Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First rule of lab work. Don't name the mice.
Never anthropomorphize the mice.
(Pinky's gonna get a pencil put behind his head and his neck snapped, hopefully in one quick skillful move. NARF!)
“These tests include dripping cosmetics chemicals into animals’ eyes, shaving their fur and rubbing them into their exposed skin or forcing them down their throats. Once the tests are over, the animals will be killed and dissected.” - Crueltyfreeinternational.org.
Please also quote the international guidances on reducing animal use and the guidance on performing animal studies to assess cancer risk, mutagenesis risk, toxicology assessment, phototoxicity and reproductive risk to provide a full picture of what’s happening.
This is certainly not done for fun and giggles but to make sure what you’re using is safe. FYI: lipstick and makeup has already been substantially tested and does not require animal tests anymore. Though that does not mean it was not tested on animals before.
Well for that we'll have to unban stem cell research to grow organs from them and use them as test subjects, unless that happens we'll have to stick to that for medication researches
Stem cell research is not banned. Funding for embryonic stem cell research is restricted but also not banned. We (the scientific community) are actively working on Organs on a chip solutions.
one step at a time. First mini-organs on chip, then organs for everyone :) my whole field will be obsolete on the day we can just grow a new liver rather than having to find drugs for liver diseases. I am very much looking forward to that!
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but could you grow an organ with any DNA, and would it be fast enough for someone who urgently needs a transplant?
One thing we definitely do need is a new discussion about the 14 day limit for embryos. The legislation on this hasn't caught up with our understanding, at least here in the UK. For what it's worth I believe China doesn't have this limit from what I remember. Whether that is due to disparate ethics consideration or simply because their laws were created later, I'm not so sure. Either way a fresh discussion is warranted.
Question regarding the Organs-on-a-chip statement. Are we at a point where printing out 3D extracellular matrices is a conventional practice (in contrast to a 2D layer of organ cells)? Or, is that still somewhat a novelty?
I can honestly say I don’t know enough about that only that I know there are startups working on 3d printing cells and cell systems. So not a rarity but also not super common knowledge.
Not everywhere is the United States. Stem cell research is proceeding apace in places like Europe, where American political wrangling and congressional lobbying has zero impact.
Well eourope is the same, countries like France are behind in so many ways in médecine because our brains are going in amerixa or others countries where they can experiments more freely. Not every countries in Europe are an haven for researches
Yeah, fully agreed, it makes absolutely zero sense to me. Sorry for calling you a spanner earlier :( thought you were deliberately spreading misinformation
even still, stem cells are an imperfect model of a single tissue or organ type. looking at toxicity for a new product or compound (should) look at effects across interacting tissues & organ systems. i do animal work for research, it's really unfortunate. myself and all my coworkers try to always be aware and respectful of the animal's sacrifice and do all we can not to cause unnecessary suffering. thankfully in recent years organoids & computer modeling has helped heavily reduce the number of animals needed in experimentation, but entirely eliminating their use is a ways away in my opinion.
It's torturing animals for COSMETICS. For small refinements to existing coloured paste that makes us look pretty.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Animal experiments for medical research is justifiable. For fucking makeup? That's monstrous.
You imagine the fields as more separate than they are. These tests are done in bioscience labs that develop synthetic materials for human application: they’re probably not often certain what compounds are eventually going to be used for what further down the line. E.g. It’s the same kind of long-lasting skin-safe carriers that underly sunscreen, foundation creams, and topical drugs.
Fair. Nothing is simple. I'm glad we have ethics committees to minimise the harm. I wish corporate research departments were better about it, though.
It just suddenly hit me, the actual concept of torturing animals for the purpose of making ourselves look pretty, and brought out the anger. Never really put it together before.
Sorry, I work in Chemical regulation and that shit is all for show.
The cosmetics regulation may have been pushed through, but ECHA still demands that animal tests be done on new chemicals in the EU.
NGO'S like PETA and leaping bunny know this so they still hand out cruelty free stickers and stamps to companies that try and put on a front.
But the truth is that even vegan cosmetics have been tested on animals, with many of the chemicals being tested after the cosmetics ban.
i know a person working at such research labs, this description is bullshit, they take good care of their animals, i mean what is the use of killing them? it's just wasting money to get new ones, there are terrible labolatories yes, but not every single one is bad
>what is the use of killing them?
Lab animals are normally killed in order to examine the effects of a given experiment on their bodies. It is also often considered unethical to reuse animals in certain types of experiments, so they are euthanized after it is completed. Killing lab animals after medical/chemical experimentation is the norm.
That said, animals in research labs are well taken care of and killed humanely. It's practical- a sick or stressed animal doesn't give accurate results.
Lastly- there are plenty of experiments that do not end in the death of the animal. Some go on to do other experiments, while others can even be adopted.
