The 9 Most Tested Lab Animals

An anonymous reader writes "Discover Magazine has this odd photo gallery in which they explain why certain animals are used in scientific research. Why are high-tech contact lenses always tried out in rabbits? Why do we study monogamy in prairie voles? Etc. They say of the 9 animals: 'Taken (or stitched) together, they form a kind of laboratory doppelganger for humans.'"

Comments

They forgot one

[Anonymous Coward]

College students.

Re:They forgot one

[Anonymous Coward]

This list is terrible. I'm a molecular biologist, and one glaring omission is C. Elegans , a tiny little worm that is heavily used in fields such as developmental biology and genetics research. Also missing is the zebrafish, which is also really popular for genetics and developmental biology. While I've seen occasional tanks of frogs around the school, I don't think anyone researches caterpillars. I imagine if I told our (quite reputable) immunology department that they should switch to moths, they'd laugh me out of the school. How can the insect immune system be so similar considering they have an open circulatory system?

Re:They forgot one

[wizardforce]

Indeed. C. Elegans is one organism that should never ever be forgotten in terms of medical research. Sea urchins also deserve some mention as they are very important to our understanding of developmental biology.

Re:They forgot one

[reverseengineer]

To be fair, I don't think that list was meant to be comprehensive. In addition to the issues the parent mentions, it's a list of model organisms that includes naked mole rats, but not plain vanilla laboratory rats (they are mentioned in passing, I guess), so contrary to the /. article title, there's no attempt at a ranking here. In terms of a broader list of what sort of organisms are used for biological research, the Wikipedia page for model organism has a lot of examples.

While not on either list, my own work depends on an assist from horseshoe crabs. Horseshoe crabs have a very simple but effective immune system which produces clots upon contact with bacterial endotoxins; blood is extracted from horseshoe crabs (they are caught and released) and a substance called Limulus amebocyte lysate is extracted and is used extensively to test the sterility of drugs and medical devices.

Re:They forgot one

[jackchance]

mod parent up!

The gallery is terrible. And the slashdot title is totally wrong. It is not 'The 9 Most Used Animals'. It was more like 9 animals that have been used to make interesting discoveries.

I work at Princeton University in Molecular Biology. The most studied animals are fruit flies (drosophila), c. elegans, zebrafish, mice, and rats. Frog embryos are commonly used, because they are massive. Songbirds are studied quiet a bit in neuroscience.

The vole research is interesting and well known, but it is niche. There are very few vole labs.

I do not know any lab at Princeton or NYU (my alma mater) that studies naked mole rats, moths, rabbits, pigs or dogs.

I also found it offensive that Discovery, a site supposedly dedicated to science, seem to be pandering to animal rights activists. Why mention some rare case of abuse? You want to talk animal abuse? Look at the food industry. You want to talk abuse? Look at how humans treat each other.

Re:They forgot one

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I've never understood why people seem to freak out so much more over lab animals than they do over agricultural ones.

For anybody supported by contemporary agricultural techniques eating animals is optional. All the suffering of animals in agricultural situations is basically inflicted because they are delicious.

By contrast, until we come up with some truly amazing advances in tissue culture and computer modelling, animals are non optional for medical research. You can either stop research, and accept massive additional morbidity and mortality, or you can kill a whole lot of animals.

And yet, for whatever strange reason, medical researchers are a whole lot more likely to get a firebomb through their mail slot. Even fur farming seems to get off more lightly. I don't understand it.

Re:They forgot one

[jackchance]

Exactly. Thanks for articulating what I was thinking but too pissed off to explain.

I propose that every time anyone goes to the doctor/hospital, they have to sign a consent form acknowledging that their treatment was developed using animals.

I think that would wake people up to the reality of the situation.

Although, i think this is changing. People are becoming more educated about the food industry. At least were I live in the north east US, there are tons of vegetarians.

Re:They forgot one

[Wyatt Earp]

How about a form that consents to animal testing or they don't get treated with anything that was developed with animals?

In a generation the absurd notion that animal testing is bad will die out.

Re:They forgot one

[clong83]

I did meet a group that did a LOT of experiments with moths, but it had nothing to do with the immune system. They were studying the moth's neurology during flight and subjecting them to all kinds of interesting flight tests.

Interesting tidbit: They chopped off the moth's antennae and it lost the ability to fly. They glued on artificial antennae to the remaining stubs, and the power of flight was restored...

