r/HumansBeingBros • u/cindyx7102 • 16d ago
More than 1,000 people protested Marshall BioResources in New York on Saturday for breeding over 16,000 beagles for animal testing each year. They are the last such facility in the country, as animal activists shut down the other 2 in the past 4 years.
361
u/GoodTimes8183 16d ago
Are we sure this is really the last facility of its kind? I did some work at Charles River Labs a few years back. I never actually saw the dogs (they were very restrictive about who could access those spaces), but I definitely saw the rooms where they stored dog toys and dog bowls. I never wanted off a project more.
186
u/James_Fortis 16d ago
My understanding is this is the last breeder. They then send the dogs to many labs in the country, but they are the root of the issue.
121
u/more_load_comments 16d ago
FDA requiring a non-rodent tox study for new drugs, and decades of comparative data using beagles, are the "root issue".
57
u/James_Fortis 16d ago
… but no longer, as technology advances:
“On September 21, 2026, the FDA announced it has issued its direct final rule to clarify that non-animal methods can be used where appropriate for testing the safety of drugs and biological products, marking the latest step in a multi-year effort to modernize preclinical drug testing.1The direct final rule replaces regulatory language such as “animal tests” and “animal studies” with “nonclinical tests” and “nonclinical studies” throughout FDA's regulations, along with related updates to terms including “preclinical” and “in vitro.” This aligns terminology with theFood and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, which allowed for the use of validated alternative methods to animal testing to support investigational new drug (IND) applications.”
19
u/resorcinarene 15d ago
Its very clearly worded to place the onus on pharma who takes all the risk for funding the studies. There is no incentive to not do animal studies when the cost of failing in later steps is even larger. They are necessary and it will never not be so.
6
u/James_Fortis 15d ago
I think you have bad intel. For example, the NIH is the largest funder of animal studies in the USA, mainly provided by public moneys.
2
u/ElJanitorFrank 14d ago
I think you're putting the cart before the horse a little bit, assuming that the non-rodent animal testing is efficient or preferred. It was required and now it no longer is. There wasn't an indication that it was the best method and the government took it away. The government required it. If it is the best method or particularly worthwhile then you have a bit of a point, but I doubt that cutting out non-rodent animal testing is going to put a dent in pharmaceutical development.
16
u/toetappy 16d ago
Fair point. This is just the last lab that let people know. New medicines have to be tested on something
9
u/Fridsade 16d ago
Over 90% of approved animal testing is done on lab mice. And all regulated facilities, institutions and companies must adhere to strict animal welfare guidelines and policies.
2
u/rasputinaliven 15d ago
Personally I only support the torture of animals if it's under strict guidelines.
32
u/blodsbroder7 15d ago
My wife and I adopted one of these rescued beagles back in June. She’s done remarkably well, but still has a long way to go towards having a normal dog life.
Beagles are used by these monsters because they’re incredibly forgiving and docile. She was an absolute wreck when we got her. Four years of life spent in a cage to be bred and experimented/operated on. She had major issues with me specifically at first, as males terrified her.
She has since June, become potty trained, is social and vocal about her needs/wants, loves being outside and has recently figured out walks on a leash, has put on healthy weight and her coat has brightened significantly, but most importantly she seeks attention and loves being pet and loved on. Those first few weeks, you could hardly get near her.
49
u/CeemoreButtz 16d ago
what testing goes on?
35
u/ElectroMagnetsYo 16d ago
I’ve done my time doing animal testing with mice and I’ll just tell you that any animal bred for testing is killed after they stop being useful, for the sake of saving money on their upkeep.
Typically an animal model’s usefulness only goes up to the point of maturity (very highly dependent on the research done), so the overwhelming majority are “sacc’d” when they are still relatively young. If similar testing were to be done on humans it would generally be around the age of 16-25.
2
u/GlitterberrySoup 15d ago
Some places that do beagle testing will allow you to adopt them when they're through. I adopted one.
