this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
145 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

10619 readers
569 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Animals can only be used in research when there is convincing scientific justification, when expected benefits outweigh potential risks, and when scientific objectives cannot be achieved using non-animal methods. In Canada, there is federal and provincial legislation overseeing the humane treatment of animals.

This type of intervention makes scientific evidence appear secondary to partisan political opinion, weakening the integrity of the research enterprise. Moreover, such actions embolden activist campaigns that often misrepresent the reality of modern animal research and are usually counterproductive. These campaigns frequently ignore or sidestep the strict welfare standards and regulatory requirements that govern research facilities, as well as the medical breakthroughs that benefit both human and animal health. 

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not going to continue to feed your fatherless attention seeking behaviour you pathetic whelp, there is no good faith in your molecules, so don't presume to lecture me FROM the internet about getting off it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Get off the internet and have a real conversation with a real person.

Try not to be triggered by that suggestion.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I understand that, but all of that boils down to "trust the bureaucratic system".

It's inherently problematic that the justifications for animal research trials are not required to be publicly posted. If the justification is legitimate, you should feel comfortable defending it publicly.

Keeping it secret and gatekept to the scientists in the field means that the broader public has no real input or say on topics that are not just purely scientific, but deeply moral and ethical.

Virtually every scientist I've ever known has been a deeply moral person, but at a broader scale, there have been enough scientific studies that have been used to abuse people and animals, that their shouldn't be a culture of 'trust us scientists, we always know what the right thing is'. There should be a culture of open transparency and verification.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Also, if you are passionate and interested in this kind of thing, consider reaching out to a local institutional Animal Care Committee to see if they have a spot open for a community member! You’d have to sign a confidentiality agreement at this point in time but maybe you would find something like that very interesting. Many institutions have a stipend for the time spent attending meetings and stuff, it can be quite a time sink for just a volunteer position.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

https://ccac.ca/en/animals-used-in-science/transparency/institutional-transparency.html

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GameGod@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Giving beagle puppies 3 hr heart attacks and then killing them gives science a bad name.

If you're going to do animal research you should be prepared to openly explain why it's necessary.

[–] GameGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a terrible way to do it because you and me and 99.999% of the population are not qualified to make the decision about that and understand the very difficult but ethical rationale behind it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If you can't explain why you need to be a monster then you don't get to be a monster.

Slaughter house workers keep doing their job perfectly fine, there's zero excuse for scientists to get to torture animals and then patronizingly pat the public on the hand and say 'youre too naiive to understand'.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Research into building synthetic human bodies would be illegal if you weren’t allowed to test on animals first as the legislation currently stands. The laws on human medical trials often mandate this kind of testing. New vaccines, for example, must be tested on animals (primates) before they are approved by Public Health Agency of Canada. Whether or not that is correct or useful or justified is definitely up for debate, but we would not be able to pursue or utilize any of these advancements or medicines without first changing the regulations. That’s the place to start, for sure.