Re:They forgot one

[Idiomatick]

Warning: Not totally ontopic.

I want to have people saved by doctors/hospitals to sign a form saying that they were saved by science, research and hard-work, entirely without the assistance of God.

I imagine the researchers get a bit frustrated when they spend 3 years of their life figuring out a cure to something using scientific research... The doctor spends hours applying the vast quantities of knowledge he's gained through school. In the end, GOD gets the thanks??? The doctor gets a nod, and the researchers get ZERO recognition. How the fuck does that work?

Re:They forgot one

[wall0159]

No - the GP is saying that the reduction in morbidity and mortality that we enjoy is largely due to animal research. There are still many diseases that we don't understand and can't treat, so further research will help us further improve quality of life for sick people. If we cease research, then we won't get those benefits (or they will be significantly delayed, likely by decades and possibly by centuries).

I think people _do_ condone (albeit tacitly) the mistreatment of agricultural animals, and I think it's because of the "yuck" factor of some science research. I suspect that an average dairy cow probably lives a worse life than your average lab rat (I've worked on dairy farms, and know how appallingly they're treated).

Having said all this, there are difficult philosophical issues with animal research. For example, what's our basis of saying that it's ok to do research on animals so that people can live better? Is it because we're smarter? If so, is it therefore ok for us to do similar research on stupid or mentally retarded people? (remember that there are primate research labs, some of which use chimps - I think that is ethically very dicey).
I hate animal-rights activists - as a group they're a bunch of ignorant Luddites - there have been cases where they've dynamited animal research labs that were doing population studies of wild animals! But I do think that some scientists are a bit nonchalant when it comes to animal research.

For what it's worth, I'm vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, but I do believe there is a place for scientific animal research/testing at this point in time.

Re:They forgot one

[Wyatt Earp]

Animal testing isn't just for disease, but for drugs, tape, sutures, everything.

Computer models aren't going to solve everything, animal testing and human tests will continue on for decades.

Explain to me how using a rat or a cat to test something that will save 1,000 human lives is barbaric and uncivilized.

Re:They forgot one

[crmarvin42]

I think people _do_ condone (albeit tacitly) the mistreatment of agricultural animals, and I think it's because of the "yuck" factor of some science research. I suspect that an average dairy cow probably lives a worse life than your average lab rat (I've worked on dairy farms, and know how appallingly they're treated).

As someone who has also worked on a half dozen dairy farms in the north east I have to ask you WTF are you talking about. I'm asking becuase I've seen alot of people interpret management practices that minimize stress as being abuse based on the human tendancy toward anthropomorphizing (what would I want in that situation).

I've worked on operations that utilized rotational grazing and daily pasure access, as well as freestall barns with an 8x8 milking parlor, and one thing has been constant across all the farms I've worked on and that's the razor thin profit margins. Abused cows, or even more subtley stressed ones, produce less milk for the same amout of feed intake. Therefore, abusing or stressing your cows is a sure-fire way to end up filing for bankruptcy.

Re:They forgot one

[Bakkster]

To be fair, I think God gets a lot of the blame when things don't work out, too. And how many atheists do you think thank the researchers instead of just the doctor?

That said, most people I know thank God for providing a good doctor who performs their treatment effectively, as well as for putting them in the 80% (for example) of people for whom the treatment works. I don't know anyone who doesn't thank the doctor as well.

Re:They forgot one

[AlexiaDeath]

I was raised on a farm in Eastern Europe and abuse of cattle was never OK. Occasionally some became meat, but even that was handled with minimal suffering. To produce milk you need healthy cows and to manage them you cannot mistreat them. 500kg of angry cow is near impossible to stop. Getting crushed or gored is not funny. Getting accidentally stepped on during milking is bad enough. And even with the most domesticated beasts you need to watch out before doing something they are not used to. I once had to bring home a young cow, who didn't know anything about being lead on a leash and I put it on one, hoping to manage to keep her in control and out of neighbors vegetable garden better. I got yanked to the ground, dragged a few meters and stepped on a few times before I got to my senses and let go. Lucky I got away with only bruises, could have gone a lot worse. People who don't respect large animals dont stay in the trade very long.

Re:They forgot one

[Rary]

I've never understood why people seem to freak out so much more over lab animals than they do over agricultural ones.