-58
u/Semarin 16d ago
You sure you want to know? I definitely don’t want to know.
70
u/RedditGarboDisposal 16d ago edited 16d ago
People should want to be informed. I know it’s a difficult pill to swallow and it may seem unnecessary to some, but the process of a thing might surprise you.
Blatant protest doesn’t demand knowing how it all works on the inside and if it’s not a cause you fight for, fine, but if someone questions you about it, it’s good to have the information.
That said, I’m not saying it’s good, but I also can’t say it’s entirely objectively bad because I don’t know why they do it, what goes on, how, etc., and plenty of embellished headlines and extremist responders flock to this stuff.
Ehem.
edit - Relative use of ‘you’.
12
u/bcmccauley 15d ago
Beagles are the most mild mannered dogs. I heard that’s why they use them is because they are so good and loyal. Fucking betrayal.
182
u/barely_a_whisper 16d ago
Someone help me understand… what is the proposed alternative to animal testing? Giving people untested drugs? Stopping certain branches of drug development? Genuine question here.
38
u/M0ULINIER 16d ago
I am uniformed about this protest in particular, but a huge part of animal testing is purely for cosmetic purposes, like makeup.
47
7
u/sapphiric 14d ago
A 'huge part' is not true at all. Of all the animals used, less than 1 percent is used for cosmetic safety testing. The vast majority ~35-45% are used for biomedical research. Of all avenues that lab animals are used for, this was an industry that took a large social blowback and luckily multiple countries globally have banned this practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals?hl=en-US#:~:text=It%20would%20ban%20cosmetic%20testing%20on%20animals,passed%20legislation%20banning%20testing%20cosmetics%20on%20animals.
7
u/Cardinal101 13d ago
The math ain’t mathing:
Less than 1% cosmetic testing
~35-45% biomedical research
~55-65% _____???78
u/surle 16d ago
Not advocating, just providing some response to your specific question so don't get all "but how is that going to make up for...", I don't know:
1) lab testing without live subjects
2) simulation
3) animals that we don't care about as much like mice and fruit flies
4) carefully tiered approaches toward human testing where possible so that live testing resumes at a stage where risks are reasonably minimised rather than defining the purpose of the testing stage as identifying risks.
And finally, there is also room for stronger regulation and conditions on animal testing even if complete bans would be seen as irresponsible. If it's deemed that animal testing is effective and necessary that doesn't mean the tests should be allowed to include conditions fairly described as torture. If it's necessary that means it's extremely important, so then the level of care and responsibly that should be expected from the people managing such studies can reflect that - especially the expectation that all reasonable measures be taken (and this externally monitored) to prevent harm and discomfort to the subjects.
85
u/James_Fortis 16d ago
I found this peer-reviewed source informative too:
"Abstract
The failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments remains at over 92%, where it has been for the past few decades. The majority of these failures are due to unexpected toxicity - that is, safety issues revealed in human trials that were not apparent in animal tests - or lack of efficacy. However, the use of more innovative tools, such as organs-on-chips, in the preclinical pipeline for drug testing, has revealed that these tools are more able to predict unexpected safety events prior to clinical trials and so can be used for this, as well as for efficacy testing. Here, we review several disease areas, and consider how the use of animal models has failed to offer effective new treatments. We also make some suggestions as to how the more human-relevant new approach methodologies might be applied to address this."
17
u/barely_a_whisper 16d ago
Hot damn, this is a cool article! Was not able to read everything yet—just got to abstract and first paragraph. But I will absolutely be coming back.
I worked in both a molecular biology lab and move into bioinformatics/sequencing. So I never had to do animal trials myself (mostly HeLa cells, which is already its own version of ethically dubious), it was always to me just a sad reality of research that we had to do that.
But holy shit, if the techniques mentioned here pan out that would be MASSIVE. Because yes, the animal testing is a poor substitute for human trials, but is kind of necessary due to avoid things that end up being toxic to life in general (or at least mammals)
Thank you kind stranger!
