Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I am a researcher studying diseases. You have no idea how many mice get killed without generating any data. There's a rule in place whenever you want to work with animals that you need to plan ahead and only use as few animals as you need to get the data that you're looking for. But things in research basically never happen according to plan. It could be due to a variety of factors: unexpected failures, overlooked factors, technical errors, or just simple negligence when performing an experiment. A lot of data and samples obtained from killed mice are discarded for one or more of the above reasons.
I get that mouse experiments are important to prove that our findings can translate to actual living animals, but I personally will not touch a mouse because, frankly, the "useful data per mouse" ratio is way too low for me to justify using mice.
While you didn't get the data you were looking for, at least in many of those cases you mentioned you did identify a flaw or failure and learned how to design an experiment that does.
I wouldn't consider those mice as dieing without teaching you something. It might be a failed experiment, but you learned something.
I may be misreading them but it sounds like they're describing avoidable problems.
Like when we were doing "oral" vaccinations with a oral gavage needle (ball tip) and going through the mouth and dosing in the stomach. We had a vial of 70% alcohol to clean the tip. Accidentally drew the alcohol up instead of the vaccine. By the time we finished the cage (6 mice, I think) the first one fell over.
I was in the field for years. A lot of the mice we had were maintained with one copy of the gene of interest and crossbred to produce experimental litters (there are a lot of reasons for it, some technical, some practical). But OMG the numbers of mice we went through just to maintain the lines. Forget about failed experiments etc.
Are there any alternatives you work with, or do you abstain completely from those kinds of experiments?
Good question. You may be surprised to hear that my stance isn't that uncommon in research. If I recall correctly, somewhere around 50% of researchers personally will not use mice in their experiments. In these cases, we would either use a lower lifeform (fish or fruit flies), or use immortalized cells. Immortalized cells are aggressive cancer cells that happen to retain some of their cell properties. For instance, immortalized lung cells tend to act somewhat like actual lung cells. It's not a perfect model, since you're experimenting on cancer cells instead of actual cells, but the ease and low cost of growing and using them makes them extremely valuable for a lot of grindwork experiments, where you just need to burn through tons of different hypotheses quickly.
For me, I prefer to use immortalized cells. It works out for me anyways, since I prefer to focus on the mechanism of disease (which tends to be easier on immortalized cells) rather than practical effects of disease (which tends to require animals).
That's very informative! Thank you!
Imagine if we were doing this to our own species.
We did during WW2 and that pushed medicine further in just a few years than thousands of years of medical history before that.
Yeah, I don't think it was consensual
Can you give an example of how medicine was actually advanced? Cause I've only heard that claim made by white supremacists.
Modern medicine did not even exist before WW2. Literally everything we know is thanks to this one event. If you need just one example - antibiotics. And no, they were not invented by Nazis in their camps :) But they were tested on real people. Who died. From testing.
No one denies that wars bring medical advancements. What is questionable is the claim that Nazi experimentation advanced medical science.
Where did I mention Nazis? Where did you get them from?