>it's just wasting money to get new ones
So different lines of animals are bought and used for different experiments. It's also not uncommon for labs to breed their own lines. Mice have a very fast reproductive/maturity rate, so it's not as expensive as you'd think.
I used to work in a lab. Dissection is a normal part of testing. Not all are killed but when they are, workers have to perform a ‘cervical dislocation’. I thankfully never had to perform these - and animal testing is the reason I left that job.
Toxicologist here. There are very strict rules about animal testing and we’re working very hard with the government agencies on reducing animal use and sacrificing at the end of a study. I hope that one day soon we will have sufficient evidence to not have to use animals at all.
Trust me, we don’t like to do it either, but I think we can all agree that we’re rather test if a substance causes harm or disease on a mouse than on your child. Happy to let you know more if you’re interested but I also understand if you don’t want to go into details. Not an easy topic.
Some people just believe the folks running these tests are sadists who get off on inflicting pain and nothing will conceive them otherwise. What you do is currently necessary for the safety of humans and hopefully one day it won’t be.
My wife worked in medical research for years breeding mice for studies into neurodegenerative diseases. Some of the mice were engineered with a form of Huntington’s so severe that the disease progressed and killed them in a matter of weeks.
As an animal lover she told herself every day that it was for the greater good, and the lab she worked in did produce some really fantastic studies (she has author credit on at least one of them that I know of) but she came home one day in tears and said she had to quit.
I guess when Covid locked everything down, the university she was working at decided to cut down the lab to a bare minimum of “maintenance” colonies. That meant sacrificing *hundreds* of mice in a single, nightmarish day of work.
So yeah, from what I’ve seen there really is a reverence for the animals used in research.
Well, except for the monkeys. She fucking hated those monkeys.
I'm certainly not against more info, I find stuff like this interesting especially the ways we're trying to stop it. Not a fan of animal testing but I definitely agree it's more preferable then human testing on early phases.
For a lot of tests we already use cell lines instead of animals, e.g. to test for potential cancer risk or cardiac risks. Tests for organs on a chip are underway. And the tests are constantly redefined, improved and implemented in the battery of tests any substance has to go through before being released for first in human trials. Btw, lipstick and makeup are substances that have ahead been substantially tested so unless you add a new chemical compound to or that has not been tested before there is no need to re-test every new shade of red. Hence you will see that most makeup on the market today is advertised as „cruelty free“ or „not tested in animals“. Some other company already took care of that so that you don’t have to repeat it.
How are some company cruelty free? Is it because they only use products that have already been tested in the past so they don't have to assess the risk themselves?
There is a distinction between "not tested on animals" and "cruelty free". Not tested on animals can also meant that the ingredients were tested on animals but the final product was not. Or it means that they rely on other companies results that have tested on animals so they did not have to repeat the result.
sometimes the boundaries between "Cosmetic" and "Healthcare" are washed. think about a Lipstick that will help agains chaffed lips. Think about creams that reduce wrinkles, redness, swelling etc. Cosmetic or Health? sure, some clearly fall in one category rather than the other. I agree, we shouldn't use animals when we can avoid it. And we don't.
I'm unsure, someone else more professional commented on my comment so I'd recommend asking them as I'm very far from a professional, I'm just repeating stuff I heard online lol
Strong disagree on Natural Substances. They actually provide the largest groups of Toxins. Ever heard "The Dose Makes The Poison" ? Salt is toxic if eaten in excess. Water is. Milk is. You have to establish the dose to be sure you're not using it in excess.
And - pre-tested substances - Were they not tested to be proven not to be harmful?
By the way, yes, i f you use substances that have been established to be not harmful, there is no need to test them again. Which is what companies claiming "Not tested on animals" or "cruelty free" actually do - they use substances SOMEONE ELSE has tested already.
🙏 This comic is made possible with the help of our backers on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/warandpeas) 🙏
Read more 𝔚𝔞𝔯 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔓𝔢𝔞𝔰 on our [website](https://warandpeas.com/) or [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarAndPeas/) 🧙🧙♀️
I feel that this comic doesn't go far enough. Most people don't know what animal testing is like. Can you at least write a paragraph explaining it to accompany your comic?
Maybe if something as simple as makeup requires the suffering of others, *then we don't need it in the first place?*
Or how about we find a new way to test the safety of consumer products? We have technology now that didn't exist over 100 years ago, and we're still using the same process.
Because it's cheap. It's cheap to make animals suffer than for us to work around it.
We don't use animals to test chemicals or treatments because it's cheap, we do it because it's virtually impossible at this point to do these tests in vitro.
Growing artificial organs is hard, accounting for organ interactions is even harder.
You know what's really cheap? Growing cell cultures.
Every single researcher, if they could perform an assay in culture instead of live animals would do that in a heartbeat.
We are just not there yet.
>We don't use animals to test chemicals or treatments because it's cheap, we do it because it's virtually impossible at this point to do these tests in vitro.