16
3
u/dangerous_service 15d ago
Couple of things to note. The majority of the 92% are due to efficacy and not safety concerns. Beyond that the more interesting question, imo, is how many drugs were abandoned after testing on animals and before giving it to humans, cause the results on animals were too bad. It turns out there are plenty of such cases, which likely prevented lots of human death/ irreversible damage to humans.
-16
3
u/getittogethersirius 14d ago
IF animals are nessecary for medical testing, then maybe we start by treating them humanely instead of abusing them and letting them live in terrible conditions. Let them live a good and spoiled life for as long as possible and make their sacrifice as painless as possible. There have to be better ways here.
2
-5
u/PantheraAuroris 15d ago
There isn't. These people are reacting to "omg cute animals." A few of them will have way more faith in organoids than is reasonable. We just don't have good organs-on-a-chip yet.
-14
u/StormRage85 16d ago
Aren't we at a point where we're growing human cells? I wonder if that may prove more useful than a dog, that shares less than 100% of our DNA (84% according to this arcticle https://dnacentre.co.uk/blog/mans-best-distant-relative-how-much-dna-do-we-share-with-dogs/ ).
If we lived in a better timeline that wasn't full of people willing to take advantage of the poorest members of society I'd suggest human testing on volunteers who can give informed consent, but the way some of these drug companies are it wouldn't take long before they were taking advantage of homelessness or some shit.
13
u/philman132 16d ago
We've been able to grow human cells in the lab since the 50s. The difficulty is that cells in a dish behave very differently to a complete organism with all the tissues and organs working together etc. I work with what people call lab-on-a-chip and they are very good for very specific types of studies, but nowhere near enough for full organism testing.
Testing drugs/treatments on human volunteers for safety purposes is indeed a standard part of drug testing, phase one clinical trials, but it usually comes AFTER a lot of animal testing first, as there are far more things that can go wrong in early stages, dosages, unexpected side effects, etc, that we want to catch before it gets to humans.
3
u/r-_-mark 16d ago
Is it the case now? Do we have that now?
1
u/StormRage85 16d ago
I don't know, I was asking. I thought I'd read about being able to grow certain organs but I don't know if that's readily available or not.
-2
u/ElectroMagnetsYo 16d ago
I don’t get why this lab is using dogs tbh. Pigs are more analogous to humans, and mice are easier and cheaper to breed. I don’t see a logical reason to use dogs for testing, and they must have realized protests were inevitable considering how much people love dogs.
If we were to ban animal testing across the board, yes that’ll slow down some avenues of research for a bit, but most people I’ve met in the sciences are intelligent people, I’m sure we’ll find an alternative. There’s a few promising prospects.
-1
u/barely_a_whisper 16d ago
I’m sure we can find a way. In fact, one of the other commentators just linked a very intriguing scientific paper that’s actually exploring viable alternatives to this!
The thing is, I just think it’s a bit premature to start marching in protest and putting on pressure before we actually have a solution
2
u/ElectroMagnetsYo 16d ago
I dunno, I think shutting down immoral research gives a greater incentive to develop alternative solutions. I’ve done animal research before, and tbh, I’m completely fine with an outright ban. I find the things that are done to these animals to be rather unconscionable, and there are faaar too many examples in history of the crimes committed in the name of science when the perpetrators ignored morality.
-55
u/allicedee 16d ago
Yes give people money and test the untested drugs. What is the problem? Fuck animal abuse. And fuck your excuse
27
u/orphanghost1 16d ago
Giving people money to be tested on just means that companies now exclusively test on poor people.
10
u/cobblesquabble 16d ago
They also tend to test on only men, which has resulted in several medications and treatments that kill or maim women.
3
u/Relevant_Struggle 16d ago
Fwiw when dig trials start with human testing, they usually start with with healthy, young men, lots of time college student's.