Because people are ignorant.

Most people, when they think of animal research, think of animals being tortured. Those same people, when they think of agricultural practices, think of happy little family farms where animals live a wonderful life and then eventually die a quick and painless death for the greater good.

They think this way because they are also selfish. Being opposed to animal research is easy. Being opposed to animal food, on the other hand, means actually changing the way they eat. And, hey, meat is tasty. Eating it gives pleasure. Few people are willing to give up pleasure for a little thing like ethics.

Those same people usually can't be bothered to do a little research and boycott products that do invasive animal testing.

Morals are okay as long as I don't have to change my ways in order to have them.

Re:They forgot one

[sznupi]

In a generation the absurd notion that animal testing is bad will die out.

Don't count on it. It doesn't matter if it happens after reproductive period. And such people are among those who usually reproduce, well, like rabbits.

Re:They forgot one

[sznupi]

Uhm, no. There's this "Satan"/etc. safety valve that stops people from blaming gods too much. And even if gods are held responsible, it's always: "I wasn't good enough, I wasn't praying enough, gods are testing me, it is beyond our understanding" - they always have some excuse

And please, religious folks understanding medical statistics? Where on Earth have you seen that?

Consider: if they would understand statistics, there would be no miracles. But you hear about one from time to time, when the patient simply managed to be in the very small group that survives serious condition. But...why it's not a miracle when somebody dies from flu? Why? The mechanism is the same.

Re:They forgot one

[alexo]

Prove irrefutably that God in no way guided the researcher and I'll sign that statement in its' entirety.

Prove irrefutably that an Invisible Pink Unicorn didn't.

Re:They forgot one

[MuscaDomestica]

I also found it offensive that Discovery, a site supposedly dedicated to science, seem to be pandering to animal rights activists. Why mention some rare case of abuse? You want to talk animal abuse? Look at the food industry.

As someone who worked in an animal lab and a pet store I have to say the pet industry is much worse on the animals then labs.

Re:They forgot one

[Cytotoxic]

They were saying the same thing 30 years ago. I'll issue the same challenge to you now that I used to use back then: If you really believe that an alternative method to animal testing exists and is better - go out and market it. You'll be a very wealthy man by the end of the week. Fabulously, ridiculously wealthy. Animal testing is hideously expensive, and everyone who has to do it would gladly use an alternative given the chance. These economics are what drives innovation in the areas of new research models, as well as speed and scalability. The moralizing of a fringe group who is too far removed from agrarian society to understand the natural world has minimal impact, at best. Mostly they just force researchers to waste money on more security.

Re:They forgot one

[alexo]

Invisible and pink are mutually exclusive. Q.E.D.

So are "Virgin" and "Mother".

Ok, new plan...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I say that we cease research on whatever animals in that gallery are cutest, and start testing on web developers who use Flash to do things that could easily have been done without.

Lest I be accused of being inhumane, any such web developer who can show that his boss forced him to do so may personally perform the experiments on his boss.

Re:Ok, new plan...

[dgatwood]

Nah. You'd need at least JavaScript and CSS3 (which in practice probably means an HTML-4-compliant browser) to do the transitions and stuff.

humane testing

[timmarhy]

I'm all for testing as long as it doesn't cause apprechiable suffering for the animal. limited tempary discomformt i can live with, but making another living thing which feels pain live or die in agony is as evil an act as i can imagine.

especially when it's for something shallow like cosmetic testing.

Re:humane testing

[timmarhy]

what about it, do you need one?

Re:humane testing

[Darkness404]

The thing is though, I'd much rather a dog, mouse, or even a monkey suffer compared to a human. Plus, how the hell does cosmetic testing make something feel pain? Unless you are putting acid in your mascara or something in which case I'd rather something live in agony then that make it to store shelves!

Re:humane testing

[Tigersmind]

What about if it may save many human lives? Cosmetic testing is probably not as bad as drug/vaccine/antibiotic testing or general research, which can be pretty horrific and is pretty much guaranteed to cause great sufferring, but all those things are fundamental to our ability to save many people.

The world would be much worse for us without medical research, but it does create what might as well be factories of suffering for lab animals. They even breed lab animals specifically with the worst genetic diseases, which would be the ultimate cruelty if it didn't bring the possibility of future cures.

Hard not to be conflicted about it I think.

