Anyone else freaked out by stories like this?
My newspaper today reports that British scientists have created "a mouse that can catch colds." It will "help to develop and test new treatments for winter coughs and sneezes and also help people who suffer from severe asthma." I know we're very clever now and we can clone things and screw about with genes and play God with nature on a daily basis, but the way the story is presented (in today's Guardian and, no doubt, all the others), it's just accepted that this is a perfectly reasonable and indeed positive thing to do, to "create" a certain kind of mouse - indeed, one that's going to catch a cold in a cage. It's all to do with Rhinoviruses, apparently, which cause three-quarters of our colds. I had a bit of a cold last week, and I expect it was caused by a Rhinovirus, which I bet I caught in the gym changing rooms. I know colds can lead to other bad things if the person who catches it has a weakened immune system or if they're very old, but mostly, you get a cold, and it goes away a few days later. You feel a bit shit and get through a load of tissues. If, like me, you're a bit asthmatic, the cold can aggravate your pipes.So hallelujah! Scientists have genetically modified a blameless mouse to catch a cold! I'm getting undernotes of Josef Mengele, but that's just silly old sentimental me. What I really object to is the way these stories are blithely printed as Good News. Not for the fucking sniffly lab-mouse it's not! I've heard all the arguments about animal testing, but they all boil down to the same logic: we are great; animals are there for us to muck about with and they should be proud to have helped us all live longer. Without all the mice and chimpanzees, we'd all be a lot more ill. Well, we all look pretty ill to me, thanks to all the rubbish we eat and the pollution we absorb (oh, and the failure of capitalism) - so did all those mice and rabbits suffer and die for a good cause?
Sebastian Johnson, boss of the white-coated Imperial College God squad, is quoted as saying, "These mouse models should provide a major boost to research efforts to develop new treatments for the common cold, as well as for more potentially fatal illnesses such as acute attacks of asthma." I've got a treatment for the common cold: stay at home, wrap up warm, drink boiling water with lemon in it, take Vitamin C, watch comfort telly. No mice - or "mouse models" - were genetically modified in the thinking-up of this "treatment."
Talking Point: I realise I'm on thin ice, so before certain parties start bombarding me with accusations of being anti-science or reporting me to the headmaster, I don't really wish to have the animal testing debate here because I've heard all the arguments before and I still don't agree with the practice, so further persuasion isn't going to budge me. I just want to know if anyone else is freaked out by this?
posted by Andrew Collins @ 9:52 AM
26 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
26 Comments:
To all those like minded souls who have read " The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy", you know the big do-do we will be in if we keep messing with the mice!!
Its not big, its not clever, and with karma in action, its gonna hurt when it comes round to be your turn.
I'm freaked out by it Andrew. I can be won round on the animal testing argument when we're talking about improving the lives of significant numbers of people with significant illnesses. Although that sounds kind of arbitary (who does afterall decide what is 'significant' and what is not...), I'd like to think that it was obvious that ruining a mouse's life to develop drugs for cancer, MS, HIV etc. etc. is more valid than saving us from a couple of colds a year.
In any case, it's quite clear that tissue companies aren't sponsoring this particular piece of research. Think how much money they stand to lose!
No, I'm not freaked out and don't see this (the science) as a bad thing, but I obviously hold different opinions to you and appreciate you don't want to debate the subject so I won't.
However I completely respect your right to hold those opinions - millions of people do - and there's something wrong with reporting of this news that doesn't acknowledge that. This half-thought-out approach goes deeper than that, too - earlier today I saw a news bulletin that appeared to suggest that this breakthrough alone meant that the common cold had actually been cured.
"The News" (through any media channel) seems to have a fundamental problem with science reporting - both "breakthroughs" like this and the scare stories that they love so much. The whole field of scientific research is complex and fraught with difficult decisions and ethical dilemmas. It doesn't matter which side you're on - it's worrying and just polarises people on either side of the debate.
