[verisimi]

> In a study that wouldn't be permitted today, rats swam in glass cylinders filled with water, eventually drowning from exhaustion if they weren't rescued.

Who permits studies? Why would this study NOT be permitted today?

edit to add NOT.

[VoodooJuJu]

>Why would torturing and killing animals NOT be permitted today?

Because many people today would prefer that animals NOT be tortured and killed. Good people don't torture animals at all in general, and when we do kill them, it's for a definite end like food or to end suffering, and they are killed in such a way that they do not feel pain.

Increasingly, people don't want to see animals tortured and killed for some unknown or arbitrary end, like "let's just see what happens when we drown this rat dude, for science! lol".

[MrMcCall]

You are bang on correct and complete.

But it's an absolutely sadass commentary on the commentariat here that you have been downvoted. I feel for dang and his cohort, but there are a great deal of trollholes on this internet. (Yeah, I just made up that word.)

[gavmor]

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or ethics committees instituted at universities, hospitals, and private research orgs ensure research adheres to ethical standards, balancing scientific benefits against potential harm to subjects. In the United States, IRBs must be registered with the Department of Health and Human Services and comply with FDA regulations.

[close04]

Probably on moral grounds, encouraging researchers to find alternative ways to design the study rather than slowly drowning their subjects.

[verisimi]

Yes, moral grounds, I'm sure. But there are all sorts of abhorrent treatment of animals - abattoirs, indoor farming, force feeding, etc, etc - so, why is it a moral line to drown rats in the way described? Who decides this stuff?

[seszett]

> Who decides this stuff?

The ethical committee of whatever university or research organisation is responsible for the person who wants to conduct this experiment.

Also, many countries have laws on animal wellbeing that may supersede even a green light from the ethical committee.

[hyperpape]

I get that you're asking honestly, but it shouldn't be a surprise that academics might sometimes have higher standards than businesses.

[aredox]

You can't eat meat without butchering the animal.

You can do a scientific study without torturing the animal - if you have snow alternative, please explain clearly why, why you study is important enough, and convince the ethics board.

[WaxProlix]

You can't do a drowned rat study without drowning rats.

You can eat all kinds of things without torturing the animals - if you have no alternative please explain clearly why, why eating meat is important enough, and convince - actually absolutely nobody, nobody in power cares about animal suffering in our food system.

[thowawatp302]

Why does one ever have to do a drowned rat study?

And before you ask, no not everyone has to eat meat, but, there is at least the reason that an all plant diet is intractable to some people for the sheer amount of carbohydrates, and for others due to the mental load of making sure they get the nutrients that are hard to get in plants but easy to get in meat.

[WaxProlix]

I'm not a vegetarian or anything just pointing out how nonsensical the above post was. Your take seems to be that it's a matter of ease or convenience that we eat meat - I think that's more or less true.

But it's probably also more convenient to do drowned rat studies to figure out specific things than it is to construct more elaborate ones to ascertain the same kinds of findings. So I don't think my take is that far off the mark, still.

[aredox]

>actually absolutely nobody, nobody in power cares about animal suffering in our food system.

This isn't true,as proven by the many laws and regulations about it for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_animal_welfare_and...

[petargyurov]

You're asking a genuine question but careful not to sink too deep into whataboutism.

Just because abhorrent treatment of animals exists in one industry doesn't mean it's OK for it to appear in another, or in this case, in the field of science.

As you can imagine, there isn't a single combined committee for these two...

[triceratops]

> abattoirs, indoor farming, force feeding

That is why Tyson et al don't have an IRB.

[kelseyfrog]

What if they did? /gen