Better them than me.

See how easy that was :)

Re:humane testing

[timmarhy]

I'm not naive about it, i do understand many treatments that keep people alive to do were born out of some pretty horrific animal testing. But what i do think is that we SHOULD feel bad about it, and it should motovate us to find alternatives that get the same result with less cruelty. too often in labs this is glossed over and researchers don't stop to think about it.

I will qualify this with the fact i don't think all animals are equal. an ant for example doesn't feel the same pain as an animal with a more complex nervous system.

And you see here's the thing about animal cruelty. it invariably leads to cruelty to humans, because such a low value is placed on life and it desensitises people to suffering. you'll find a direct correlation between people that are cruel to animals and how they treat other people.

Re:humane testing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd be curious to see that researched(or, if it already has been, the numbers).

It is definitely the case that people who take up animal cruelty, for its own sake, are Seriously Bad News. It also wouldn't surprise me if 40 hours/week of slaughterhouse or animal tech work lends one a certain detachment.

However, it is also the case that people are really good at compartmentalizing what they do. It isn't obvious that people whose motive is research, rather than animal cruelty for its own sake, are especially disposed to be cruel in other areas. Indeed, it isn't even necessarily the case that they are placing a low value on life. Medical research does tend to imply minimum ratios between the values of various lives(how many test animals used vs. how many lives saved) which can be uncomfortable; but assigning ratios is not necessarily the same as devaluing.

Re:humane testing

[Toonol]

So you don't care about kids that might drink shampoo, or the effects if they get some in their eye?

Re:humane testing

[Darkness404]

They don't test (for example) shampoo by giving the test animal a nicer shower. You force the animal to ingest (to test what would happen if a child drank the bottle). Or dripping the shampoo into the test animal's eye. I'm sure you can imagine other scenarios.

...So they make sure that the shampoo won't kill a living being if it is ingested? I think that is a rather sane thing to do. Similarly with putting things in their eyes, I don't want shampoo that will blind me if I get a bit of it in my eye.

These tests are often unnecessary & you can't really be sure that the test animal & a human subject would react in the same way in any case.

Sure, but its a lot better for a dog to lose an eye than for a human being to. Or to kill a few mice rather than someone's toddler. And sure, you can't be 100% sure that they will react the same, but you can sure weed out any disastrous effects.

Seriously, if you thought about this for a fraction of a minute before posting, you would've figured this out. Are you some sort of retard who types without thinking?

Are you some kind of bleeding-heart idiot who thinks that a mouse's life is worth more than a human's life? Guess what? I think -all- of us have gotten shampoo in our eyes and probably managed to get some of it in our mouths at one point or another. I think you would have a quite different opinion of this issue if you were blinded/killed by your shampoo.

Re:humane testing

[psnyder]

if you are putting a chemical into a shampoo you think might blind someone, wtf are you doing?!?!

This is a common misconception.

The truth is, every scientist in industry (ie: making products to sell) wants all of the animals in their experiments to come out completely safe and healthy.

Why? Because the company has already spent a LOT of money in development by the time it gets to animal testing. Animal testing is expensive (but required by law) and it only comes after everything else has been tried. At this point, the company believes the product to be safe. It then becomes the toxicologist's job to make sure it's absolutely safe on actual living beings.

They start with the lower order species such as mice and if the mice are okay, they move up the ladder of complexity (with the top being primates), and finally they test humans. Yes, humans. Human volunteers are the final stage of testing. If there are any problems along the way, the project is stopped there. The company loses their investment, but it is less than what they would pay in lawsuits should their product start hurting people.

If all the animals and humans are safe, then the company gets to make money on whatever they developed.

If you don't believe these companies are ethical, at least believe that they want to make money. Animal testing is the last step, and every company wants the animals to remain healthy.

Re:humane testing

[crmarvin42]

As someone with 8 years animal research experience, preceeded by 4 years of animal husbandry experience, I have to disagree with the entire premis upon which your post is based. While it is true that there was no oversight on early research with animals, that has not been the case for a long time.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) are required by federal law in any research institution that gets any federal funding. Their role is in the approval of any research protocol that involves the use of live animal models. They have absolute VETO power over any pending research. They are required to consist of experienced researchers as well as laymen from the community with no connection to the institution. The whole function of an IACUC is to ensure that
1. The research is needful (not needlessy replicating a trial or using animals when another model would be more appropriate),
2. Animal use is large enough for statisticall validity, but not wasteful (if you can get by with 100 mice they won't let you use 200 just because you have them handy),
3. Animal suffering is avoided whenever possible (suffering is allowed only if unavoidable, but then you need to justify why the suffering is necessary, and these protocols get a lot more scrutiny), and
4. Animals will have access to Veterinary care as needed.

