I’m not judging people having emotional entanglement with pets, and I have serious inconsistencies myself. I just grew up without pets and closer to farms, so it’s easier for me not to consider dog differently than pigs on this subject. I’m against animal suffering per se, let’s be clear on that.

!!! And the screen name as well.

Well, it’s not your fault, dog meat is hard to find. ;)

I respect her agency, but that seems like akward moments as soon as his changeable mood changes. Or not, and this is a career changing moment for her and she will be bigger after that.

I’m not saying that for you, and I respect the consistency of this beliefs. I disagree with it on specist grounds but that’s another matter. I just don’t like the emotional campaigns on some cute animals and not the others.

Oh, I understand, and the US in general have a fondness for dogs. I don’t care more for dogs than pigs, for myself.

No, this is ok. I learnt a lot through comments and polite debate, and that’s something that is often missing on those issues. I’m all in favour of a debate on that, with people expressing their underlying values. I value life of humans more than life of other animals, and probably mammals with higher intelligence…

Well, I’m sorry, but mice< humans. And, I eat meat, I can’t really pretend I care that much. Frankly, unless we also address the meat industry, I doubt labs are the most terrifying place for animals.

That’s why I don’t get the accusations. As a scholar myself, I’d say that the trend is trying to have non zero results, so no point of trying something which would fail. I’d say that it rather prevent people to double check and replicate research, as it is not new enough.

I wouldn’t deny that, but I’m more cautious about the structural incentives for the people to act that way, or allowing people to act that way. People will always be rotted sometimes, the only thing we can do is enforce optimal research institution and research incentives. But I’m into public policy more than…

I totally understand why you wouldn’t do it that way, I wouldn’t go for the costly and complicated thing in first intention either.

I’m sorry, but I doubt that scientists are saddist who want to experiment on animals. The research being already done as well... Not everything is ground breaking, but usually it has to bring out something new (especially to keep being paid and employed).

Ok. I guess the fact that we don’t start with bigger animal is justified in terms of costs.

Thanks! It must be really cool to program that.

If I may ask, how do you justify the ones you are using? By similarities of the bodily functions or by scarcity of the animals, or both?

I don’t see why dogs are a saddest thing to try on, but I’m firmly in favor of a more integrated view of animals. Thanks for the insider view. It seems somehow suprising to go from rodent to human, just for the possible non homogeneous effects of body weight and size. Like, you don’t just divide doses from adult to…

Do you have any suggestion on sources on this subject?

Thanks for the real world information. I’m not into biology/ immunology/ research in medecine, so I don’t know what the alternatives are, and I’m always a bit weary of the “we like that animal, so you can’t use them” effect. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about ethics, but helping people seems more important…

For scientists out here: What is the mammal used now ? I guess you don’t go from rats to human testing ( I sincerely hope so).

Fuck you, Jenny McCarthy. Spreading such ignorance.