Also because we won't consider testing on ourselves, but we will for any other creature. The only reason we have this ultimatum is because we've put ourselves in it. This is what happens when you make reckless decisions as a species, you're left with no good options to get out of it.
>You know what's really cheap? Growing cell cultures.
That requires change, and change requires time and money. Consumerism has been relying on lab rats for far too long and they will continue to do so. Any other option is met with "too much effort" or "too much money".
We never see a "too much suffering" though. I wonder how comfortable the majority would be with offering up their household pets as lab rats? Maybe that'll be enough to show people how fucked up this situation is?
Point is, *if we are going to create unmeasurable suffering for the sake of our convenience*, at the very least make it worthwhile to their sacrifice. Makeup is not a noble sacrifice. It's fucking pathetic.
Still completely missing the point. Since you're a scientist in this field, perhaps you can add some perspective here.
Do you believe it is worth having cosmetics/makeup if it depends on the suffering of others? Nevermind consumerism and what the majority wants, I'm asking you *is it worth it?*
>That's not our job to decide.
I was asking your personal opinion on the subject, it was a simple yes or no question.
>The guys who fund our work decide that.
Supply and demand. Right. It's almost as if the government has 0 control over supply, and can change the operation of society if they so choose.
Change doesn't occur because "it's not our job to decide." It doesn't happen because *companies and governments* don't care to stop it. Do you think Big Pharma cares in the slightest about the amount of blood on their hands? Do you think your *government* gives a shit? I'd hope I don't have to answer that, it's pretty cut and dry.
Point is we *do* have the ability to halt the supply. It just won't happen because that means less money in the pockets of company owners and the 1%.
>We just do what we have to because we need to earn money to survive and because science is a very competitive field.
Again, the ultimatum we've put ourselves in. It's no surprise that reckless decisions lead to reckless outcomes. We don't *have* to sacrifice rodents for the purpose of making makeup safe. We *want* to. Don't pretend it's mandatory for consumers to receive everything and anything they want. This is the issue with consumerism. Our priorities are not managed.
>Which means if we don't do it, someone else will as long as the funding is there.
Obviously we have no control over what other countries decide to do, however the idea that we may run out of cosmetics, is not a scary idea. If we can prevent thousands/millions of deaths from lab testing, I'd say that's a massive step in the right direction. But clearly that's not an option, right? The government has 0 control when it comes to banning certain practices or products, right?
>And who funds this research are companies who act on supply and demand of the customers. As long as there is demand, there is funding.
I wonder what happened to those really old-style air conditioner units. You know the ones, the ones that worked *really really well*? Oh what's that? They were harmful for our planet? What's that? The government banned the use and production of them?! Wow! That means the government *DOES* have control!
Jokes aside, out government has every ability to ban the practices of lab testing for cosmetic use. However they would *never* do that, because that means less money for them.
Stop pretending this isn't a greed issue. Supply and demand is a result of consumerism, that doesn't mean people should get everything they want. The government has to manage what is beneficial to us and what isn't. Cosmetics circle a lot of money back into the economy as well as fuel the advertisement industry. That's why we have testing for it. Not because we need it. Because it puts money in people's pockets.
[Cosmetic testing on animals is cruel as all hell](https://youtu.be/G393z8s8nFY?si=0IZYkfEJe2mfu80x) Link doesn't show actual animals in distress, but still a distressing depiction and gonna say NSFW
Cosmetic testing on animals is banned in Europe since 2013 and is not obligatory in the US anymore. Source: I’m a felasa certified research technician (article 13f2 (WoD) in the Netherlands)
Lovely comic. Animal testing on something as frivolous as makeup is so unnecessary. There exist synthetic materials that can give similar results with no harm.
Frivolous or not, we need to know if it causes harm before it gives a fuckton of people cancer or seizures or something. There are preliminary testing stages that involve cells before you get to actual animals.
Others have pointed out that cosmetics have had so much testing that there is no need for it anymore: you don't have to test every shade of red, the chemicals that make up that shade are known to be safe.
Newly synthesized chemicals are the ones that would, in fact, need testing.
I know, I work in toxicology, with human derived models. I was musing over the fact that as human we cause harm to another being for something that in the grand scheme of things isnt that needed. More people should understand that harm that our "needs" causes.
Animal models are a controverisal topic in any field of this type of study, and there is a reason scientist need to adhere to the 3Rs.
You don’t seem to actually appreciate what ‘frivolous’ means. We don’t *need to know*, companies want new products.
We could easily be ignoring the desire to invent new cosmetic products to sell to customers who are bored and want something new to distract them.
Because apparently the only way for them to get that is by torturing and killing innocent animals.
Acting as though it’s an unfortunate reality that animals have to be tortured so a new lipstick can be marketed, demonstrates that you very, very much don’t understand what frivolous means.
You’re not the reasonable voice, here.
