Forcing Mice to be stressed for "science"

[Staceybob]

This is ridiculous, and it's made me so angry.

We have known for YEARS that stress causes human disorders, from early ageing to mental health problems.

It makes me so angry that we are deliberately making mice stressed for something that we already know!

Congratulations Professor, for stating the OBVIOUS.

Oh and causing harm to mice when it was completely and utterly unnecessary!

:biteme:

Stacey xxx

[Ron Tao&Sky]

Well said Stacey:clap::clap:.........Ron

[BingBlaze n Skyla]

well said stacey

its disgusting!!!! poor mice - theres NO NEED to test on animals its just sickening

[Hyshqa]

All scientific procedures carried out on animals now go through strict ethical examination and if a proposed study isn't set up to discover anything new then it will not make it through. They haven't exactly gone into much detail in those 3 sentences so the chances are what they discovered is much more complex and in fact did uncover more details on the subject that what it appears.

[Dunc]

When ever I see this I always think dont let truth get in the way of a good story its probably rubbish and most of the details admitted as per.

[Dunc]

well said stacey

its disgusting!!!! poor mice - theres NO NEED to test on animals its just sickening

As for this statement am shocked at you Nix without testing on animal there are things out there that are now curable mostly types of cancer/drugs and medicines we take advances that could of never taken place if not for testing on animals.

Am not saying all testing is right cosmetic yeah that crap but if a few animals tested on saved my mums life last year they get me vote.

[James]

without testing on animal there are things out there that are now curable mostly types of cancer/drugs and medicines we take advances that could of never taken place if not for testing on animals.

Pretty much beat me to the punch there Dunc, sums it up really.

Yes testing on Mice isn't nice (lol lyrical miracle), But its absolutley neccessary, for as dunc said for medical treatments to serious diseases and disorders. Treatments for dog diseases and disabilities have to be test at somepoint.

Its a sad fact of the world unfortunatley.

[Aramek]

Can we all agree that it is okay to test on the not cute animals? There's a reason we eat cows and not pandas; nobody cares about the cows.

Wait...hmm...I kinda want to eat a panda now.

[James]

Can we all agree that it is okay to test on the not cute animals? There's a reason we eat cows and not pandas; nobody cares about the cows.

Wait...hmm...I kinda want to eat a panda now.

actually we Test on mice because they reproduce very quickly and mature very quickly so its easier to see effect of a drug over a life span but in a short ammount of time.

Furthermoore we eat cows because they are delicious........but mostly because cows have been bred for the slaughter for thousands of years, all of their natural defences have been bred out of them.

[BingBlaze n Skyla]

but its wrong! to test cancer cures on a animal u first have 2 give it the desease in the first place! im not quite sure how thats right - yes fair enuf my mums life was saved and might possibly not have been - tho as far as i know she was only given pain killers like cocodamol n not any other type of drug - i just dont see why animals have 2 suffer too - surely theres other ways to test without causing suffering to poor defenceless animals

[James]

but its wrong! to test cancer cures on a animal u first have 2 give it the desease in the first place! im not quite sure how thats right - yes fair enuf my mums life was saved and might possibly not have been - tho as far as i know she was only given pain killers like cocodamol n not any other type of drug - i just dont see why animals have 2 suffer too - surely theres other ways to test without causing suffering to poor defenceless animals

Unfortunatley there isn't really, there is such a thing as voluntary human testing, but It is highly policed and nothing to severe can be tested and they cant give people the disease and Human testing is a whole new world of Dodgy......its how things like the Zombie Apocalypse happen .

They can ask patients if they want to try experiemental treatment, however it has to be proven at least relativley safe and that means......yep you guessed tested on Animals 1st.

[Elyse]

Any and all medications we use today was tested on animals. That means even simple painkillers or antivenoms.

While I agree is it somewhat cruel, and I don't agree testing cosmetic products on mice, it has to happen. For people not to die from a drug that hasn't been tested yet.

[sutsibe]

actually we Test on mice because they reproduce very quickly and mature very quickly so its easier to see effect of a drug over a life span but in a short ammount of time.

