Hacker News Reader

Once in grad school I went to a talk where another grad student was presenting on his fear research with mice. Many powerpoint details unfold of the hell he and his advisor had contrived to make the mice chronically afraid, and to be able to quantify the fear induced and its effects. I learned that when mice get scared enough they shit excessively. In the presentation of results he lingers on a graph, and says, for effect: "That's right, they were scared shitless."

Hilarity. The room bubbles with laughter. Just enough transgression.

I remember in that moment bubbling with rage. A famous and well-regarded paragon of the field [1] who had recently come to the university to give a talk spent his career characterizing animal emotions, especially of mice and rats. He revealed their rich emotional worlds in glorious detail. The presentor, his advisor, many of us in the department knew -- or should have -- how un-funny the joke was. We were perfectly positioned to know it.

Despite knowing what I knew, I didn't say anything. That silence is still among the top few of my regrets. I guess I learned the weight of doing the right thing in a packed room full of people with contrary opinions, and learned that I was way less strong / bold / principled than I had believed myself to be; which was remarkable, as that bar was already low.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp

I've seen similar things. Besides many experiments not being remotely worth the harm they cause (poor design, niche topics without applications, dead end checking-all-the-boxes, etc.), they leave a mark on the people who conduct them. Some leave that sort of research out of distaste or disgust, and some become callous. It struck me that it inculcates an inhumane indifference to suffering. And numb scientists. It ultimately damages both the people and the science. Yet incentives (monetary, career progression) can push people past boundaries, and with time, erase them.

I almost said something similar, the old Nietzsche quote about how if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back. I didn't want to be even more dramatic, but I think you are exactly right. There's a cost to such things, and the externalities run deep and wide. All you can do is be very deliberate that the trade is worthwhile.

There have been a couple times where I've said something like "I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what's so funny here" when people are laughing about something serious. You can either look like a humorless dick or you people snap out of it and then respect you for acting like an adult

In a room full of people whose entire career is based on torturing animals?

> That silence is still among the top few of my regrets.

Don't be too hard on yourself. The fact that you remember the incident and feel that regret shows a lot of emotional maturity and self awareness. I doubt many others that attended the talk that day even remember it.

I don't get it. Are you angry that he performed those fear studies, or just that he made a joke about it in the presentation? If you see the importance of the results gained from the former, you should have no problem with the latter. Scientists need a way to cope with their emotions as well.

I'm angry because if we agree that that work was important (not sure I do, but not the issue), then the sacrifice of basically torturing a bunch of animals to death in service of science should be treated soberly, with reverence. I'm kind of baffled that you think that I, or anyone, should have no problems with the described conduct.

A surgeon, while operating with all diligence and conscientiousness, may from time to time kill a patient. That's life, it's table stakes to having surgery at all. The notion that it's cool if she jokes about killing the patient to "cope with her emotions" -- esp in an auditorium full of people -- is just fucking ... I dunno what to tell you if you think that.

Angry at himself for failing to publically point out and engage in discussion about the cruelty and terrorizing that was conducted, and well-understood by other science practitioners, and also the much of the audience present.

It is not uncommon for people whose work involve a lot of death and suffering to indulge in dark humor. It is not that they don't care, quite the opposite in fact.

Laughing at the suffering of an animal that you caused isn’t exactly what I would call “dark humor”. It’s just wrong.

If you could reverse time and say (or do) anything you would have wanted, and it wouldn't affect your future negatively,

then what do you wish you had said?

(I too find that joke distasteful)

I had a narrative bubbling in my head at the time; can't remember exactly, but it was something like: "Jaak Panksepp was just here, and you know his work better than I do, which over several decades has established the rich emotional lives of mice. It seems to me that, given that, laughing at the terror you've caused these animals seems inappropriate. What do you think?"

It's worth noting that I don't think saying that would have affected my career. I didn't say it because I didn't have the guts to stand up to the mob. Thus the guilt.

Fucking hell did I just read?

I've just read Flowers for Algernon again a few weeks ago. Don't pull my heart strings like that.

If this is such a common need, I can't help but think they should've invested in a controlled atmosphere killing setup to reduce the panic.[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#Animal_...

Someone I knew caught a raccoon and tried to euthanize it in a freezer which I quickly put a stop to and instead opened a CO2 bottle in the freezer which quietly put an end to the issue.