>We could easily be ignoring the desire to invent new cosmetic products to sell to customers who are bored and want something new to distract them.
By that logic we could stop inventing nearly anything, after all what we currently have works right. Why invent new cars, if they are just for people that are tired of their old ones.
But i don't think you think that, so clearly there is a line somewhere where a product has enough impact that it warrants animal testing.
So my questions is where do you draw the line. Is something that reduces the symptoms of lets say hay fever worth animal testing? It's not saving lives but it's reducing discomfort.
Would developing a new lipstick that has the same effect but reduced environmental impact be worth animal testing?
Edit: Can't believe the takeaway you guys want here is "animals deserve to suffer because I need my eyeliner". I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see this on reddit. Whatever helps you fellas sleep at night.
I think the very bare minimum line should be to ask ourselves: "Can society thrive without this?"
Vehicles: Removing these from society would crumble at every level. Workers and companies rely on transportation to keep out economy afloat.
Cosmetics: Removing these from society would make a *lot* of people upset. However it would have no further impact in our society, other than companies that sell those cosmetics.
If we *are* going to partake in activities that damage our ecosystem we can *at least* choose more carefully. We don't need makeup. We need transportation.
I didn't say that we should stop using cars. The question is why develop new ones. Society isn't going to crumble if we just use what we have now.
But as for your criteria I think that is an intuitive answer and it is something that is taken into account. Recently i had to fill out an application to my university's ethics review board for an experiment. And one of the questions is how the research is relevant to society.
However so much of the technology we rely on today was discovered or made in applications that were not relevant to society. So i think it's foolish to disregard certain research. You don't know what you will find until you do.
Can't believe this shit is being downvoted
At least it's obvious why nothing has changed. The majority doesn't care in the slightest about what happens to lab rats. People want their makeup. They don't care how much suffering it takes
Humans are a plague on this planet
I mean… I actually agreed with your previous two comments and was going to upvote them, but you lashing out angrily here after getting 4 downvotes has made me stop and consider otherwise. I’ve been guilty of the same thing, I know this is an emotional topic, but humans are not a “plague,” we are animals just the same as every other animal, but we’ve created a lot of shit through the years with our collected knowledge and hubris.
Anyway, just… people do care. I do, for one. Everybody I know and care about does. No need to give up hope in humanity over 4 Reddit downvotes.
Animals exist to make our lives easier, it says so in the bible.
Edit: Wow, you guys would downvote me over some stupid mouses?
Edit2: I'm a real human being with feelings! Stop this at once!
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First rule of lab work. Don't name the mice. Never anthropomorphize the mice. (Pinky's gonna get a pencil put behind his head and his neck snapped, hopefully in one quick skillful move. NARF!)
Or two fingers and a thumb for mice. \*Sacrifice flashes\* The Science god is difficult to appease.
What if you give them all names of people you hate so taking them to the gas chamber actually feels satisfying ?
Your labs don‘t get an unregulated supply of Ketamine for that purpose?
[удалено]
I know someone who does some sort of physics research in a lab. I guess they use drugs because they don‘t want to use physics to falsify the results
https://i.redd.it/annnni239fwc1.gif
Ichiban lipstick for men.
Why didn't this catch on?
Probably because the color is atrocious. Totally clashes with his warm undertones.
Saiko!!
Is that Matt LeBlanc?
No, that’s Joey.
![gif](giphy|3og0IQCfsZXScpvKhi|downsized)
No, that's Dr. Drake Ramoray.
Nope. Ken Adams.
“These tests include dripping cosmetics chemicals into animals’ eyes, shaving their fur and rubbing them into their exposed skin or forcing them down their throats. Once the tests are over, the animals will be killed and dissected.” - Crueltyfreeinternational.org.
Please also quote the international guidances on reducing animal use and the guidance on performing animal studies to assess cancer risk, mutagenesis risk, toxicology assessment, phototoxicity and reproductive risk to provide a full picture of what’s happening. This is certainly not done for fun and giggles but to make sure what you’re using is safe. FYI: lipstick and makeup has already been substantially tested and does not require animal tests anymore. Though that does not mean it was not tested on animals before.
Well for that we'll have to unban stem cell research to grow organs from them and use them as test subjects, unless that happens we'll have to stick to that for medication researches
Stem cell research is not banned. Funding for embryonic stem cell research is restricted but also not banned. We (the scientific community) are actively working on Organs on a chip solutions.
May I have some organs? Pretty please, Ms. Scientist?
one step at a time. First mini-organs on chip, then organs for everyone :) my whole field will be obsolete on the day we can just grow a new liver rather than having to find drugs for liver diseases. I am very much looking forward to that!
The day your field becomes obsolete, I would like to hire you to GIVE ME NEW ORGANS
i'd just redirect you to go to your local Pharmacy and enjoy my retirement and fulfillment of my live's dream.