No, I am not freaked-out at all. I won't have the argument with you, but if your kitchen was overrun by mice what would you do? 'Put out humane traps' will be your answer no doubt, but why should you move them outside when you know that this is not their 'home' and knowing that they will probably not survive for very long or will find home in another house that will quite likely 'freak out' a fellow human-being...
I'm sort of with cocktails on this, but would prefer other methods of testing to be found.
On the potentially positive side for animals, but still in freak out territory, did you see this news item today? (I have only seen it on Sky News so far):
"Scientists in France have developed human skin which may reduce chemical testing on animals. Cosmetics giant L'Oreal showed Sky News their new product called Episkin in an exclusive visit to their laboratory in Lyon, France. The skin is grown from cells removed from donor skin left over after cosmetic surgery. Tests have shown it gives more accurate results than animal skin. The new skin has been cleared for use and will now be available to use in the cosmetic industry."
i had exactly the same feelings whilst reading the BBC website report about this. i was expecting to read at least one comment from someone opposed to this just for balance if nothing else but there was nothing.
peter.
"I've got a treatment for the common cold: stay at home, wrap up warm, drink boiling water with lemon in it, take Vitamin C, watch comfort telly. No"
But thats not going to help with an acute asthma attack or COPD though is it? Which I think was the point of this research. Not finding a treatment for man flu.
Yes I'm freaked out by it and I'd much prefer it if that money went into paying nurses better wages and helping the worst-off people in the world access treatment for more serious ailments.
Here's what pisses me off whenever we hear stories about how people miss days off work for minor illnesses and we must find some solution - people need the days off, they recover better if they are allowed to rest and sometimes people just get exhausted by stress and mild bouts of depression so they pretend they have a cold. And if people do have a cold I'd prefer they stay away and not spread it around. Maybe if more employers encouraged their staff to take plenty of holiday days and not call them up randomly to come into work, there might be less "cold-sufferers" in the country. It's just greed and its greed that makes the government out money into this research.
Research into the common cold attracts what might be seen as disproportionate amounts of time and money, mainly because of the working hours lost each year to colds. While "stay at home, wrap up warm," is common sense advice, it doesn't benefit The Man, and that's what counts. So another mouse gets a noseful of snot.
No, Andrew, you're not the only one freaked out by this.
Animal testing debate aside, what is so profoundly depressing about this 'breakthrough' is how unnecessary it seems. Is it really worth all this effort and money to find a cure for something that causes a few days inconvenience and discomfort?
But then you only have to look at the enormous market for cold and flu remedies, with the absurd macho 'colds are for wimps, get back to work you slacker' advertising messages to see that there's an awful lot of money to be made from it and sadly that seems to be reason enough to do anything.
I have mixed feelings. I support animal testing for medical research, and also support the heavy regulation it has in this country. Others don't though, so clearly there's an argument to be had and continued reasoned debate is needed.
I believe the government should do more to support testing on animals. Some politicians seem to prefer not to talk publicly about it, while the state continues to support it. They need to get behind the scientists if they agree with it. And if they don't agree with it then they should do something about it. The scientists are sometimes left out in the cold to fend for themselves.
I've heard from German and Dutch scientists that they are baffled by the reaction of some sections of the British public against such testing. Maybe it's just the British love of pets.
High-profile failures in the system don't help the pro-testing lobby of course.
I do get irritated by anti-testing displays in towns showing hideous images of animals being tested on. Clearly the pictures are sometimes going to be ugly, but then so is open heart surgery and I'm not against that either.
Same goes for anti-abortion protesters showing off pictures of foetuses to dissuade people from being pro-choice. Something not looking pleasant is no reason to be against it. If they show me a picture of someone doing a poo do they think they'll convince me that pooing is a bad thing?
It is freaky, what happens if one of these mice is accidentally released?
Vaguely related, the Food Programme on R4 was interesting today (Michael Pollan joins Sheila Dillon to discuss his latest book "In Defence of Food").