Hypothermia is a "better" way to go then co2 asphyxiation if your temperature is sufficiently cold, probably hard to do for a raccoon since they can survive winter. Next time use nitrogen or helium, or like most people do, shoot it.

I actually thought that freezing was one of the most humane ways to ... euthanize an animal

This was in 1986, in a pet shop. Not large scale enough for dedicated processing equipment, we used the same vacuum sealer for brine shrimp and crickets and mice and etc.

> I had to adopt her and her baby after seeing that. They were never exceptional as pet mice but I still feel good about saving those two.

Weird sentiment. It's like when South American paramilitaries would exterminate entire villages, but adopt one of the children. Does that make it easier to go back to killing them, or harder?

edit: I could see it both ways; harder obviously, because you enjoy your pet and you see the other mice the same way you see your pet. But maybe easier, because that mouse earned life by acting in a way you registered as humanlike compassion, and the others failed to, so deserve their fate.

Alternate take: sometimes you perform whatever small act of grace that you can manage in this world, even if it's futile or inconsistent with your other actions.

Very well said

I'm not vegan but I think about it all the time.

Same boat.

I'm not a vegan, and I try my absolute best to avoid thinking about what we put animals through. It certainly sits in a specific category of intrusive thoughts. The only real analog to this in my mind is being aware of my own mortality; I just avoid that thought and shove it out of my mind. Occasionally my comparatively relaxed life is harshly interrupted by an awareness of these facts and I'm ripped back to these realities for just a short, terrifying moment. Graciously, a distraction is always readily available.

Disclaimer: I’m “vegan”, for some definition of the word.

Candidly, I think that reduction in animal suffering is worthwhile, but you get diminishing returns quite quickly. I’d suggest only doing things that are easy.

For example:

- While grocery shopping you’re choosing between two types of burgers with similar cost and enjoyment: pick the one that causes less suffering.

- Your tires need to be replaced for a camping trip this weekend: don’t stress about trying to find vegan tires.

- You like cow milk and non-dairy milk the same amount: snag the one that you feel better about.

- Your favorite crackers have some trace amount of milk powder in them and all of the alternatives suck. Buy them.

Over time, the number of things that are “easy” will increase, and in my experience it’s way more practical than trying to engage in vegan perfectionism and googling things like “which cars are vegan” every time you need to buy something.

I'm strictly vegetarian, I will not ever eat meat, but as for vegan parts this is my strategy and it works really well!

it's pretty easy these days, too. veg foods are prolifically available, and oat milk is damn good, even in my morning cappuccino.

it becomes something that is positive when it's always a minimization and hueristic rather than a ruleset and guilt-ridden.

essentially, "I'm vegan but i don't stress it"

I am not a vegan but I think it would be useful for every meat eater to humanely kill and prepare an animal to eat at least once in their life. Having done so, I think I learned a lot about death and whether or not I was willing to eat an animal after preparing a few myself. I also think it is important to be aware of our own mortality and to think about it a healthy amount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori

I've thought about the mortality angle quite a bit, for the reasons you say, and can see how that would be useful -- even something as simple as fishing can force you to confront some realities about life and death and how we relate to the world. Did your behavior change after your experience?

I would say I do eat less meat but that is more for health reasons. Also, I am more grateful to eat meat when I am more aware of the sacrifice that it takes. As far as the realities of life and death, I would say that I am pretty comfortable with them. I can't generalize that, however, as faith is very important to me and I do have confidence in my life after death.

Why try your absolute best to not think about it, instead of taking some steps to reduce your animal consumption and actually feel better about it? I get that something like mortality is an intrusive thought that you can do nothing about, but it's pretty easy to take steps to reduce meat consumption and actually feel better about it.

Ignoring suffering is much easier than relieving it.

Caring about others isn't fun.

Why not suffocate them with nitrogen or co2 or something?

Everyone agrees drowning is really not humane but nitrogen isn't approved either (rodents are not humans and so they might react to things like inert gas hypoxia differently).

CO2 is common in labs though lab rats/mice do show aversion to CO2 which is interpreted to mean that it causes distress. So there's been ongoing debate for 20+ years over how humane CO2 is and what the correct flow rate should be and if oxygen should be added (or not) or other gasses (or not).[1]

Something physical like direct concussion/blunt force trauma followed up by another method might be better[2] (needs more studying) but there's also issues with physical methods because they require more skill to do correctly (or tools/machines developed to negate the skill factor).

