May27
Of Mice and Men
Posted at 02:24 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (12)
A not-so-stunning discovery was published in this month's volume of Nature: Mice and men aren't really the same.
In "Regenerative Medicine and Human Models of Human Disease," Kenneth Chien aptly states that much of what we know about human disease has come from animal models—genetically altered mice in particular. This is a worrisome practice when you consider that the goal isn't to cure genetically altered mouse baby boomers but rather genetically not-so-altered humans. "[G]enetically engineered mouse models ... do not necessarily mimic human physiology or precisely recapitulate human disease," Chien writes.
If you had to read that sentence more than once (as I did), here's the idea: mice ≠humans.
The article then goes on to discuss human models of disease, including human tissues and adult stem cells. This sort of work would completely bypass the classic question that vivisectors have always had to answer: "Sure, you've drugged/cut up a lot of animals, but what good are you doing for people?"
—Sean
Posted by Sean Conner, Laboratory Investigations Special Projects Coordinator
TAGGED:
vivisection animal testing mice Nature
Comments
That's a no brainer. vivisection is one of the cruelest forms of animal abuse and is nothing but pure and unadulterated torture, it is unthinkable and inhumane.
Posted by: vegancoin | May 27, 2008 05:02 PM
Vivisection is nothing if not repetative. TEN YEARS ago, May 1998, the media was buzzing about a new method of shrinking tumors in mice and declared it would surely lead to a cure for cancer. I remember it clearly because my father had cancer. He held out hope in the medical research community. They kept giving him false hope even as they picked his pockets by soliciting more money for their useless animal research. There was not, and there still is not, any cure for cancer looming on the horizon. As we helped my father die at home and witnessed his suffering, I thought of all animals suffering alone in labs and the reality was obscenely insane.
The cruelty of the false hope vivisectors give to desperate and sick people is only exceeded in their systematic and relentless cruelty to the animals in the labs. The vivisectors know their work is not scientifically valid. When the media went into a blind and ignorant frenzy over the "news" of new found ability to shrink tumors in mice, Dr. Richard Klausner of the National Cancer Institute was quoted in th LA Times, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans."
They know that animal research is not medical progress.
Posted by: Phyllis | May 27, 2008 10:53 PM
This also goes to the story I read (with mouth hanging open) on injecting primate embryos with human diseases that do not naturally appear in that species - to study "cures." If the animal does not genetically develop a particular disease, what makes their physiology in the treatment of artificially imposed conditions of any relativity to humans?
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-Professor Charles R. Magel
Posted by: Georgia Bedford | May 28, 2008 08:18 AM
If you care enough to read here maybe you can go to this site for ape protection by the Humane Society of the US. https://community.hsus.org/campaign/FED_2008_apeprotectionact.
They are gathering support for retirement to sanctuary of all great apes from research facilities.
Posted by: joanna | May 28, 2008 02:05 PM
I agree 100% with the above comment by Georgia Bedford (and the others).
In addition to the ethical reasons for being against animal testing, there are some purely personal ones. Medical "research" is often not even about helping the "patient". For example, psychiatry is often more about controlling "difficult" people than about helping them. It punishes the victims of mobbing and bullying. Advice on social skills, not "medication", is what is needed here.
If I or a family member had a serious illness, I would rather accept that there is no cure than be expected to desparately seek all the "treatment options" available. I would rather have the right to refuse medical treatment than to be kept alive regardless of the quality of life.
Experimentation on primates is especially repulsive; and many countries have either banned it or do not carry it out even if it is not formally banned.
Posted by: Simon Validzic | May 28, 2008 04:14 PM
D'oh!
Amazing discoveries in the world of science!
Posted by: Soliel | May 29, 2008 01:42 PM
Simon V,
That is real easy for you to say now! I believe the part about you not wanting treatment, but I find it hard to believe you would let a family member die, just becase the medication comes from animal testing!
Hopefully you will never be in that position. However, I would do and try anything to save a family member!
Posted by: Kurt K | May 30, 2008 11:45 AM
Kurt K, you say you would do and try anything for a family member. Pretty easy for you to say when someone voiceless is expected to give his or her life for them. How about signing yourself up for some experimentation to save you family members?
Posted by: lynda downie | May 30, 2008 10:40 PM
Kurt K: my mother died a cruel death some years ago and exactly for the reason that animal testing is guiding science on a wrong way without issue: if these barbarian airheads would stop their vivisection i think that cancer research would have a real chance!
Posted by: Rainbow Warrior | May 31, 2008 03:28 AM
I agree with Kurt K. If I find out that one of my family members is chronically ill, I'm going to recommend massive invasive testing on Kurt K to find a cure. Anything for a family member....
Posted by: Antigone1000 | June 5, 2008 10:58 AM
Antigone? That hurts, ouch!
Come on now, would you really wish that upon me?
Posted by: Kurt K | June 13, 2008 12:56 PM
Kurt K: Well, you are so quick to volunteer the life of another (who is completely innocent and defenseless, no less) at every opportunity, yet would never seriously consider volunteering your own. Seems to be the definition of cowardice, don't you think?
Posted by: Antigone1000 | June 14, 2008 02:32 AM