For context, this particular study used a total of 4 rats.
The rats used in an experiment like the linked one (done in the UK) would have undergone a surgery with full anesthesia and sterile technique, with prescription pain meds provided during recovery, and daily veterinary oversight throughout their lifespan.
This procedure is of course not being done for the animal's benefit, but the level of medical care and oversight is quite similar to that provided a human who might need, for instance a deep-brain stimulator implanted.
Before any animals could even be ordered, the specific protocols used, (and even the decision to use rats, and the number allowed to be used) would have gone through a number of committees at the university, under national-level oversight, and subject to laws and regulations designed to negotiate exactly the tradeoffs we are discussing.
I guess I can see how a reasonable person could refer to this kind of treatment as torture. But every scientist I know who works with animals takes their responsibility to minimize harm to the animals they use very seriously.
There's a legitimate discussion to be had on this subject; and it is already happening. The use of animals in research has changed a lot in the past hundred years, and it will certainly change a lot in the future. I think it's important for folks on both sides to avoid demonizing those who see the issue differently. Believing that some animal research is worth the costs is not the same as having "no issue with scientists torturing [animals] en masse"--by the way I disagree with the claim that most people feel that way.
Some reasonable-seeming #s for the US in this blog post: http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/ . (Needless to say the # of animals used in research is dwarfed by, among other things, the # of animals eaten as food, killed on highways, or poisoned in the name of pest control.)
I was not referring to this particular study as torture (though one could argue it's still fairly unethical). Many other studies involving mice and rats involve extremely cruel and painful treatment.
... and then they were killed. The more we learn about other animals, the more tragic this process becomes. In this case, the benefit is a vague possibility for "some insight into what happens in the human mind during sleep." Not worth it.
Yes, 'used' is a euphemism for purpose-bred and then experimented on and then killed. I am not trying to sugar-coat this by mentioning the efforts made to minimize the suffering of the animals done as part of this process. It's a hard truth.
Unfortunately with basic science it's not so easy as saying: research that eventually benefits people is OK, but everything else is not worth it. To look at this particular study: they are recording from cells in the hippocampus, an area that experiences atrophy and degeneration in both schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. There is a strong homology between rat and human biology in this area: anatomically, physiologically, and even in disease states.
If you want to say that animal experimentation is never worth it, then you have to be willing to forgo whatever future benefits to humankind might accrue from this research, and you have to be comfortable making this decision for everyone else who might benefit. Ethically, you should probably also forgo any medical treatment that was developed on the backs of animal research. (Though you will still benefit from the eradication of many diseases and herd immunity to others).
In terms of the scale and degree of suffering, and of ethics, I think there is much more clear-cut ground to be won in encouraging people not to breed and kill animals for food or sport, and in protecting wild animal habitat from ecological degradation.
The rats used in an experiment like the linked one (done in the UK) would have undergone a surgery with full anesthesia and sterile technique, with prescription pain meds provided during recovery, and daily veterinary oversight throughout their lifespan.
This procedure is of course not being done for the animal's benefit, but the level of medical care and oversight is quite similar to that provided a human who might need, for instance a deep-brain stimulator implanted.
Before any animals could even be ordered, the specific protocols used, (and even the decision to use rats, and the number allowed to be used) would have gone through a number of committees at the university, under national-level oversight, and subject to laws and regulations designed to negotiate exactly the tradeoffs we are discussing.
I guess I can see how a reasonable person could refer to this kind of treatment as torture. But every scientist I know who works with animals takes their responsibility to minimize harm to the animals they use very seriously.
There's a legitimate discussion to be had on this subject; and it is already happening. The use of animals in research has changed a lot in the past hundred years, and it will certainly change a lot in the future. I think it's important for folks on both sides to avoid demonizing those who see the issue differently. Believing that some animal research is worth the costs is not the same as having "no issue with scientists torturing [animals] en masse"--by the way I disagree with the claim that most people feel that way.
Some reasonable-seeming #s for the US in this blog post: http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/ . (Needless to say the # of animals used in research is dwarfed by, among other things, the # of animals eaten as food, killed on highways, or poisoned in the name of pest control.)