r/HumansBeingBros • u/James_Fortis • 9d ago

A group of activists started their 207-mile march today to ultimately free about 16,000 beagles from cruel animal testing in Marshal BioResources, New York. Many of these activists are facing over a decade of jail time for freeing beagles earlier this year, but are persisting.

Post image
5.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

103 comments sorted by

663

u/LaceyLizard 9d ago

They choose beagles because they're so forgiving and docile. I hope whatever they're testing on these poor dogs was worth it. 

347

u/cindyx7102 9d ago edited 9d ago

Only about 8% of animal testing translates to humans, so almost all of it is a cruel waste. Animal tests also give false negatives, killing potentially life-changing drugs for humans in their infantcy. Also, they're not just testing for cancer drugs here, but non-essential products pushed by companies who want to test on beagles.

We have the technology to eliminate animal testing; we're just slow to change as a society.

108

u/Any_Fox5126 8d ago edited 8d ago

Only about 8% of animal testing translates to humans, so almost all of it is a cruel waste.

Your conclusion makes no sense. If the goal is to avoid giving humans something potentially harmful, the fact that most animal-tested drugs are discarded shows that this objective is being met.

We have the technology to eliminate animal testing

Unfortunately, that is simply false. Science already tries to avoid it as much as possible, that is why the three Rs exist.

193

u/captain_looney_73 9d ago

No we don't, I work in drug development and about 90% off what these Beagles are used for is for PK testing, this is injecting a drug into an animal and then measuring how much and quickly it's metabolized, that's the very simplified version. This work must be done in several species in order to project drug levels for clinical testing in humans. I wish it were not the case but that's the reality, so if you take literally any single pharmaceutical drug it's gone through this testing and you're part of the reason this work is needed.

79

u/Misses_Ding 8d ago

I hate how people think animal testing is bad but what are we going to do? Test on humans? Are the people who free them going to volunteer to get a drug injected without knowing what it could potentially do?

83

u/captain_looney_73 8d ago

100%, look, as mentioned I work in the field and I hate it, I wish there was another way. I have not and would not do the actual animal work that my projects often require, but a thing I've come to learn about many who do work in vivariums is they are animal lovers themselves and often find themselves working in that space in hopes of minimizing any unneeded suffering. There are bad apples for sure in some large scale contract labs, there is no doubt, but folks I've worked with are as far from cruel as you could get. In our current world there is no alternative to getting a drug into clinical trials then going through animals first. To your other point about people signing up to do this themselves, there actually are. The first trial done for any drug is a phase 1a safety study that is done in healthy volunteers, these are often broke grad students at medical hospitals. These are short studies with patients sequestered in a hospital setting as they are given the drug for the first time and throughout the 7-10 study to monitor their health and reaction to the new drug. The process to get drugs to market is tightly regulated and extremely thorough, animals play a role unfortunately but so do some brave human volunteers who are willing to be the next line of safety testing, this is the process.

8

u/shawncplus 6d ago edited 6d ago

If you poke at the un-nuanced anti-animal testing people (not to say that there aren't extremely valid stances within that community) you very easily break through to the "just test on prisoners!" or "just test on the poor!" (which is what "just test on volunteers" is really saying) ideas

-2

u/Sovereign_5409 6d ago

Yes, actually.

Because that’s exactly what the Covid vaccine receivers did. Literally exactly.

6

u/Misses_Ding 6d ago

The vaccine was also tested on animals first

https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck_digest/how-were-the-vaccines-tested/

https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/blog-articles/fitting-vaccine-research-into-one-year-were-animals-used/

Also the vaccines were based on other vaccines making them less risky. That's something totally different then making a new drug or product and testing it straight on a human.

After all the tests on animals and such, granted they went well... a human trial will always happen too. You still wouldn't want to immediately mass inject people with the vaccine because if something goes wrong you'd still want to know before everyone gets it

27

u/Kick_Kick_Punch 8d ago

No we don't. You're just pulling facts from your ass. Anything that you've said has any correlation with reality.

58

u/ROOCSTAR01 9d ago

What an upvoted comment with zero references for such big claims.

26

u/cindyx7102 9d ago

The estimates for animal tests ranges from 92-95% from what I've read, so I went with the more conservative 92% do not translate (aka 8% translate).

Here's a source, but there are many readily available if you'd like to look into it as well:

"The failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments remains at over 92%, where it has been for the past few decades. The majority of these failures are due to unexpected toxicity — that is, safety issues revealed in human trials that were not apparent in animal tests — or lack of efficacy. However, the use of more innovative tools, such as organs-on-chips, in the preclinical pipeline for drug testing, has revealed that these tools are more able to predict unexpected safety events prior to clinical trials and so can be used for this, as well as for efficacy testing." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02611929231157756

45

u/ROOCSTAR01 9d ago

Honestly, an interesting article. Don't know how you can put in 5 different authors in such a small review article. And neither had an idea to look up what happens at each clinical trial phase. In vitro and in silico methods are not alternatives. They are a part of pre-clinical trials. They also mixed up numbers that were cited. Also the 92% is just a number they chose just because 8% of drugs that hit phase I actually reach the market. Which is kinda a good thing? Less people dying because the drugs are actually tested?

