Oh, they WILL build that lab. I support activism and civil disobedience, but I despise histrionics - and so many animal rights activists seem to thrive on histrionics.

Check it out - GermanSausage gave us the tu couque fallacy right out of the chute. Make sure Ansel sees it - he'll want to know.

The saddest part of this article is the insight that the University of Washington is building this lab because they want the money.

its not a "lab". its a vivarium.

@4:

That "insight" is an allegation from a protester that has nothing behind it but a $500m revenue number. No quotes from anyone about the "why" behind any of this - including anything from the protesters about why we should care about this issue. Which leaves @2 with little to work with besides bringing up a possible "why" for us all, albeit in an inelegant fashion.

There are a ton of human lives at stake in medical research - if someone wants to have a human vs. animal life discussion, that's one thing. But all I'm seeing is what @3 calls histrionics.

Any drug anyone is taking that's on the market right now has gone through multiple animal models. It's the only way to prove safety and efficacy before moving on to human trials. So, unless they're able to change FDA human subjects' protections and guidelines, they're sort of wasting their time. But getting publicity? I don't know what they hope to accomplish here.

@4 Kudos on the logical fallacy spotting, but you shouldn't be surprised that scientists will whore themselves for money just as much as people who don't rely on reason and evidence to guide their lives.

@4 the University of Washington is building this lab because they want the money.
@8 you shouldn't be surprised that scientists will whore themselves for money

Hmm yes, money that goes to shit like finding new treatments for cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and other deadly diseases. It's not like the Washington State Legislature is interested in funding their public institutions, and Republicans in Congress have been gutting the NSF, NIH, NAS, CDC and others for years.

Do you think labs fund themselves? Do you think that the equipment is free? That researchers can pay for their own basic needs from nothing at all? This isn't some cash grab, the UW is known around the world for significant and meaningful contributions to medical science.

I really don't understand these complaints at all. These aren't bankers selling toxic assets. They aren't entertainers giving us yet another shitty reality tv show. They're medical researchers at the forefront of their field finding new treatments and cures to help everyone. Yet you're mad that they of all people get paid for their time, experience and persistence? You're pissed off that labs aren't free and funding for studies don't grow on trees?

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

solk512, what causes cancer and diabetes??? Why are we not reducing those CAUSES instead of chaining up life and pretending we can infect them to find a "cure." It's insanity in its purest form.

@11 - How do you think we figure out what causes cancer and diabetes?

A law student. Not a biology student. Obviously.

@11 Exactly. We first create our own problems and then use torturous experimentation on animals in a trial-and-error style methodology of research to try and figure out how we cause those problems. As if these animals are just mere disposable objects.

As a bio major, I gotta say those protesters are a couple of assclowns.
Want to fight for more humane treatment of animals? Go protest a factory farm. Medical research not only saves lives, it's highly controlled and subject to actual ethical oversight.

@16:
But farms are so far awayyyyyyyyyyy!!!!! It's much easier to take BRAVE DIRECT ACTION on campus, also it's not as smelly or dirty. Nor are there as many members of the press around to make me feel important.

@8 - Please start a career in science and then come back and tell me we're all in it for the cash. I fucking dare you to make bank as a scientist, even a corrupt one.

And, to everyone else -- whether we're studying treatments or causes, basic science or translational medicine, we need to test hypotheses in the best possible models available. For many fields this means simply testing in cell culture, but for many others it means using vertebrate animals. We can't directly test anything on people for obvious safety reasons, but also because people are less genetically homogenous than inbred animal strains, and are therefore bad models for testing biological hypotheses. Animal research can be done ethically and compassionately. I'm not going to make any claims about the quality of UW's animal research facilities, but sitting on top of construction equipment does nothing to improve the quality of life for the animals we -- meaning both scientists and humanity -- need to cure and prevent diseases.

Of course the facility is underground - the strains of mice used in vivariums often do not have functioning immune systems. You need to be able to physically separate these animals from germs that could sicken or kill them. Also, it's funny that this article never mentions that this facility is almost certainly meant to house mice and rats, where ~90% of the experiments in the biomedical literature are done. But the dishonesty here besides, the question is really how well we want to understand the safety and efficacy of drugs before they go into (mostly poor, desperate) human volunteers. If these activists want to start entering phase I clinical trials instead of chaining themselves to equipment, then I'll start taking them seriously.

To add to #18 - not only are cell culture models less accurate than animal models for a lot of diseases, but almost all cultured cells need fetal calf serum to grow. You don't really get out of animal cruelty there.

And of course the facility is underground - the strains of mice used in vivariums often do not have functioning immune systems. You need to be able to physically separate these animals from germs that could sicken or kill them. Also, it's funny that this article never mentions that this facility is almost certainly meant to house mice and rats, where ~90% of the experiments in the biomedical literature are done.

But the dishonesty here besides, the question is really how well we want to understand the safety and efficacy of drugs before they go into (mostly poor, desperate) human volunteers. If these activists want to start entering phase I clinical trials instead of chaining themselves to equipment, then I'll start taking them seriously.

@8 I tried whoring for science dollars but nobody's paying right now

Useful Idiots

I love how 11 and their ilk seem to think that scientists use animal models for shits and giggles. Oh wait, they just do it TO MAKE MONEY. If it weren't for the moneygrubbing biologists, clearly by now we would have SOLVED CANCER by using NOT ANIMALS to study biology.

I know the guys working on this job. They have nothing to do with the lab or anything to do with research. They are there to excavate for the new building. These idiots chaining themselves to their machines are misguided fools, they should direct their anger towards the U.W. and make better use of their time. Misguided as it is, they are wasting their time.

They're wasting their time regardless because this lab isn't going to be stopped by a few doofuses with MasterLocks.

It's very sad how little they understand the advancement in animal testing. In the old days we had to slice them up at each stage of a disease, now we just use tags to lock and the animals get to live a full life.

Would you rather we used people?

By the way, your makeup involves way more cruel testing than you ever see in animal research. Yes, even the cruelty free kind.

I shouldn't blow the lid on this one, but I will. I'm one of those highly-paid UW grad students doing medical research. The truth is, I don't get much time for research anymore, what with blowing my fat stacks of animal research money on luxury yachts and hookers. Hell, most of my time goes to hanging out with the Koch brothers or the Kardashians. But, nothing beats those nights in the lab when we're banging thru bottles of Cristal and dancing with the macaques. Thanks for setting us up with the good life chumps.

Animal Testing is an outdated way to obtain information that is relevant to human populations. Fortunately, science is evolving and so too are the methods that can more accurately give scientists and regulators information on chemicals in our environment. The bad news is that, despite all the advancements, many scientists and companies still use animals in experiments.

Animals do not react similarly to chemicals as humans do, so putting animals through painful and lethal tests is both scientifically and ethically questionable. One modern nonanimal test method includes using human cells from surgical leftovers to create 3D human skin in a petri dish and then testing chemicals on that. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will reform the Toxic Substance Control Act by modernizing chemical testing and I personally support this bill because of that.