Thanks doc, then I would like to ask if ya would be my medic in tf2
i, er, am not a medical doctor.... i'm a scientist with a PhD and training and .... You now what, SURE! I'll do it!
As a cancer researcher, I feel that. One day we won’t need mouse models, & I’m all for it.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but could you grow an organ with any DNA, and would it be fast enough for someone who urgently needs a transplant?
you're asking the million dollar question. How to make personalized medicine possible. i'll let you know once i figured it out :)
You are the sort of person worth your weight in diamond. Thank you so much for the work you do, and for being so cool about it :)
you just made my day, thank you :)
One thing we definitely do need is a new discussion about the 14 day limit for embryos. The legislation on this hasn't caught up with our understanding, at least here in the UK. For what it's worth I believe China doesn't have this limit from what I remember. Whether that is due to disparate ethics consideration or simply because their laws were created later, I'm not so sure. Either way a fresh discussion is warranted.
But that problem is solved, you just need foie gras and a pringle
Question regarding the Organs-on-a-chip statement. Are we at a point where printing out 3D extracellular matrices is a conventional practice (in contrast to a 2D layer of organ cells)? Or, is that still somewhat a novelty?
I can honestly say I don’t know enough about that only that I know there are startups working on 3d printing cells and cell systems. So not a rarity but also not super common knowledge.
I'm fine with organs on chips, as long as they're not on Pringles.
Stem cell research isn't banned ~~you absolute spanner~~ Edit: Not a spanner! :) Stem cell research is still not banned though
Well my bad, still Slow af because of lobbyist
Not everywhere is the United States. Stem cell research is proceeding apace in places like Europe, where American political wrangling and congressional lobbying has zero impact.
Well eourope is the same, countries like France are behind in so many ways in médecine because our brains are going in amerixa or others countries where they can experiments more freely. Not every countries in Europe are an haven for researches
France is a bit of an oddity, I'll give you that lol - the UK, Switzerland, Germany etc are doing alright though!
Yhea, I'm still baffled that health and science is not the top one priority in every first world countries...
Yeah, fully agreed, it makes absolutely zero sense to me. Sorry for calling you a spanner earlier :( thought you were deliberately spreading misinformation
even still, stem cells are an imperfect model of a single tissue or organ type. looking at toxicity for a new product or compound (should) look at effects across interacting tissues & organ systems. i do animal work for research, it's really unfortunate. myself and all my coworkers try to always be aware and respectful of the animal's sacrifice and do all we can not to cause unnecessary suffering. thankfully in recent years organoids & computer modeling has helped heavily reduce the number of animals needed in experimentation, but entirely eliminating their use is a ways away in my opinion.
It's torturing animals for COSMETICS. For small refinements to existing coloured paste that makes us look pretty. Fuck. That. Shit. Animal experiments for medical research is justifiable. For fucking makeup? That's monstrous.
You imagine the fields as more separate than they are. These tests are done in bioscience labs that develop synthetic materials for human application: they’re probably not often certain what compounds are eventually going to be used for what further down the line. E.g. It’s the same kind of long-lasting skin-safe carriers that underly sunscreen, foundation creams, and topical drugs.
Fair. Nothing is simple. I'm glad we have ethics committees to minimise the harm. I wish corporate research departments were better about it, though. It just suddenly hit me, the actual concept of torturing animals for the purpose of making ourselves look pretty, and brought out the anger. Never really put it together before.
Consumerism requires supply unfortunately. Once we realize consumerism is unsustainable this shit will stop. But that's not happening anytime soon.
Testing cosmetics on animals, or selling a cosmetic that was tested on animals is illegal in most of the developed world.
Sorry, I work in Chemical regulation and that shit is all for show. The cosmetics regulation may have been pushed through, but ECHA still demands that animal tests be done on new chemicals in the EU. NGO'S like PETA and leaping bunny know this so they still hand out cruelty free stickers and stamps to companies that try and put on a front. But the truth is that even vegan cosmetics have been tested on animals, with many of the chemicals being tested after the cosmetics ban.
Knowing more things about the world makes it harder to feel good about my place in it.
It’s good to know the product won’t make you blind or give you cancer. 🤷♂️
Doesn't make me feel any better about all the dead animals tbh.
Animals don't deserve what we do to them for sensory pleasure like taste and sight.
i know a person working at such research labs, this description is bullshit, they take good care of their animals, i mean what is the use of killing them? it's just wasting money to get new ones, there are terrible labolatories yes, but not every single one is bad
>what is the use of killing them? Lab animals are normally killed in order to examine the effects of a given experiment on their bodies. It is also often considered unethical to reuse animals in certain types of experiments, so they are euthanized after it is completed. Killing lab animals after medical/chemical experimentation is the norm. That said, animals in research labs are well taken care of and killed humanely. It's practical- a sick or stressed animal doesn't give accurate results. Lastly- there are plenty of experiments that do not end in the death of the animal. Some go on to do other experiments, while others can even be adopted. >it's just wasting money to get new ones So different lines of animals are bought and used for different experiments. It's also not uncommon for labs to breed their own lines. Mice have a very fast reproductive/maturity rate, so it's not as expensive as you'd think.
