee.
Anyway, I can see how it would be hard to disconnect from the reality of suffering animals, but on the other hand… We get a mouse in our house every winter, and I have never once felt guilty about setting traps or calling the exterminator on the little boogers. Mice are mice. They’re yucky disease carrying rodents, and I’m okay with sacrificing a few in the name of science.
by April
22 Aug 2008 at 04:25
This is a hot button issue around here as of late. A bunch of animal-activists have be terrorizing faculty in the system, breaking into their homes (while people are there), fire bombing their houses and cars.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/05/BARB124V21.DTL&hw=faculty+fire+bomb&sn=002&sc=648
I can’t find the exact quote now, but there was an article in which a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front said it was “Unfortunate that these researchers continue to endanger the lives of their families by continuing to torture animals.” Or some such non-sense. You can’t argue with these “activists” because their logic is so fundamentally flawed that they can’t see reason. They continually compare animal research to slavery, my mind just can’t make that connection. Also, they forget that if it weren’t for being involved in research projects, these animals would never exist in the first place. They keep saying how the animals would rather be running around free, and I’m sure they would, but they wouldn’t have even been born if not for these projects. And the life of a wild mouse isn’t so idyllic as they’d like to think. There are extraordinary measures put into place to make sure research animals do not suffer unnecessarily.
by Gypsy
22 Aug 2008 at 04:34
“The ethics people get very angry if the mice suffer.” Pah!! I bet the mice are more angry. Useful, lifesaving, but angry.
Gypsys last blog post..Outing myself
by Vera
22 Aug 2008 at 08:33
When I was in college I worked for a few months for an academic researcher who studied neurochemistry of depression in mice. He used to speak of “pharmaceutical doses” as the opposite of doses he used. In his research, he used the smallest possible amount of any drug that would elicit a change in behavior. Pharmaceutical doses, on the other hand, were used to document extremes (e.g., LD50, the dose which kills 50% of the animals, is an extremely important piece of info). I have also worked in a monkey neurophysiology lab, and can vouch that the head of that lab loved his monkeys and treated them extremely well. In my experience, academics are well aware of the importance of animals and do not mistreat them. And they certainly won’t kill them lightly, animals are really expensive! It seems to me academics and pharma work on different parts of the curve (s-shaped curve that describes change in a symptom at different drug doses). I doubt anyone is willing to live in a knowledge-curtailed world that would result if animal testing wasn’t being done, and I am guessing that the differences between us comes from the different trade-offs (how much harm to animals for how much benefit to humans) that are acceptable to us.
by SSG
22 Aug 2008 at 23:33
and oi spelling national socialist, it ‘a’ not ‘an’ rectal prolapse, geddit rite weel ya?
by sarala
23 Aug 2008 at 14:26
Well said. It has been years now but I’ve done some of the animal research stuff and agree that it is worth it to save lives but it still pained me to see any creature suffer. I don’t even like to step on bugs (mosquitoes are the one exception). I’m glad I don’t have to walk that line anymore.
saralas last blog post..So Many Stories. . . .
by A Free Man
25 Aug 2008 at 19:42
SSG, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
BAM! I’ve always wanted to use that quote and you totally set it up for me. Well done!
Ariza – can’t be assed sometimes to make sure I’m logged in as A Free Man rather than admin. More laziness than coyness. I agree about the dirty work folks. My work is pretty clean, all things considered.
JK – I think mice are kind of cute, but point taken.
April – I know that you’re on the front lines on this one and that can be a truly unpleasant place, particularly in your part of the world. I mean, I’m as much of a leftie as the next guy, but there’s left and then there’s whacko!
Gypsy – I think you are probably correct, but I don’t think I could write about their angriness.
Vera – well said, I just listened to a radio program about the Black Death in which half the world’s population died in a decade. It’s modern medicine, supported by animal testing that prevents that from happening today.
by Chris
26 Aug 2008 at 00:47
If someone wants to be ‘pro-animal’ there are many more effective things that you can do besides threaten and intimidate people who do animal research. People who really want to reduce the amount of animals that suffer needlessly or mindlessly can do othere important things.
Cows are overproduced, fattened quickly on food they cannot digest requiring a host of medicine to keep them healthy enough for slaughter so that we can have cheap beef seven days a week. Chickens are treated likewise, oceans are overfished, corporate farming is helping to create rapidly growing dead zones in the ocean because of runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus from massive amounts of fertilizer.
Female dogs are permanently caged, never let out only to reproduce over and over again so that people can have cheap, designer dogs that are probably going to suffer later from expensive diseases and disorders because of overbreeding.
If you want to really do something to help animals, reduce how frequently you eat meat or buy more cage-free eggs and humanly raised and butchered meat. Yes, it’s more expensive but when you support the farmers who work ethically, the prices on these items will come down. Get your dogs from a shelter or a reputable breeder. When you buy your animals at the mall, you are contributing to the needless mistreatment of animals.
I have a respect for animals that doesn’t preclude their sacrifice for my betterment. Producing drugs that can help my family stay healthy forwards that, having a BigMac for $3 every day doesn’t.
Chriss last blog post..Viva Las Vegas