The mouse was genetically manipulated (heavily). It’s been created explicitly for this sort of work. Up until this procedure, they lived (I’d argue) pretty good lives for mice- warm, dry, fed, watered, clean… And the animals are expensive. I’m not sure of the strain/age/gender being used here, but it’s pretty easy for research mice to be north of $100 each, so there’s even more incentive for researchers to get the procedures right and maximize the animals’ life.
The upside of the research is huge. I’m no fan of animals suffering, but what ratio do we keep for the number of mice dying that we’re ok with as compared to the humans it will eventually help?
Look, I clearly don’t have answers here- but in my time with people who do animal research, they’re no sadists. There’s just no other way to get the information they need.
Well of course, and you can make a solid argument for the need to control pests in agriculture - it’s a necessary evil - it’s a shame that it needs to be done though, isn’t it? I’d personally be in favour of techniques that reduced the impact on pests that we attract. And on a personal level, it’s not something I engage in - in the same way that we both benefit from slave labour*, but you won’t find me buying any slaves. I’ve likely also benefited from life-saving medicine that’s been tested on dogs and chimps - it still makes me sick to my stomach (and that’s a debate I could have for hours, with myself).
We covered this, it’s called empathy.
* Although of course that’s not a necessary evil, that’s just evil. But then, who gets to define ‘evil’? /snark
Edit: However it’s clear that we’re unlikely to see face-to-face on this issue, so I’d suggest we may just need to agree to disagree - it’s a shame because animal/human cruelty/welfare is extremely important to me, but if you really don’t get it, there’s no information I can present to you to change that perspective.