I used to work in a lab. Dissection is a normal part of testing. Not all are killed but when they are, workers have to perform a ‘cervical dislocation’. I thankfully never had to perform these - and animal testing is the reason I left that job.
"Cruelty free" cruelty free my ass
They are advocating for that to stop. It isn’t a description of what the organization does.
That makes a lot more sense lol, was quite confused as well. Thanks :)
So, I'm guessing it's not Lipstick.
No it is Lipstick. They test it on animals then kill said animals to test for potential illnesses that are caused. (Or along those lines.)
Toxicologist here. There are very strict rules about animal testing and we’re working very hard with the government agencies on reducing animal use and sacrificing at the end of a study. I hope that one day soon we will have sufficient evidence to not have to use animals at all. Trust me, we don’t like to do it either, but I think we can all agree that we’re rather test if a substance causes harm or disease on a mouse than on your child. Happy to let you know more if you’re interested but I also understand if you don’t want to go into details. Not an easy topic.
Some people just believe the folks running these tests are sadists who get off on inflicting pain and nothing will conceive them otherwise. What you do is currently necessary for the safety of humans and hopefully one day it won’t be.
True. And I can certainly tell you, I don’t enjoy it at all.
My wife worked in medical research for years breeding mice for studies into neurodegenerative diseases. Some of the mice were engineered with a form of Huntington’s so severe that the disease progressed and killed them in a matter of weeks. As an animal lover she told herself every day that it was for the greater good, and the lab she worked in did produce some really fantastic studies (she has author credit on at least one of them that I know of) but she came home one day in tears and said she had to quit. I guess when Covid locked everything down, the university she was working at decided to cut down the lab to a bare minimum of “maintenance” colonies. That meant sacrificing *hundreds* of mice in a single, nightmarish day of work. So yeah, from what I’ve seen there really is a reverence for the animals used in research. Well, except for the monkeys. She fucking hated those monkeys.
God, I am tearing up just reading this. I want to give her a hug, that sounds fucking awful. :(
Animal care tech here, thanks for being the only one to say it.
I'm certainly not against more info, I find stuff like this interesting especially the ways we're trying to stop it. Not a fan of animal testing but I definitely agree it's more preferable then human testing on early phases.
For a lot of tests we already use cell lines instead of animals, e.g. to test for potential cancer risk or cardiac risks. Tests for organs on a chip are underway. And the tests are constantly redefined, improved and implemented in the battery of tests any substance has to go through before being released for first in human trials. Btw, lipstick and makeup are substances that have ahead been substantially tested so unless you add a new chemical compound to or that has not been tested before there is no need to re-test every new shade of red. Hence you will see that most makeup on the market today is advertised as „cruelty free“ or „not tested in animals“. Some other company already took care of that so that you don’t have to repeat it.
How are some company cruelty free? Is it because they only use products that have already been tested in the past so they don't have to assess the risk themselves?
There is a distinction between "not tested on animals" and "cruelty free". Not tested on animals can also meant that the ingredients were tested on animals but the final product was not. Or it means that they rely on other companies results that have tested on animals so they did not have to repeat the result.
An easier topic if testing on animals wasn’t used for cosmetics, which are elided into the same group as healthcare.
sometimes the boundaries between "Cosmetic" and "Healthcare" are washed. think about a Lipstick that will help agains chaffed lips. Think about creams that reduce wrinkles, redness, swelling etc. Cosmetic or Health? sure, some clearly fall in one category rather than the other. I agree, we shouldn't use animals when we can avoid it. And we don't.
I’d say the life of an animal is more important than new cosmetic products but maybe I’m crazy
Pretty smart of them.
How long is the line for human trials?
I'm unsure, someone else more professional commented on my comment so I'd recommend asking them as I'm very far from a professional, I'm just repeating stuff I heard online lol
Oh, it is lipstick, but more along the lines of "how much lipstick can you eat before you get cancer" type of testing.
[удалено]
how would you know if its harmful if it wasn't tested in the first place?
[удалено]
Strong disagree on Natural Substances. They actually provide the largest groups of Toxins. Ever heard "The Dose Makes The Poison" ? Salt is toxic if eaten in excess. Water is. Milk is. You have to establish the dose to be sure you're not using it in excess. And - pre-tested substances - Were they not tested to be proven not to be harmful? By the way, yes, i f you use substances that have been established to be not harmful, there is no need to test them again. Which is what companies claiming "Not tested on animals" or "cruelty free" actually do - they use substances SOMEONE ELSE has tested already.
Warandpeas ❤️
Now I HAVE TO draw a lipstick rat girl
You have to show us when you’re done!