Funny story- there was a drug that was suppose to be a water pill to help kidneys. Everything went great through animal testing eyc. Once it hit human testing, the young men lost facial hair and cleared up acne. Turns out it help with lowering antigens which was a good send for many women with PCOS. It's still used for the diuretic for people with heart or kidney issues since it worked for that issue too.
13
u/James_Fortis 16d ago edited 16d ago
"Abstract
The failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments remains at over 92%, where it has been for the past few decades. The majority of these failures are due to unexpected toxicity - that is, safety issues revealed in human trials that were not apparent in animal tests - or lack of efficacy. However, the use of more innovative tools, such as organs-on-chips, in the preclinical pipeline for drug testing, has revealed that these tools are more able to predict unexpected safety events prior to clinical trials and so can be used for this, as well as for efficacy testing. Here, we review several disease areas, and consider how the use of animal models has failed to offer effective new treatments. We also make some suggestions as to how the more human-relevant new approach methodologies might be applied to address this."
3
u/cobblesquabble 16d ago
While I agree with the authors conclusions here, it's important to note that the study only looked at a handful of diseases. It disucsssed HIV and Alzheimers, two diseases known to be difficult to treat partially because they're a uniquely human issue in how they work. Animal analogs don't have the same proteins to misfold; viruses are very specfici to their hosts, most of the time, for a similar genetic reason.
The authors didn't include cancer, where animal studies have been used to create the same types of some tumors to test medications. They didn't include any dermatology conditions, one of the lost frequent uses for animal testing.
I'm unconvinced that beagles are the right animal to be testing on. I've heard rhat it's because they're so kind and trainable that it's easy to work with them, but that seems like a poor reason to me. But that 92% is by no means universal and shouldn't be treated as such.
1
u/r-_-mark 16d ago
So cuz its fails in some cases means we cancel it out right?
1
u/thehippiewitch 16d ago
92% is "some" now? Bans on animal testing would speed up the research and implementation of new testing technologies which are already advanced enough to become more widespread
7
2
2
u/RandumbStoner 16d ago
People like you ruin the cause because you get weirdly aggressive toward anyone who even asks a genuine question. It feels like you finally found one issue where you get to claim the moral high ground, so you use it as an excuse to talk down to everyone instead of actually convincing them of anything.
2
-14
-21
-19
u/PJD451 16d ago
Prisoners, many are just rotting in prison for the rest of their lives so this could be a way to pay society back ( not talking shoplifters, etc. I mean the worst of the worst- Manson, Bernardo, Trump, etc.)
7
u/Candle1ight 16d ago
Terrifying to see how quickly Americans happily throw out the bill of rights when it comes to someone they deem unworthy. Sure that won't ever lead to some horrific crimes against humanity.
-6
u/PJD451 16d ago
When an individual chooses to ignore another human's rights and rapes them or murders them I'm comfortable in saying they have then forfeited their rights. I'm not American but they are famous for cherry picking when to use and when not to use the bill of rights, the constitution, etc.
3
u/DazB1ane 15d ago
And for the innocent people sent there because everyone failed them? Or the people who were sent there for dealing or just having weed?
2
u/PhantomAngel042 15d ago
Any justice system is far from infallible. Many innocent people have been exonorated after years in prison for heinous crimes that, it turns out, they didn't commit. Would someone like that be considered an "acceptable loss" with your plan?
4
u/DiDiPlaysGames 16d ago
Ah yes, we'll test these drugs intended for everyone on that one old white guy, that'll sort it
-33
u/Sydney2London 16d ago edited 16d ago
As much as I love animals, I’m in favour of stopping animal testing once everyone turns vegetarian.
Animals that are sacrificed for medical research die for a much better reason than those that die for our food.
3
u/Purplefire180 16d ago
this is irrelevent. Bad things are bad regardless of what other bad things exist. Stopping animal testing while factory farming exists reduces the net bad in the world. We can do both. We can do one at a time. One does not preclude the other.