Furthermoore we eat cows because they are delicious........but mostly because cows have been bred for the slaughter for thousands of years, all of their natural defences have been bred out of them.

Tell that to the bull Becky and I walked past last night while out walking dogs!

but its wrong! to test cancer cures on a animal u first have 2 give it the desease in the first place! im not quite sure how thats right - yes fair enuf my mums life was saved and might possibly not have been - tho as far as i know she was only given pain killers like cocodamol n not any other type of drug - i just dont see why animals have 2 suffer too - surely theres other ways to test without causing suffering to poor defenceless animals

Nix, it isn't nice, and it isn't fair, but the mice were bred especially for that purpose, and would not have been born otherwise. There are strict rules about how they're kept, and honestly, their lives are probably easier than those of their wild brethren - who may starve or be terrified much of their lives while waiting for a predator to nab them! computer models can predict what might happen, but before drugs can be used for humans or other animals, it has to be proven that they work as predicted with mice and similar critters.

[Kirbysowner]

We humans have a history of causing suffering to all animals for the purpose of survival. We eat animals, we test on animals, and we take advantage of of their special skills. Event the breeding of huskies can be considered cruel if you take into account the reality of the situation. Huskies did not become what they are now just because of breeding. They had to adapt and evolved from what was being asked of them, and many animals died and suffered in the process.

Survival requires these kinds of things, and we would be hypocrites to say we don't agree with the ethics of scientific testing on animals. And as someone else pointed it out, the article is short and vague. When I write an astrophysics paper, and am asked to give a brief summary, I can't go into detail and people don't get anything from a 1 min paragraph. I guarantee you the study involves the study of chemicals, their unique markers, and the physiological effects of stress related hormones on certain cells, but you obviously didn't get that from mere three sentences.

[Aramek]

The key here, and this is pretty universal, is that we try to not cause suffering for no reason. All of our medicines come from animal testing, and it has very much so bettered Human life. We try to not be cruel while we do it, as the intent is not to simply cause the pain. If pain is involved it is a side effect.

[Staceybob]

I understand that in some circumstances, we have had to use testing on animals, such as cures for cancer, but testing out stress on an animal is just darn right cruel to me.

No matter what chemicals they used, to deliberately cause deep stress to a mouse is horrible, especially when we know that stress has those kind of effects. Surely if this experiment brought out a larger conclusion, it would be listed, otherwise, at the moment all they have proven is the obvious.

Stacey xxx

[Hyshqa]

Well it looks like you got that snippet from a newspaper, I wouldn't be surprised that it missed the point completely. They only want the parts that will stir up emotion, they rarely care what the 'point' is, and they certainly aren't going to care about the ethics of it. I'll have a look around and see if it has been published as a journal article yet, we might actually be able to get some details about the study then.

[jules dief taz tor]

would love to be able to add something really relevant or intelectual here but i do understand the need for testing on animals

[RonSalmon]

All scientific procedures carried out on animals now go through strict ethical examination and if a proposed study isn't set up to discover anything new then it will not make it through. They haven't exactly gone into much detail in those 3 sentences so the chances are what they discovered is much more complex and in fact did uncover more details on the subject that what it appears.

Professor Robert Lefkowitz, of Duke University, North Carolina, said: "This could give us a plausible explanation of how chronic stress may lead to a variety of human conditions and disorders, which range from merely cosmetic, like greying hair, to life-threatening disorders like malignancies."

In experiments the researchers whose findings are published in Nature discovered a molecular mechanism through which adrenaline acted to destroy DNA.

Over four weeks the mice were inhected with the compound which led to degradation of the protein called p53 - dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its role in preventing cancer - which was present in lower levels over time.

Prof Lefkowitz said: "We believe this paper is the first to propose a specific mechanism through which a hallmark of chronic stress, elevated adrenaline, could eventually cause DNA damage that is detectable."

The study also showed DNA damage was prevented in mice lacking a protein known as beta-arrestin 1.

Loss of it stabilised levels of p53 both in the thymus, an organ that strongly responds to acute or chronic stress, and in the testes where paternal stress might affect an offspring's genome.

