University College London criticised over cat testing

[RoryTee]

UCL isn't far from Essex... plenty of test subjects there...

I propose start with these cretins.





Also the people here who are proposing human testing don't realize how much of a slippery slope that is. What a step back in human rights.

[Mihalik]

I'm sure someone could find data from such a study that would be both useful and relevant.

If it is, it should be done, as cruel as it sounds. But again, the data needs to be both useful and relevant, and not obtainable by any other means, which is a basic precondition for the approval of such studies.

[Forgettable]

It's for science! It must be done some way or another. As much as I love my own cat, I would give her up in a heartbeat if I knew her life could save hundreds/thousands/millions more.

[Bearshield]

Because to test them, you'd need to allow certain parameters within laws that'd justify many horrible things to be done to not only them, but to innocent civilians after a certain amount of time. Instead of letting it snowball, you don't start to begin with. Do you realize how many tests go on per day over the globe on animals? What happens when we run low on convicted resources? Oh...seems we might expand into the mildly convicted and overnighters at jail now. Pray you don't get caught now sunny.

There is no shortage of convicted rapists and murderers worldwide, I don't think we're in any danger of "running low on resources" were we to start using them as lab rats. And perhaps if there were real consequences for those actions rather than just sticking them in prisons for a few years, we would see less of them. And what is "mildly convicted"? Either they're convicted or they're not. I'm not saying throw every person the police pick up into a lab program. I'm saying if a person is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the most serious criminal offenses, then they can "pay their debt to society" by being guinea pigs.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the people here who are proposing human testing don't realize how much of a slippery slope that is. What a step back in human rights.

If you take the life of another person you don't deserve "human rights".

[Caerule]

Animal testing is a tricky subject. I wish there had been more information on what sort of experiments these cats were used for. Broken skulls and paralysing sounds like it might have been neurological research into ways to aid in repairing nerve or brain damage, for example in paralysed humans.

They do have ethics committees that need to approve studies these days. Scientists do not have free reign to needlessly torture animals. Scientists too are seeking alternatives to animal testing. It's not like they are bastards, eager to destroy their fellow organisms.

Bioethics is about reducing suffering. You weigh costs and benefits, and sometimes there's no alternatives for animal testing yet. You are free to oppose this personally. As you are free to oppose the bio-industry that kills animals for food, rather than the betterment of our understanding and ways to help people through medicine.

None of it is ideal. And 200 years from now, we may look back on animal testing, the way we look back on other mistreatment of people and animals we conducted in the past. Unfortunately to get to that future, we still face a period where those developing ways to help others, are required to prove those ways work, and won't harm us or cause nasty side-effects. And for that, they still require animal testing.

[Daws001]

Their skulls were broken? What the hell were they testing, hammers?

[gamingmuscle]

There is no shortage of convicted rapists and murderers worldwide, I don't think we're in any danger of "running low on resources" were we to start using them as lab rats. And perhaps if there were real consequences for those actions rather than just sticking them in prisons for a few years, we would see less of them. And what is "mildly convicted"? Either they're convicted or they're not. I'm not saying throw every person the police pick up into a lab program. I'm saying if a person is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the most serious criminal offenses, then they can "pay their debt to society" by being guinea pigs.

There are not enough people in the US to meet the needs of scientific research for more than a few years....if you used EVERYONE =P

Q: How many animals are used each year in U.S. laboratories for biomedical research?
A: It is estimated that more than 25 million vertebrate animals (animals with a skeleton made of bone) are used annually in research, testing, and education in the United States. Unfortunately, no accurate and comprehensive figures are available on how many animals are used—or for what purposes—in the United States or worldwide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture does compile annual statistics on the number of dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs (as well as some wild animals and, more recently, farm animals) used in research in the United States. For USDA statistics on animal use, see Animal Care Reports here.

[Mihalik]

Their skulls were broken? What the hell were they testing, hammers?

The article was written using intentionally sensationalist wording. The cats (let's stop calling them kittens, because that is sensationalism too) where sedated (not to feel pain) after which in certain cases the top of the skull was removed to reveal the brain (just like in human brain surgery) so it could be studied.