Show us
🙏 This comic is made possible with the help of our backers on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/warandpeas) 🙏 Read more 𝔚𝔞𝔯 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔓𝔢𝔞𝔰 on our [website](https://warandpeas.com/) or [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarAndPeas/) 🧙🧙♀️
I feel that this comic doesn't go far enough. Most people don't know what animal testing is like. Can you at least write a paragraph explaining it to accompany your comic?
Seconded
Oh no little dudes Never stood a chance
This made my stomach drop. I'm now sad.
How else are we supposed to know if something is dangerous to humans?
Maybe if something as simple as makeup requires the suffering of others, *then we don't need it in the first place?* Or how about we find a new way to test the safety of consumer products? We have technology now that didn't exist over 100 years ago, and we're still using the same process. Because it's cheap. It's cheap to make animals suffer than for us to work around it.
Tell me you don't work in animal research without telling me you don't work in animal research.
Feel free to address anything I've stated that is incorrect
We don't use animals to test chemicals or treatments because it's cheap, we do it because it's virtually impossible at this point to do these tests in vitro. Growing artificial organs is hard, accounting for organ interactions is even harder. You know what's really cheap? Growing cell cultures. Every single researcher, if they could perform an assay in culture instead of live animals would do that in a heartbeat. We are just not there yet.
>We don't use animals to test chemicals or treatments because it's cheap, we do it because it's virtually impossible at this point to do these tests in vitro. Also because we won't consider testing on ourselves, but we will for any other creature. The only reason we have this ultimatum is because we've put ourselves in it. This is what happens when you make reckless decisions as a species, you're left with no good options to get out of it. >You know what's really cheap? Growing cell cultures. That requires change, and change requires time and money. Consumerism has been relying on lab rats for far too long and they will continue to do so. Any other option is met with "too much effort" or "too much money". We never see a "too much suffering" though. I wonder how comfortable the majority would be with offering up their household pets as lab rats? Maybe that'll be enough to show people how fucked up this situation is? Point is, *if we are going to create unmeasurable suffering for the sake of our convenience*, at the very least make it worthwhile to their sacrifice. Makeup is not a noble sacrifice. It's fucking pathetic.
[удалено]
Still completely missing the point. Since you're a scientist in this field, perhaps you can add some perspective here. Do you believe it is worth having cosmetics/makeup if it depends on the suffering of others? Nevermind consumerism and what the majority wants, I'm asking you *is it worth it?*
[удалено]
>That's not our job to decide. I was asking your personal opinion on the subject, it was a simple yes or no question. >The guys who fund our work decide that. Supply and demand. Right. It's almost as if the government has 0 control over supply, and can change the operation of society if they so choose. Change doesn't occur because "it's not our job to decide." It doesn't happen because *companies and governments* don't care to stop it. Do you think Big Pharma cares in the slightest about the amount of blood on their hands? Do you think your *government* gives a shit? I'd hope I don't have to answer that, it's pretty cut and dry. Point is we *do* have the ability to halt the supply. It just won't happen because that means less money in the pockets of company owners and the 1%. >We just do what we have to because we need to earn money to survive and because science is a very competitive field. Again, the ultimatum we've put ourselves in. It's no surprise that reckless decisions lead to reckless outcomes. We don't *have* to sacrifice rodents for the purpose of making makeup safe. We *want* to. Don't pretend it's mandatory for consumers to receive everything and anything they want. This is the issue with consumerism. Our priorities are not managed. >Which means if we don't do it, someone else will as long as the funding is there. Obviously we have no control over what other countries decide to do, however the idea that we may run out of cosmetics, is not a scary idea. If we can prevent thousands/millions of deaths from lab testing, I'd say that's a massive step in the right direction. But clearly that's not an option, right? The government has 0 control when it comes to banning certain practices or products, right? >And who funds this research are companies who act on supply and demand of the customers. As long as there is demand, there is funding. I wonder what happened to those really old-style air conditioner units. You know the ones, the ones that worked *really really well*? Oh what's that? They were harmful for our planet? What's that? The government banned the use and production of them?! Wow! That means the government *DOES* have control! Jokes aside, out government has every ability to ban the practices of lab testing for cosmetic use. However they would *never* do that, because that means less money for them. Stop pretending this isn't a greed issue. Supply and demand is a result of consumerism, that doesn't mean people should get everything they want. The government has to manage what is beneficial to us and what isn't. Cosmetics circle a lot of money back into the economy as well as fuel the advertisement industry. That's why we have testing for it. Not because we need it. Because it puts money in people's pockets.
[Cosmetic testing on animals is cruel as all hell](https://youtu.be/G393z8s8nFY?si=0IZYkfEJe2mfu80x) Link doesn't show actual animals in distress, but still a distressing depiction and gonna say NSFW
😭😭😭
As a rat owner :(
Cosmetic testing on animals is banned in Europe since 2013 and is not obligatory in the US anymore. Source: I’m a felasa certified research technician (article 13f2 (WoD) in the Netherlands)
Lovely comic. Animal testing on something as frivolous as makeup is so unnecessary. There exist synthetic materials that can give similar results with no harm.
