So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.

I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.

Edit: There’s a bit more information on this article from the CBC, notably with the following:

Other effective models don’t yet exist for this specific line of inquiry that connects the metabolic and cellular mechanisms that can lead to, or prevent, a heart attack or heart failure with non-invasive imaging techniques.

I absolutely agree. There is a push for more openness and transparency in animal research, it is a major initiative of the CCAC for rollout over the next 5 years. There is a lot of fear of animal rights activist groups and litigation or harassment from them that I think is generally unfounded - those incidents are pretty rare. Unfortunately, situations like this with Doug Ford only stoke the fear and protectionist attitudes that need to be broken down… now people in this field feel more targeted and scared and less likely to speak to the public. It’s very counterproductive.

CCAC - Canadian Council on Animal Care

CCAC - Canadian Council on Animal Care (ccac.ca)

I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.

I maintain that you think that because you spend too much time on the internet and don’t talk to people in real life. Irl people have opinions that don’t all fall in lock step with the hive mind.

So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.

Ironic that you’re complaining about me arguing in bad faith when you can’t answer of any of the very specific questions I asked, and keep hand waving them away with broad generalizations.

Bad incidents with dogs and cats? 0

Bad incidents with belligerent cyclists: 2

One group appears to be more civilized.

What is the decision framework they used that led to them approving inducing 3hr heart attacks in beagle puppies before killing them?

People here seem happy to have blind faith in the system when it produced results that are objectively horrific. I would genuinely like to understand what the cost/benefit analysis was, what alternatives methods of research were considered, and why they weren’t viable.

Blah blah blah.

Again, tell me the specific justification in this case, given what they were doing to beagle puppies.

I’m not interested in just hand waving it away and saying “trust the system”. If the system produces horrific results, the system should be able to openly justify why they were necessary.

The WHOLE POINT is that it was NOT justified in this or any case! Someone broke the law AND all strictly developed regulatory practices! You should be focusing on the individual who committed the offense and tortured animals, not attacking science in Canada, and I’d argue you don’t even care about research at all and are just reacting to an emotional headline for clout.

Wouldn’t that include the eventual patients as well, for new treatments?

Like, there’s strong questions about specism here, but somebody is going to have to go first.

Dogs are a particularly useful model for heart problems in humans because they naturally get several of the same conditions and diseases humans do. You can try to create genetic variants of mice to have these conditions but it’s not nearly as good as a species that naturally experiences the condition. You may waste hundreds of mouse lives for poor quality research that way.

All studies involving animals require ethical approval involving a detailed assessment of the protocol by a committee that must include veterinarians, managers of the facility (not the lab members but outside of the research team), technicians who work directly with the animals, other researchers doing unrelated work, and a community member otherwise uninvolved in research at all. This is just for the ethical approval, they will also have to go through scientific merit evaluation by a different committee before this step. They must lay out exactly what they are doing and why it is necessary and how they are mitigating pain and distress. They may be under anesthesia for the entire heart attack, and then euthanized without waking up, or receive painkillers and be monitored constantly by a veterinarian. If they don’t do this, the work wont happen, and results wont be publishable either. Without being at that meeting we can’t know the exact technical justification, but there is a very strict process to follow and often everyone has more feelings about it when they are companion animals and they receive a lot of scrutiny.

I’m not all for animal research, some of it is poorly done and wasteful and doesn’t have any practical use. Or the data suffers from human incompetence. But a lot of it does help humans and animals. And there is a lot more tendency to intervene on pain and distress than you’d think - a distressed animal with no pain mitigation is not a good representation for your average human receiving treatment for something at a hospital. Your average local veterinary clinic almost certainly sees far worse cases of neglect and festering horrifying injuries and disease at the hands of incompetent dog owners than a study like this would ever produce.

There is a lot of fear of animal rights activist groups and litigation or harassment from them that I think is generally unfounded - those incidents are pretty rare.

I get the fear, but do also agree it feels unfounded. If farmers and slaughterhouses manage to get by, it seems like animal research labs should be able to too.

I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.

I maintain that you think that because you spend too much time on the internet and don’t talk to people in real life. Irl people have opinions that don’t all fall in lock step with the hive mind.

So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.

Ironic that you’re complaining about me arguing in bad faith when you can’t answer of any of the very specific questions I asked, and keep hand waving them away with broad generalizations.

So all testing will be done on humans. Got it. (No animal testing means no testing, meaning the first application are humans, and thus you are the testers. Yay!)

Pick a lane, Doug.

Just because they develop the same conditions doesn’t mean that we will learn anything that will help humans. And even if it helped humans, you need to consider whether it is right to sacrifice any number of animals so that we can help John Everyman who fills his gullet with burgers and hot dogs, cheat death. Get him a gym membership and a nutritionist instead and invest the rest into building synthetic human bodies or something so we can do this research without a single animal death.

Thanks for confirming you’re arguing in bad faith.

Get off the internet. The paranoia and brain rot is showing.

How is that fear unfounded when a politician can snap their fingers and target your research with this populist bullshit? There already is a process to ensure this research is justified. We shouldn’t allow political interference in science. It sets a horrible precedent and opens the door for worse. Ford’s actions undermine public trust in science, which is terrible (look south of the border).

How about no, and also stuff your holes up to the elbow, turdheap.

Oh my god, someone disagreed with you, they must be arguing in bad faith!!! Run back to your curated filter bubble, don’t let a real conversation spoil your brain rot.