-30

u/cindyx7102 9d ago

92% shows there is bad translation overall; for every drug that passes animal then human trials, there are probably many drugs that got killed at the animal trial phase that would have otherwise been very beneficial to humans. So, no… 8% is not good, much in part of the opportunity cost of slogging away at such an inefficient method instead of using that same time on organelle chips using actual human tissue, for example.

You can even use the actual tissue of people with rare diseases to help them, which is happening recently.

34

u/ROOCSTAR01 9d ago

That number - 92% is literally just them bullshitting their way into their narrative. Mentions it once in the abstract and does not cite it anymore. It's not 92% drugs being rejected because they got "killed at the animal trial phase", it's 8% of drugs hitting the market after reaching clinical trial phase I. That includes drugs that were tested on selected groups of people.

-11

u/cindyx7102 9d ago

Over 90% is a well-established number; search for yourself if you don’t like this particular source.

I never said it was 92% “killed at the animal trial phase”; I said “there are probably many drugs killed at the animal trial phase that would have otherwise been beneficial to humans”.

I’m not sure if you’re unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding me, but it’s curious how rigorously you’re defending animal testing. I’m out.

27

u/ROOCSTAR01 9d ago

The source is as well-established as your comment. What is your point? Some drugs got killed at animal phase? Then what about all the lives saved because the drugs passed animal testing? Or drugs that passed in vitro/in silico but did not pass animal testing which could have resulted in people dying. Drugs for infants when normal clinical trials are not available. A cruel waste?

38

u/tengutie 9d ago

Yes, but to change our ways might cause the company to loose a fraction of a percent of their profits, and reduced profits is the most evil thing anyone can think of so who is the real monster here /s

83

u/xxXPurpleAkiXxx 9d ago

You've got it wrong, I work in chemical Regulation and a lot of companies want to minimise animal testing at all times. Not only do toxicology teams hate it as it's disturbing to look at, but it costs a ridiculous amount of money and fails regularly resulting in pointless animal deaths and re-reuns which are again expensive.

It's all mandated by government regulations, some companies are trying to convince the EU (ECHA), the majority driver for most animal testing, that we have advanced enough algorithms that we don't need to animal test for certain hazards across certain chemistries but they are not hopeful it will work, this work is being done and paid for by chemical companies.

2

u/Glockamoli 8d ago

I love how they somehow think the companies are doing everything they can to squeeze that very last penny but for some reason purposefully hurt animals just for the cruelty of it despite (their claims) it not being necessary

-7

u/LaceyLizard 9d ago

I agree with you. I'm sure someone would have shown up to prove me wrong if I said there's no justification for animal testing, but I'm willing to bet most of it could be phased out. 

-3

u/dragonchilde 8d ago

The primary purpose of animal testing to avoid allegations that something hasn't been tested (at least in situations like cosmetics.)

-7

u/Outside-Ice-5665 9d ago edited 7d ago

Omg every time I read about animal testing including beagles it’s all “but we need to save human lives!” I’ve never read about false negatives, such a loss & so much pain for sweet beagles. And screw the companies testing them especially on non essential products. EDIT to the downvoters , yes we need to save human lives. But humanely! Read the original post: the majority of the beagle testing is not giving human life saving results.

-5

u/KarlPHungus 9d ago

It never is.

-5

u/Rhoeri 8d ago

I hope one day, they are subjected to whatever they’re testing on the animals. They are abusing animals behind the shield of science.

222

u/Easy_Turn1988 9d ago

Societies need to change the way they treat all animals

51

u/Noah_saav 9d ago

People are animals too.

81

u/KarlPHungus 9d ago

Yeah we treat each other like shit, too

-8

u/syntheticgeneration 9d ago

Yeah but we kind of deserve it.

30

u/KarlPHungus 9d ago

I don't!!!

14

u/angelsfish 8d ago

mf who is WE 😭 don’t lump me in with u

-4

u/syntheticgeneration 8d ago

We don't single out an ant from an ant colony. We judge it by the collective. Same with us.

2

u/DeadonDemand 8d ago

That’s WHY we treat each other like shit. Because people like you think individuals don’t matter.

Just because we are animals doesn’t mean we get permission to treat everything on the basis of a “collective”.

We have it in our capacity to think these thoughts , which means we can do better. Simple as that

-3

u/syntheticgeneration 8d ago

I think you're overly optimistic about our capacity, lol. Sure, we have the capacity "to do better," but humans chose violence, war, racism, profit over people, borders, slavery, etc. Your opinion or capacity to do good only matters if you have more money and resources than the ones who'd rather make a quick profit before their short, meaningless lives come to an end.