Furthermore, every researcher I've ever met go into animal research because they like animals and enjoy working with them. Most have multiple pets whom they treat better than some people treat their own children. You are correct that there is a certain amount of desensitization that occurs, but it is not to the unnecessary suffering of animals. We all minimize the amount of pain and suffering that our animals will experience based on our best understanding of what exactly causes them to suffer. We are not these insensitive, unfeeling, monsters who abuse animals and don't give it a second though.

Besides, the current focus on PAIN as the primary causitive agent of suffering is misplaced. Animals find chronic FEAR to be far more stressful than chronic pain according to behavioral studies I've seen presented by the Animal Behavior group at my university.

Also, you are correct that there is evidence that animal abuse is correlated with human abuse (correlation != causation), but it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because abuse (unnecessary pain or suffering) is not the rampant problem you believe it to be.

Rabbits and contacts....

[dgatwood]

I would think it would be obvious why they put contacts on rabbits. They tried it on cats, but they gave up after they had to amputate a scientist's arm from the claw damage.

Re:Rabbits and contacts....

[ThrowAwaySociety]

I would think it would be obvious why they put contacts on rabbits. They tried it on cats, but they gave up after they had to amputate a scientist's arm from the claw damage.

Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with a threatened rabbit. (Hint: they have claws, too.)

Re:Rabbits and contacts....

[MichaelSmith]

Thats very true. One summer my parents cat got into the habit if sleeping on their pot belly stove. First time we used it that year this horrible scream was heard around the house. The cat charged across the living room, bounced off the far corner ricocheted into the kitchen and huddled under the kitchen table.

So then I applied the standard treatment for burns, to immerse the affected area in cold water.....

Re:Rabbits and contacts....

[Hatta]

I would think it would be obvious why they put contacts on rabbits.

I don't get it. With all the carrots, you'd think rabbits wouldn't need contacts.

Pigs

[humphrm]

It's interesting that they don't mention pig skin grafts for burn victims. I guess today, those are considered sub-par to human grafts.

I owe a lot to a pig - 25 years ago or so, I suffered a major burn on my head. I was rushed to UW/Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, which besides being a welfare hospital, is one of the premier burn units in the U.S. So, I was lucky that I was only a few miles away from it. After the "scrubbing" (which you do not want me to describe here) they had to come up with a graft that would act like human skin, but not be rejected by my immune system. Pig skin grafts were the hot (if you'll excuse the pun) medicine at the time, because pig skin actually has a lower rejection rate than donor human skin (the only other alternative being, removing and grafting skin from another part of the victim's body, which I'm told is very unpleasant, albeit less than "scrubbing".)

So after a third degree burn, and a successful pig skin graft, I was released after about a week or so. Without the pig skin graft, I'm told I would have spent months in the hospital dealing with the effects of anti-rejection drugs.

P'raps the pre-graft typing of human skin tissue has improved, reducing rejection. That's great. But I still owe a lot to a pig.

Title is wrong

[Bueller_007]

These are not the nine most tested lab animals, as they admit on the first page. It's a list of "some of the animals that stand in for humans in medical research", and it excludes mice for god's sake. How could anyone who read this list think that it represents "the most tested lab animals" if it doesn't include mice or rats? There aren't even any fish on the list.

The list is:
1) Fruit flies
2) Moths
3) Frogs
4) Naked mole rats
5) Prairie voles
6) Rabbits
7) Beagles
8) Pigs
9) Monkeys

cosmetics

[astar]

I am kind of an old guy, so I sort of remember when animal cosmetic testing was something of an issue. Here is what I sort of remember. First of all, it is not quite about testing cosmetics, but testing the components of cosmetics. So if you have just a little of something in a cosmetic, the test animal gets a lot of the pure thing on them. Also, suppose a cosmetic was to be applied to the skin. Well it needs to be tested ingested and in the eyes and its pure components too. I hope this is helpful.