Better Living Through Animal Cruelty

Scientists breed world’s first mentally ill mouse

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2159295.ece

SCIENTISTS have created the world’s first schizophrenic mice in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the illness.

This reminds me of a joke:
“So, Mr. Mouse, you’re seeking a divorce from your wife, Minnie, because you claim she is insane?”
“I didn’t say she was insane. I said she’s fucking Goofy!”

It is believed to be the first time an animal has been genetically engineered to have a mental illness.

Apparently, this reporter has never seen the membership rolls of PETA.

It will allow researchers to study the disease and develop treatments using a limitless supply of laboratory animals.

I love the dig at the activists, here. “A limitless supply.” LOL

Animal rights campaigners have condemned the research, saying that it is morally repugnant to create an animal doomed to mental suffering.

But you don’t see the activists lining up to volunteer for testing, do you? You could also turn their argument against them, by stating that by blocking the treatment possibilities in the research, the activists will have doomed any future people born with schizophrenia to a lifetime of mental suffering. These are mice, you idiots, bred specifically for research purposes. It’s not like the scientists are kidnapping them off the street, tearing them away from their little mouse families in the dead of night in some Gattaca-inspired frenzy of Gestapo-like tactics.

I like animals, but if I had to put a bullet in my dog to make my family’s life better? Goodbye, Sparky. We’re at the top of the food chain, and it doesn’t matter if you take the religious view (we were given dominion over the animals), or the scientific one (survival of the fittest), animals are not equal to humans.

Animal Aid, a campaign group, said rodents were not a reliable way of modelling human disease.

How do they know? These are the world’s first schizoid mice, remember? Evidently, the scientists think that there is some use in doing this, and I’m guessing they probably know a little more about it than the activists. If this doesn’t pan out, they’ll move on to something more profitable. Remember, science is a business, too. They run on profit/loss statements instead of just their feelings.

I wrote that last sentence before I actually checked out Animal Aid’s website. The biggest page on there is their Shopping page. Seems there is pretty good money in the activist stance. One of their catchier bits is their “Animals Don’t” campaign. It states:

Animals don’t smoke
Animals don’t drive
Animals don’t wear make up
Animals don’t use paint
Animals don’t drink alcohol
Animals don’t drop bombs

Because we do, why should they suffer?

I put together my own much shorter list:

Animals don’t actively contribute to the forwarding of societal goals, nor do they have the potential to do so on their own

Because we do, why should we extend to them moral equivalence?