I logged on to Facebook this morning and saw a couple of friends had "shared" a link that was very strongly anti-animal testing. My fingers itched to write out a reply in their comments section, but I knew that would only end up in a fight (and I am not one to plaster my views all over Facebook or start fights in the comments section. Not a fifth grader.) I debated a civil status update; I debated a passive-aggressive status update. Knowing that none of these things were the solution and that they would only afford me an ephemeral sense of "take that!" I went to go pick up the pizza I had ordered for today's football games.

On the way there, safely unable to take any rash social media action, I thought about what I should do. I feel irritated, frustrated and sad. I wish that people were able to know the world of lab animal medicine that I know - where it isn't always rainbows and unicorns but is no where near the garish, knee-jerk-reaction-inducing scene painted by animal rights activists. Yes, animals undergo experimentation. Yes, there is allowance for certain experimentation that may cause pain and/or distress to those animals. No, NO, it is not animal torture. There are strict guidelines that researchers must follow from the very start that minimize the distressing stimuli that these animals undergo. Some animals (such those used in behavioral research) live a life no different than one in a zoo and undergo no direct physical manipulation for the purposes of the study. Animal research is not just about toxicology testing (cosmetics testing being one of the more prominent ones). It is about finding cures for diseases, about ensuring the efficacy and/or safety of medications, about understanding certain processes better so that other studies can have a launching point. It is, at its heart, about helping both humans and other animals to live longer, healthier, happier lives. Without the sacrifices of animals in research, the world would not be as we know it today.

One of research's main tenet's is "the three Rs": replace, reduce and refine. We all agree that the fewer animals used, the better. So we aim to have researchers justify themselves before moving on to animal testing - is there any other way for them to get the information they need without an animal model? If they must use an animal, how few animals can they use to achieve statisical significance? And no matter how many or what kind of animal is used, how can we refine their protocols so that the animals used experience the least amount of distress possible? It isn't like a bunch of mad scientists congregate and decide how best to torture these helpless animals. And these protocols are monitored closely to make sure the researchers are doing what they're supposed to be doing and that the animals are not suffering. All of the lab animal vets that I know are compassionate individuals who have the animals as their very first priority. They are the first to go on the warpath if there is any question. To dismiss this aspect of research is just...staggering to me. I can't believe that these animal rights groups would not put effort into understanding the protocols in place for animal welfare in research. And if they have, what do they propose? Stop animal testing and test humans? Not allow any new products (like live-saving drugs) to be marketed? Where is the compromise past our own voluntary efforts to improve animal research in the three Rs?

What I have to ask myself now is how would a lab animal vet address this? How do they cope with this resistance on a daily basis, knowing that even as they argue with these people, the same people have lived a life privileged by animal testing? Knowing that these people and their pets have been vaccinated against disease - by vaccines tested on animals! That these people have taken medications to alleviate their pain or illness - by drugs tested on animals! It's certainly a challenge that I don't look forward to, but one I must become adept at handling.