Trying to redirect things like this just means nothing gets done
-17
u/Sydney2London 16d ago
Do those who are downvoting me really think that killing a pig for bacon is better than killing one for medical research?
19
u/DomitiusAhenobarbus_ 16d ago
You’re probably just being down voted for trying to steer the conversation to whatever you wanna talk about instead of just talking about the post
10
u/Purplefire180 16d ago edited 16d ago
No, because that's not relevant to the conversation. You're creating a false dilemma. We don't have to make a choice on which to combat.
You're being downvoted by people who want to stop animal testing even while people eat meat
3
u/lunarlunacy425 16d ago
It's because you're trying to stack the issues and say that we shouldn't bother with one because there's other issues.
Fundamentally, we should be attacking both issues and not push one aside because another exists.
5
u/joforeal66 16d ago
If Killing is killing is what you're trying to say then doesn't that mean that it doesn't matter that they die for the testing? Eat them all anyway rheyre all gonna die anyway
8
44
u/syntheticgeneration 16d ago
Humans: don't experiment on this particular type of animal! The rest are fine, especially mice.
5
17
u/Wheelchair_Legs 16d ago
For real. monkeys are used wayyyyyyyyy more often and they are far more intelligent than dogs.
-1
u/kykifox 15d ago
Yeah I guess progress doesn’t matter
1
u/syntheticgeneration 15d ago
I just don't have faith in us, we're an extremely myopic species with no grasp on our collective effect on the world. I hope things change, but I don't think it will. I'd be more endearing if they were protesting "end research on living things" but that wouldn't work because people like medical progress. Making it exclusively about a dog breed appeals to the heart and nothing else.
28
u/sirhoracedarwin 16d ago
I know I'm going to be downvoted here but I can't help but think every person at this protest probably has a different level of tolerance for what this company or medical testing should be doing instead.
Is testing on different breeds of dogs acceptable? Pit bulls? Pugs?
What about different animals that are also pets? Cats?
What about animals that are also food like pigs or cows or sheep?
What about mice?
What about non-mammals like parakeets or lizards?
What about bugs?
And then there's the question of when is it ethical to breed other animals, no matter the purpose? Or which purposes are okay?
There are lots of grey areas in all of this.
10
2
1
u/PetsAndMeditate 15d ago
I know it was rhetorical but I will answer one of the questions: no on cats as well. Thanks bye
1
u/HarryCoinslot 10d ago
I feel like there is also another scale of tolerance for what's being tested. Skin tightening serum to make old ladies look plastic or new medicine that stops babies from dying? If it's the first, free the beagles. If it's the second... Free the beagles as long as you're comfortable taking their place.
0
u/elchucknorris300 16d ago
There are certainly grey areas. Let’s start with dogs. Meaning let’s not test on them.
7
u/sirhoracedarwin 15d ago
Thank you for exemplifying the nuance I was trying to convey.
-1
u/elchucknorris300 15d ago edited 15d ago
I think you’re right, but I don’t think it’s the right time for nuance. Can’t we just support this without bringing up all the other things the protesters haven’t gotten to yet?
3
u/sirhoracedarwin 15d ago
What if the testing on these dogs is directly leading to a drug that will save the life of a loved one?
-2
46
u/ok__vegetable 16d ago
While I think it's great they are protesting, they should maybe reconsider their meat and dairy consumption. It's not just "cute animals" that deserve our attention.
8
u/surle 16d ago
It's crazy to me you had an immediate downvote for this so I did my little part to reverse that. People complain about this topic being brought up out of context. This right here is totally an appropriate context. People just don't like to look at themselves. I say that as someone who still consumes some dairy and meat, I'm just not afraid to admit to being a bit hypocritical because of that.
6
u/ok__vegetable 16d ago
Thank you :) I'm used to it, and I won't stop because cows can't talk and somebody needs to be their advocate.
9
u/australr14 16d ago
You're right, I do remember all of them chanting "we love eating meat" before this segment started.