Also operators dislike physical methods compared to gassing[1] so what's most practical might end up the standard[3] even if it may not be the most humane.

I mean, theoretically if you could instantly crush a mouse, faster than brain/nerve signals can travel, that would be humane, right? But then a human has to deal with a gruesome crushed mouse.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035945/

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00236772221097...

[3] https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-...

20 years ago I worked in a place that killed them with acetone, covering the mice with a lab paper then wetting the paper with about 50 ml acetone per 50 animals and closing the lid. It was fast.

My daughter got an internship at a research lab this summer - where they have thousands and thousands of research mice and they kill several mice every day. She said CO2 works on adults and therefore that's what they use. But CO2 doesn't work on baby mice and is considered inhumane. Instead they use scissors and cut off the baby mice's heads. It's to be done swiftly so it's like a guillotine. The labs are continually monitored to ensure the animals are stressed as little as possible.

I'm curious why the CO2 doesn't work on the babies. Is their rate of breathing just much slower?

> they use scissors and cut off the baby mice's heads. It's to be done swiftly so it's like a guillotine.

Yes, that sounds fine. Much more humane. Carry on.

As long as the ethics committee OKs it.

It sounds like they had put some thought into which methods cause the least suffering. It doesn't sound like they were trying to skirt the edge of what the ethics committee would allow, which is how I read your comment. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted.

As to possible alternative methods, those include freezing, which could be quite prolonged and painful, and blunt force trauma, which could be difficult/ambiguous to perform correctly and confirm correctness every time.

Absolutely - this is a world-renowned medical research school and since they always have interns you can expect this question has been asked many, many times. They feel the need to explain it in their orientation because they know some of the students are going to be shocked by the procedure.

My daughter did say it's done so fast and the mice are so accustomed to being handled there doesn't appear to be any fear on the mouse's part and there doesn't appear to be any suffering, let alone needless suffering.

Funny anecdote - the first time she was in the lab when they were doing this she hadn't had breakfast that day and had a light dinner the night before and she fainted from low blood sugar. Took her a couple of days to convince them no, she was fine, she just let her blood sugar get too low.

Your assumption is that the mice must die.

Given that its the case, you then wonder about the most effective means of killing them.

But, pushing back on your assumption, what value can there possibly be in killing baby mice?

Do you mean in general? There are two reasons given in this thread: medical research and pet (snake) food.

I expect I don't need to explain why it's best to kill the mice humanely for medical research which involve dissection of some sort.

For snake food, it's best to feed mice that have been euthanized. Feeding live mice is cruel to the mice, who experience terror right before death, and there is also the possibility that a struggling mice could injure the snake.

Feeding snakes?

at the research lab?

Why not have research snakes? And a research mongoose to eat the research snakes? And research jackals to eat the research mongoose? And research lions to...

> But CO2 doesn't work on baby mice and is considered inhumane.

> Instead they use scissors and [swiftly]

oh snap!

Mice must have a high nervous conductance rate and as small as they are, what do you reckon how quickly it had to go through for there to be no impulse to speak of? (ask her!)

$5 Home Depot bucket

$189 nitrogen gas tank

Plus any regulatory, liability, etc. issues that go along with having & regularly using stuff that could also suffocate your employees.

The things franchise owners will do to save pennies.

Why hot water? I would have thought cold or preferably lukewarm water would be more humane.

Fast and doesn't damage the mouse as snake food. If the water is hot enough the shock kills them very quickly.

Hmmm, well, lukewarm for me anyway please.

Dying quicker is better.

I'm pretty sure pain features in the equation as well time.

what a rollercoaster of a story. Thank you for sharing.

Why would you agree to do such a job?

"Because it's my job!" <- if someone paid you an obscene sum of money to bonk random people over the head with a baseball bat, would you take it? No? Then what's the justification for torturing mice?

I hate to use this phrase, but I think this is what the kids are calling "dripping with privilege" these days.

Why not use some more humane method of euthanasia, such as a nitrogen atmosphere?

What kind of hell prevented you from lashing out at this cruelty?

Swap out the researchers with AGI/ASI robots and swap out the mice with humans, and you can see one of the many scenarios that cause people to be concerned about AGI safety.

Almost all of science fiction is "what if aliens/robots did to us what we do to other animals".