And I thought "The Mouse With A Cold" was the little known third film documenting the adventures of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
(see also "The Mouse That Roared" and "The Mouse On The Moon")
I'm not as worked up as I probably should be about stories like this. And as long as animals are being slaughtered (in far bigger numbers) for our food, I probably never will be. (Not that I have a moral issue with animals being eaten, I just don't like the way they're bred - and treated - purely for that purpose.)
It's been a long long time since anything freaked me out now. Not even the two girls one cup thing that was doing the rounds freaked me out, so a snotty mouse has no chance.
There is a programme about bird-flu on Radio 4 right now that is causing me to experience the same response you had to that newspaper article.
I will try to express as concisely as possible my views on both animal testing and the general use/abuse of animals in our society. I do not think people have the right the oppress or abuse another species simply because they are intellectually/physically weaker. For this reason, I am against vivisection.
Here is one of the best online resources regarding vivisection.
Additionally, when discovering four years ago that one can obtain all the necessary nutrients from an entirely animal-free diet without the unavoidable cruelty involved in an omnivorous/vegetarian diet, I went vegan.
It is not necessary in our society to consume any animal products, and the fact that humans are more advanced in many ways than other species gives us a responsibility to care for them, in the same way that we have a responsibility to care for children, older people, people with disabilities, etc.. I do not agree with the abuse of those more vulnerable than myself for material gain.
There is further information about the reasons for an animal-free diet here.
Of course, I hold these views for ethical reasons, not because animals are cute and fluffy [I was terribly paraphrasing Peter Singer there], but I also have experience of watching animals die due to illnesses which they were bred to contract. I've had a lot of rescued animals, and most of the rodents have died of various cancers. Many people are not aware that pet rats and mice are bred from lab animals, so they are bred to get various forms of cancer and other illnesses. A few weeks ago, one of my mice died of two huge, untreatable tumours, which the vet told me were caused by breast cancer. The rat I used to text you about on your 6 Music show was euthanised after developing a brain tumour, as were many of the others I had. They were bred to die in that way, and if they had contracted those diseases in a laboratory setting as intended, they would have been tortured throughout their human-inflicted illnesses until they were deemed no longer of use and killed.
So, that is why I am vegan and anti-vivisection. And, incidentally, it is possible to be pro-ethics without being anti-science, in the same way it is possible to eat tofu and not wear tie-dye hemp drawstring trousers.
Andrew, if you have time, I am genuinely interested in why you are morally opposed to vivisection, yet you have no apparent ethical qualms with consuming animal products. I promise you I'm not picking a fight; I'm just curious. I'm metaphorically offering you a cup of soya tea and asking about your motivation rather than jabbing you repeatedly in the eye with a parsnip and asking what the fuck you think you're doing. ;)
Well, that is the contents of my head almost expelled for today. I will now listen to your podcast, then dance to Bauhaus with Betamax Bandit, the fattest mouse in the world.
Much love, Sali xx
P.S. Here's an interesting paragraph from Viva! regarding free-range/organic produce:
...although free range and organic animals usually (although not always) lead better lives than factory farmed animals, they still suffer in many ways. For example, so-called free range egg farms may involve thousands of hens being kept in a shed with limited access to outside and to limited land. Even in the better free range/organic egg farms, all male chicks are killed within hours – useless by-products as they do not lay eggs and are too scrawny for meat. All animals kept for farming are prevented from mixing in normal social groups, and ducks never see their ducklings; hens their chicks; pigs have their piglets taken away much too young; dairy cows have their calves ripped from them at one day old. Even on free range farms the male calves are shot as they don’t give milk and are the wrong breed for beef. All farms prevent animals from living natural lives. And all are sent for slaughter as soon as there is more profit in killing them than in keeping them alive.
terribly paraphrasing Peter Singer
Urgh, that's a horrible split infinitive. I apologise for it. I had just woken up. I will now beat myself around the head with the keyboard. Ooh, but Hancock's Half Hour is on the radio. I shall listen to that first.