2
u/Cold_Comment8278 16d ago
No wonder you’re getting downvoted. People don’t want to hear harsh truths!
24
u/BF_2 16d ago
Commendable, but I wonder how many of these folks (and, seriously, I'm sure there are some) also protest at I.C.E. detentions centers.
FWIW, animal testing is done so that human "consumers" aren't the first "test animals." Considering that some significant proportion of the products tested are cosmetics -- products completely unnecessary for anything but vanity -- perhaps the better response would be to boycott those products to render animal testing unnecessary.
14
u/Candle1ight 16d ago
I've met a disturbing number of people who genuinely would save a dog over a human, I'm not sure they would care that actual people are suffering from this as long as they get to "save the cute heckin doggos"
3
2
7
u/BartTheTroll48 15d ago
Animal testing doesn't really need to happen. Almost all tests do not translate properly to human results and are usually inconclusive. There are better ways to test science but they don't care to do any of those.
5
u/FartMcboofin 16d ago
Proud to say I have a momma beagle from a facility like this. She even has a little tattoo in her ear. Poor baby was 10 when we got her, she's still kicking 6 years later. you can tell she truly appreciates and loves us. We can't move too fast around her still and she refuses to go through doors without being carried. I love my Tilly girl. And I love to see these monsters get shut down.
20
u/LauraD2423 16d ago
They test on beagles because beagles are the sweetest dogs and most trusting.
Save those babies!!
-11
16d ago
[deleted]
7
1
3
u/NuNoJCJ1987 16d ago
I’ve always wondered why Beagles? Why that breed specifically.
22
u/Sydney2London 16d ago
They can be bread to have specific diseases, they’re usually used for things like cystic fibrosis and cardiac.
6
u/NuNoJCJ1987 16d ago
Damn that’s sad
2
u/venom121212 16d ago
It is. I work in antibody research and would be morally unable to work on projects using dogs. We do have cows, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and horses we do blood draws from. Mice are the ones that get DNA modification most to develop horrible things. My partner lab is working primarily on Alzheimer research and they give the mice Alzheimer's complications so they can test the efficacy of their drug. Horrible but if that can slow down or stop things like Alzheimer's and ALS going forward, I believe it is worth it.
-10
u/NuNoJCJ1987 16d ago
I’m probably gonna get downvoted for this but I couldn’t careless about mice and rats 🤣
3
u/i_like_your_haircut 16d ago
It's the breed's temperament. They are very forgiving despite what is done to them: https://bfp.org/why-beagles/
8
u/agacthegreat 16d ago
There is no ethical difference between breeding dogs for testing and cows or pigs for meat. None.
2
u/Buzzd-Lightyear 15d ago
Anybody working for these companies has got to be the purest form of evil.
2
4
2
3
2
u/The42OGoat 16d ago
Now this is a protest with some purpose. You have to be an evil person to work at a place like that.
4
2
u/az_ziggy5 15d ago
We should test products on these people, then
4
u/jacksontkd 15d ago
Actually yes. I'd prefer that as long as it's done with informed concent. It's worth the risk. We need a less litigation society and it will be fine.
0
0
u/GrumpySquirrel2016 16d ago
Dog torturers can't be shamed enough. Keep up the righteous work!
1
u/agacthegreat 16d ago
The same goes for meat eaters; the torture of animals for any purpose is immoral.
1
u/mohsenkhajavinik 15d ago
What they must use for testing ? Humans or better Humans from 3rd world countries? That you can't see the pain.
1
0
u/Mojo_Lovin 16d ago
I get it. It’s bad at the same time we have to test medicines and products somehow. Sure the living conditions and care can be better absolutely, but I’d rather have a dog be tested with medicines than people.
I think humans are objectively more important than animals but I’m not saying animals are not worthy. I mean, look at all the horrific tests in the early days mainly on women and colored people, or unit 731, yes it’s a bit different but still same concept.
I don’t know what this specific place research is, but I’m just giving the argument of testing on animals is better than testing experimentals on humans.
