this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
150 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

10434 readers
476 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I understand that, but all of that boils down to "trust the bureaucratic system".

It's inherently problematic that the justifications for animal research trials are not required to be publicly posted. If the justification is legitimate, you should feel comfortable defending it publicly.

Keeping it secret and gatekept to the scientists in the field means that the broader public has no real input or say on topics that are not just purely scientific, but deeply moral and ethical.

Virtually every scientist I've ever known has been a deeply moral person, but at a broader scale, there have been enough scientific studies that have been used to abuse people and animals, that their shouldn't be a culture of 'trust us scientists, we always know what the right thing is'. There should be a culture of open transparency and verification.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Also, if you are passionate and interested in this kind of thing, consider reaching out to a local institutional Animal Care Committee to see if they have a spot open for a community member! You’d have to sign a confidentiality agreement at this point in time but maybe you would find something like that very interesting. Many institutions have a stipend for the time spent attending meetings and stuff, it can be quite a time sink for just a volunteer position.

[–] Slowy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I absolutely agree. There is a push for more openness and transparency in animal research, it is a major initiative of the CCAC for rollout over the next 5 years. There is a lot of fear of animal rights activist groups and litigation or harassment from them that I think is generally unfounded - those incidents are pretty rare. Unfortunately, situations like this with Doug Ford only stoke the fear and protectionist attitudes that need to be broken down… now people in this field feel more targeted and scared and less likely to speak to the public. It’s very counterproductive.

https://ccac.ca/en/animals-used-in-science/transparency/institutional-transparency.html

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There is a lot of fear of animal rights activist groups and litigation or harassment from them that I think is generally unfounded - those incidents are pretty rare.

I get the fear, but do also agree it feels unfounded. If farmers and slaughterhouses manage to get by, it seems like animal research labs should be able to too.

[–] GameGod@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

How is that fear unfounded when a politician can snap their fingers and target your research with this populist bullshit? There already is a process to ensure this research is justified. We shouldn't allow political interference in science. It sets a horrible precedent and opens the door for worse. Ford's actions undermine public trust in science, which is terrible (look south of the border).

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Giving beagle puppies 3 hr heart attacks and then killing them gives science a bad name.

If you're going to do animal research you should be prepared to openly explain why it's necessary.

[–] GameGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a terrible way to do it because you and me and 99.999% of the population are not qualified to make the decision about that and understand the very difficult but ethical rationale behind it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you can't explain why you need to be a monster then you don't get to be a monster.

Slaughter house workers keep doing their job perfectly fine, there's zero excuse for scientists to get to torture animals and then patronizingly pat the public on the hand and say 'youre too naiive to understand'.