Co-researcher Dr Makoto Hara said: "The study showed chronic stress leads to prolonged lowering of p53 levels. We hypothesize this is the reason for the chromosomal irregularities we found in these chronically stressed mice."

The team is planning future studies in which mice are placed under stress by restraining them to creating their own adrenaline or stress reaction to show if their physical reactions also lead to DNA damage.

[Hyshqa]

Thank you, I'd been looking on Science Direct (I have an account there) but the titles were confusing.

[RonSalmon]

Professor Robert Lefkowitz, of Duke University, North Carolina, said: "This could give us a plausible explanation of how chronic stress may lead to a variety of human conditions and disorders, which range from merely cosmetic, like greying hair, to life-threatening disorders like malignancies."

In experiments the researchers whose findings are published in Nature discovered a molecular mechanism through which adrenaline acted to destroy DNA.

Over four weeks the mice were inhected with the compound which led to degradation of the protein called p53 - dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its role in preventing cancer - which was present in lower levels over time.

Prof Lefkowitz said: "We believe this paper is the first to propose a specific mechanism through which a hallmark of chronic stress, elevated adrenaline, could eventually cause DNA damage that is detectable."

The study also showed DNA damage was prevented in mice lacking a protein known as beta-arrestin 1.

Loss of it stabilised levels of p53 both in the thymus, an organ that strongly responds to acute or chronic stress, and in the testes where paternal stress might affect an offspring's genome.

Co-researcher Dr Makoto Hara said: "The study showed chronic stress leads to prolonged lowering of p53 levels. We hypothesize this is the reason for the chromosomal irregularities we found in these chronically stressed mice."

The team is planning future studies in which mice are placed under stress by restraining them to creating their own adrenaline or stress reaction to show if their physical reactions also lead to DNA damage.

Not an endorsement...just posting more info....I just don't have the time for a proper reply at the moment.

[Kechara]

We do need drugs tested, and while I don't like it, I accept it for now. The only thing that will never make sense to me is the fact that mice do not equal humans, nor does any other animal out there. . . and really, every human can be a different case when it comes to side effects of drugs. I'm sure it allows scientists to hammer out the major issues though.

The good news is there are some things being developed to help ease the use of animals in testing. I've already heard of human skin cells being grown for the purpose of testing things on skin, whether that be drugs or cosmetics. I'm sure they're working on other areas of testing as well, and while it may take a while, it's good to know they're trying.

[James]

I understand that in some circumstances, we have had to use testing on animals, such as cures for cancer, but testing out stress on an animal is just darn right cruel to me.

No matter what chemicals they used, to deliberately cause deep stress to a mouse is horrible, especially when we know that stress has those kind of effects. Surely if this experiment brought out a larger conclusion, it would be listed, otherwise, at the moment all they have proven is the obvious.

Stacey xxx

It seems from @RonSalmon posted they are attempting to find out why stress causes these problem.

The problem we face atm is we know stress causes these health problmes / that high stress in individuals correltate strongly with individuals with these defects. However we don't understand WHY stress causes these health problems. If they can figure out how and why stress can lead to these disorders. Prevention and cures / medicines to treat these problems become a far greater reality.

[RoseWillow&Dexter]

i think you have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to animals etc, I don't think the lives of a few mice that were bred for medical testing are worth for the sake of the advances in medical science we have today. We are humans and saving human lives is priority over mice. Its a bit hypocritical to think no animals should be tested on and then to go and have a big steak for dinner from a cow that was bred and slaughtered for meat for human consumption.

[Elyse]

i think you have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to animals etc, I don't think the lives of a few mice that were bred for medical testing are worth for the sake of the advances in medical science we have today. We are humans and saving human lives is priority over mice. Its a bit hypocritical to think no animals should be tested on and then to go and have a big steak for dinner from a cow that was bred and slaughtered for meat for human consumption.

And, not only that, but alot of beef cows (steer) are all genetically modified now (even seen Food Inc.?) and they have more muscle than before. Sure, it produces more meat per steer, but some are getting to the point they can't even move because they weigh so much and their bones can't support the weight.