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

[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

[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

[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.

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....

[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: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.