Countless millions of nonhuman animals (animals) of all sorts are used in a diverse array of laboratory research. Their treatment varies from being unspeakably inhumanely abused to being treated with kindness, depending on the questions at hand and the values and attitudes of the researchers themselves. The lives of these animals truly are hidden, and most people are incredulous when they learn that laboratory rats and mice still are not considered "animals" under the current federal Animal Welfare Act.
I spent the early years of my PhD at an Austrian non-academic research institute, where competing for grants was the only way that my colleagues and I could secure funding for our research. Everything else we did, from publishing papers to presenting at conferences, felt designed, ultimately, to help secure the next grant. The system seemed back to front: surely it should be about the science first?
There's sloppy science, and there's AI slop science. In an ironic twist of fate, beleaguered AI researchers are warning that the field is being choked by a deluge of shoddy academic papers written with large language models, making it harder than ever for high quality work to be discovered and stand out. Part of the problem is that AI research has surged in popularity.
Science is a slaughterhouse. We rarely acknowledge the degree to which animal life underwrites the research that provides us with medicines, or the regulation that keeps us safe. Live animals were used in 2.64m officially sanctioned scientific procedures in the UK in 2024, many of them distressing or painful and many of them fatal. But the government's new strategy to phase out animal testing published earlier this month suggests that in the near future emerging technologies
Mark and David Geier, a father-son duo, promoted controversial autism treatments and published discredited papers on vaccine harms, leading to accusations and sanctions from health authorities.