Bye again!
Sali xx
I was watching a Stephen Fry interview the other day on YouTube and he said 'the thing that separates man from animals is that we have the ability to wonder.' No other creature does this as far as we can tell.
I think it is pertinent to this point because it is man's wonder that allows him to produce things like The Wire and the Kalxons.
It also causes some people to wonder if they can fix things. regardless of whether they need fixng or not.
Anyway I guess what i am saying is with one comes the other. And if we end up totally fucking our immune systems or destroying our planet that is our fault.
I'm sorry to be flippant but I would just like to confess I was eating a very large bacon roll while reading SaliWho's comment.
Yep, we are on the same page on this issue and I think you put it very well. Unfortunately most mainstream news creates headlines - I originally heard about this on the Today programme on Radio 4 which gives more info than most. The main benefit of this so-called breakthrough (fiddling with the genetics of a living creature to catch a virus it is not capable of normally) was the COST - mice are CHEAP whereas primates aren't! As you sayh, no mention of the poor bloody mouse - the whole thing is pretty obscene - you can't be 'humane' selectively and this ain't humane.
Haha! Ross, shall we get married and have confused children who smack themselves in the face with lettuce leaves and cry every time they see you eating lunch? I dislike children. I'd have no moral issues with that arrangement.
Sali xx
I liked your response, Saliwho, to Ross's bacon-roll comment, but you mention something (perhaps irony? can't tell) that is revealing in this animal testing argument: that you "dislike children". When I became a father my opinions on all matters like animal-testing changed forever. There is nothing I wouldn't do or agree to if it would save one of my children.
"and have confused children who smack themselves in the face with lettuce leaves and cry every time they see you eating lunch?"
Wait, is this G*****n M*k**th's latest diet?
Hi, JC. No, my feelings towards children are irrelevant to my argument re: animal testing. I am sure if I were to have a child, I would value it above, for example, one of my mice. It would be unusual to say the least if my bond with the mouse remained greater. However, that does not mean I value humans as a species over mice as a species.
I do not think people have the right to abuse another species because they are in any way weaker, and my relationship with other human beings is entirely unconnected to my feelings about this.
When I was about twelve, I remember reading an article about vivisection in a "yoof" magazine. The title was, Would You Kill Your Cat To Save Your Mum? I still want to shake that journalist until her fillings fall out. Yes, I would kill my cat to save my mum. Does this mean I value humans as a species over cats as a species? No.
You do not even have to like animals to be vegan. I don't particularly like children, but that doesn't mean I would support the abuse of them. Much. ;)
Sali xx
Hi Sali,
just one quick thought on the above, which I think relates to the vivisection issue. Would you kill a cat (or even your own cat) to save another human being who is unconnected to you?
Sali, while you're pondering Tristan's hypothetical, I will answer your earlier question:
You said you were "genuinely interested" in why I am "morally opposed to vivisection, yet have no apparent ethical qualms with consuming animal products." As it happens, I had a change of heart on Saturday January 12 after watching all four parts of the second series of Kill It, Cook It, Eat It on BBC3.
My reaction took me totally by surprise as I know full well what happens when animals are slaughtered for food, and have seen abbatoir footage before, and yet, due to a combination of certainty that, as a species, it is natural and healthy for us to eat meat and a firm belief that if we seek out meat that comes from non-factory farmed animals, we can do so with a clearer conscience. And yet, something about the footage on that programme got to me. It was an entirely, non-intellectual, emotional response but I have been unable to eat meat ever since.
I am not sure how long this will last, as I truly believe it's bad for my health to not eat meat, which is why I am eating fish and eggs, which, to you Sali, is probably as bad as eating cows and sheep, but you have to follow your gut instincts. (I have always admired the commitment of vegans, and I was a vegetarian myself as a younger man, albeit for political rather than emotional reasons.) It certainly proves to me that even at my age, you can't predict what you're going to do, or how you're going to feel about these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home