> To test the ability of the hormone to assist in bone healing, the researchers created a hydrogel patch that could be applied directly to the site of a bone fracture, where it would slowly release CCN3 for two weeks. In elderly mice, bone fractures don’t usually heal well. However, the CCN3 patch spurred the formation of new bone at the site of the fracture, contributing to youthful healing of the fracture.
So, uh, did this research involve breaking mice bones?
Absolutely, there is probably some jig to hold the mouse and do the break reliably in the same way each time. I knew a researcher that did research that involved killing newborn baby rabbits and he said that he hated that part of the job but kept reminding himself that he is working on a cure for very sick human children that currently had no hope of treatment. It was exploratory research so there was only a small chance of success and many years later there was success in a unrelated field so in the end his work was redundant - but he couldn't have known that at the time.
By my morals it's ok to kill animals for the benefit of humans, animals kill animals for sustenance and for now we are still a part of nature. In the future perhaps we won't need to and I'll happily support that. For now in order to get to that future we must do the unpleasant thing with an understanding that it should be not be done egregiously, gratuitously, or needlessly. Not for the sake of the animals, although that is a given, but for the sake of the humans involved in harming those animals as I think doing such things does take it's toll.
Unfortunately they were conscious, they were painful deaths and it was the experiment that killed them. They were not euthanized after the experiment which is more the norm. I was told there was no viable alternative to obtaining the data. I only found out because I was helping process the data and I asked where the data was from.
What I don't like is that the inefficiencies in science means that many, and perhaps most, of the experiments that are being done are probably unnecessary and only being done due to bureaucratic inertia. I lament the horrible state of science and the needless suffering that causes both humans and animals.
So on one hand I think it's possible to justify the what is in effect torture of animals if a case can be made that the science obtained from it could be worth it. On the other hand I don't think it's normally the case that this is true and science should do a better job in justifying this torture. If unable to then it should stop.
You know when they kill a mouse in the lab they call it a 'sarcrifice'. There's some harrowing stuff and I personally would probably not be able to do it.
I think most ppl who do it just happened to find themselves in a part of their academic career where they have little choice if they want to proceed.
Probably. And then giving the mice the superpowers of wolverine.
Everybody loves this when it happens to a human in a film, no matter how much radioactive spiders will be crushed. If this makes you feel better while watching your plaster dry, I would bet my money on that sedation was applied and, if that old mice is still alive, it feels now like a two months old heartthrob.
Stories of mice being used in gruesome experiments always give me a bit of moral outrage, but when there's one in my house I have no qualms about killing it with extreme prejudice. So, they should just round up all the home-invader mice for experimentation- my conscious would rest easier knowing they're all just repaying their debt to society
My recollection is that laboratory mice are a very tight family line with very well understood DNA (and behavior? maybe), so you would gain a lot of variability and thus lose scientific rigor and may need longer, more complicated tests.
.jpg){kind=link}
So, uh, did this research involve breaking mice bones?