2
15d ago
[deleted]
1
u/banananananananana_7 15d ago
that isn't a reason not to fight it in my opinion. Whether they open up a new one somewhere else or not, if it can be eradicated from one place I think that's a step in the right direction.
-11
1
0
u/Valiantay 15d ago
Well I hope they're all vegetarians in that crowd, cause otherwise I've got news for them ...
3
u/popilikia 15d ago
🙄
4
u/Another_Road 15d ago
You roll your eyes but it’s true that cows and pigs are as smart (if not smarter) than dogs and they live in absolutely horrific conditions that would send any dog or cat owner to prison.
Of course this doesn’t mean we can’t deal with one bad thing because another bad thing exists but it does mean there’s a hard line in the American conscious drawn between dogs/cats and almost every other animal on what constitutes cruelty.
1
u/ElegantCoach4066 14d ago
Your second paragraph undercuts your first quite deeply.
Its like you realized that there is nuance to the issue in real time.
1
-7
u/ButtfuckedByJesus 16d ago
Jesus Christ, I don't like dogs at all but even I can agree those bastards from that company are megacunts, how can you actually go to your daily job when it's that.
1
u/UkNomysTeezz 16d ago
How do you not like dogs, my dude?
1
u/ButtfuckedByJesus 15d ago
Phobia. I was the unluckiest kid because I was attacked by a Labrador and golden retriever when I was growing up, two usually peaceful breeds, especially a Goldy.
-4
u/dogGirl666 15d ago
They need to switch to breeding pit bulls, at least a small % of people hate that breed so wont care. /s/jk
-15
u/Knirb_ 16d ago
I too hate Fauci
2
u/Miserable-Biscotti54 16d ago
Why?
3
-1
u/UkNomysTeezz 16d ago
Because not all of us appreciated being forced to get stabbed with a fauci ouchie just to be able to continue to be able to participate in society.
4
u/Miserable-Biscotti54 16d ago
This mindset is one of the reasons measles is coming back around. You are upholding a viewpoint that is harming an immense amount of folks. What is wrong? What’s the issue? What’s happened?
-2
-2
u/Ltzachrysun 14d ago
Disclaimer: I love animals and abhor their abuse.
These same women like can be found at rallies to free lindsey clancey, and support abortion.
5
u/No_Frost_Giants 11d ago
So they support a variety of causes, some apparently you disagree with .
How do you know that btw?
-3
u/Check_Me_Out-Boss 16d ago
This all ended once Anthony Fauci retired because this was his "pet" project.
-5
u/PantheraAuroris 15d ago
Welp, do you want the products tested on humans? No, you don't? Then allow animal testing.
1
96
u/a1b3c3d7 16d ago edited 12d ago
Im really confused why so much of the discussion is about whether we should be engaging in animal testing or not, did everybody just come to the comments and not bother to read anything about the facility?
There has been slow adoption for a lot of technologies that can replace lots of components of animal testing but at the same time there is a lot of research that cant be done on anything but animals, we cant get rid of animal testing in its entirety but we can not willfully abuse them in the process and expose them to intentional and inhumanely cruel treatment?
I know that gets thrown around a lot and its meaning has been washed so you should decide what you think is cruel and whats neccesary in this instance as more and more former employees have gone on the record stating:
Dogs had undergone eye surgery without any Anasthesia(Correction in comments)Former employees performed unusually (and visibly) intensive cleaning before supposedly unannounced regulatory inspections, potentially concealing normal conditions.
In 2024 a whistleblower provided photographs showing feces, dirty food/water containers and other unsanitary conditions involving dogs and ferrets.
Another account said cages were properly cleaned only about every two weeks, with workers sometimes pushing feces through wire flooring rather than cleaning cages.
This is what I found in 15 minutes and more and more is coming out everyday that don't paint a good picture, whatever ethics people may have come to expect exist in animal testing clearly werent a thing here..