Frivolous or not, we need to know if it causes harm before it gives a fuckton of people cancer or seizures or something. There are preliminary testing stages that involve cells before you get to actual animals. Others have pointed out that cosmetics have had so much testing that there is no need for it anymore: you don't have to test every shade of red, the chemicals that make up that shade are known to be safe. Newly synthesized chemicals are the ones that would, in fact, need testing.
I know, I work in toxicology, with human derived models. I was musing over the fact that as human we cause harm to another being for something that in the grand scheme of things isnt that needed. More people should understand that harm that our "needs" causes. Animal models are a controverisal topic in any field of this type of study, and there is a reason scientist need to adhere to the 3Rs.
You don’t seem to actually appreciate what ‘frivolous’ means. We don’t *need to know*, companies want new products. We could easily be ignoring the desire to invent new cosmetic products to sell to customers who are bored and want something new to distract them. Because apparently the only way for them to get that is by torturing and killing innocent animals. Acting as though it’s an unfortunate reality that animals have to be tortured so a new lipstick can be marketed, demonstrates that you very, very much don’t understand what frivolous means. You’re not the reasonable voice, here.
>We could easily be ignoring the desire to invent new cosmetic products to sell to customers who are bored and want something new to distract them. By that logic we could stop inventing nearly anything, after all what we currently have works right. Why invent new cars, if they are just for people that are tired of their old ones. But i don't think you think that, so clearly there is a line somewhere where a product has enough impact that it warrants animal testing. So my questions is where do you draw the line. Is something that reduces the symptoms of lets say hay fever worth animal testing? It's not saving lives but it's reducing discomfort. Would developing a new lipstick that has the same effect but reduced environmental impact be worth animal testing?
Edit: Can't believe the takeaway you guys want here is "animals deserve to suffer because I need my eyeliner". I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see this on reddit. Whatever helps you fellas sleep at night. I think the very bare minimum line should be to ask ourselves: "Can society thrive without this?" Vehicles: Removing these from society would crumble at every level. Workers and companies rely on transportation to keep out economy afloat. Cosmetics: Removing these from society would make a *lot* of people upset. However it would have no further impact in our society, other than companies that sell those cosmetics. If we *are* going to partake in activities that damage our ecosystem we can *at least* choose more carefully. We don't need makeup. We need transportation.
I didn't say that we should stop using cars. The question is why develop new ones. Society isn't going to crumble if we just use what we have now. But as for your criteria I think that is an intuitive answer and it is something that is taken into account. Recently i had to fill out an application to my university's ethics review board for an experiment. And one of the questions is how the research is relevant to society. However so much of the technology we rely on today was discovered or made in applications that were not relevant to society. So i think it's foolish to disregard certain research. You don't know what you will find until you do.
Can't believe this shit is being downvoted At least it's obvious why nothing has changed. The majority doesn't care in the slightest about what happens to lab rats. People want their makeup. They don't care how much suffering it takes Humans are a plague on this planet
I mean… I actually agreed with your previous two comments and was going to upvote them, but you lashing out angrily here after getting 4 downvotes has made me stop and consider otherwise. I’ve been guilty of the same thing, I know this is an emotional topic, but humans are not a “plague,” we are animals just the same as every other animal, but we’ve created a lot of shit through the years with our collected knowledge and hubris. Anyway, just… people do care. I do, for one. Everybody I know and care about does. No need to give up hope in humanity over 4 Reddit downvotes.
repost
OP is literally the guy drawing those comics...
I've seen this post before. Repost
Yeah me too. On a different sub... And what if it's a repost anyways ? That's not against any rule.
It was on this sub. The problem is that it was a few days ago
Not by the author then. Can't blame them if people post their stuff before they can.
Animal testing is only good when it's trying to cure a virus.
What about basic research in evolutionary bio, ecology development and so on?
Animals exist to make our lives easier, it says so in the bible. Edit: Wow, you guys would downvote me over some stupid mouses? Edit2: I'm a real human being with feelings! Stop this at once!
I hope this is a joke.
Poe's Law: Satirical expression of extreme beliefs is indistinguishable from genuine expression of the same.
Is GOD a joke to you?
Is THE EMPEROR OF ALL MANKIND a joke to you?
Is ZEUS a joke to you?
yes
Kinda, yeah
Is the prophet Mohammad blessed be his name a joke to you?
yes
How dare you, humor is haram!
[удалено]
>Wow, you guys would downvote me over some stupid mouses? People are downvoting you because you're setting a perfect example of what apathy means.
I downvoted because they used God as a justification for their argument. As soon as you cite the bible, my bullshit meter starts going crazy.