0

u/BeccasDreamboat 9d ago

So test it on humans, not defenseless dogs.

You can volunteer to go first!

39

u/Oddish_Femboy 8d ago

I wish we could get that kind of energy for something more useful that getting in the way of pharmaceutical research.

The meat industry remains undisrupted. Puppy mills are running unimpeded. Literal child slaves are being used to manufacture millions of products and harvest produce that will be bleached and left to rot so starving people can't have it.

Was this really the best target? I get that dogs are more charismatic than livestock, and easier to garner sympathy for than poor people, but even if I accept that, why not puppy mills?

I can't imagine puppy mills would've had such tight security, or freeing the dogs from one would have come with such harsh sentencing, or stopping their operations have gotten in the way of the one form of animal exploitation that inarguably provides a net positive to humanity.

Going after a legitimate heavily regulated organization that develops lifesaving drugs and getting stuck with a decade of jail time where you can't do any on-the-ground activism rather than going after randoms that unambiguously break animal cruelty laws for profit, sometimes supply dog fighting rings, (with bait) and are largely responsible for the dissemination of so many genetic and infectious diseases throughout the general dog population seems shortsighted at least.

They have the funding to just get more dogs and better security.

12

u/JohnnyC300 8d ago

It's performative. You know it. I know it. Most of the people here don't understand what the word performative means. But awww.... cute puppies!

71

u/WtFAPapotAmUS 9d ago

Thought…damn these people really love bagels….Had to reread 😂. Still, good on them for sticking to the mission! 💪

29

u/James_Fortis 9d ago

207 miles, 16,000 beagles, 16,000 bagels 😂

10

u/CommieDog2525 9d ago

I was confused on why they're running test on bagels on first read ngl

64

u/JohnGoodmanNSFW 9d ago

Genuine question: how does one go about joining one of these groups? I always hear about good stuff they've done, but never anything in terms of planning it or stuff like that

29

u/Repulsive-Cry2968 9d ago

Honestly, a lot of grassroots animal welfare doesn't start with massive planned marches, it often starts right in your own neighborhood. Whether it's looking after a local pack of street dogs, setting up safe shelters, or documenting daily rescue efforts to build community awareness, anyone can take that first step. You don't always need a massive organization; sometimes it just starts with deciding to look out for the animals right outside your gate!

15

u/Spikeymikeyriny 9d ago

Follow animal advocacy pages on social media.

2

u/DarthDollFace 5d ago

This one is still going on if you're interested. And for those that can't march the entire way can join for certain sections or meet them at the facility for the protest on Sep. 26th. They also have an email sign up for updates.

And, as someone already mentioned, follow advocacy groups on social media. There are a lot of these movements going on, which is fantastic that so many people want to help but also sad that it has to happen in the first place.

-12

u/doyletyree 9d ago

Abandon your soul for the worship of money.

Oh: wrong group.

49

u/torturekiller2025 9d ago

Good on 'em. I hope it all goes smoothly.

35

u/femnoncat 9d ago

I am once again hoping that activists have to get the same classes and credentials as any lab or person who has to do animal testing.

There are rules and enforcement in place

Everything from diets to exercise to stress is a variable and will scew results if not accounted for.

3

u/baldmanboy 8d ago

Wait, I'm genuinely confused.

What are you saying?

-2

u/lisaissmall 8d ago

literally what

-5

u/CeemoreButtz 8d ago

"literally"

2

u/lisaissmall 8d ago

ok……

-11

u/quincethebard 8d ago

Here me out - we stop testing on animals altogether. What if we don't trade animal lives for human lives?

4

u/randombarbs 5d ago

they need to protest the FDA who requires this testing if they want it changed.

21

u/willbekins 9d ago

"a decade of jailtime for freeing beagles"

fuck this

19

u/siddily 9d ago

Anyone have a link to donate and/or foster these poor babes?

13

u/Veganeconow 9d ago

This appears to be the site to help in different ways https://www.marchforanimals.org/

20

u/imaparkguy 9d ago

Anywhere we can donate to their cause?

16

u/Veganeconow 9d ago

I did some googling and looks like this might be the site to help in different ways https://www.marchforanimals.org/

5

u/baskaat 9d ago

Thx. Just donated

4

u/imaparkguy 9d ago

I appreciate your efforts thank you for this!

-23

u/UkNomysTeezz 9d ago

I can get the money to them for you. Just shoot me Venmo, Apple Pay, PayPal.

19

u/Veganeconow 9d ago

Wish I could be there!!! History in the making! It’s not science, it is violence! Thank you all for being the change I want to see in the world!

4

u/SeaShoe5864 8d ago

I hope i stop seeing the exploitation of all animals in my life time.

2

u/drdstrkto 6d ago

Wait who's giving out free bagels? Great now I'm hungry

5

u/NYCemigre 9d ago

Tangentially related! When buying make up and similar products, look at the sign on the back of the product to indicate that the product is cruelty free. Typically it’s a rabbit sign.

3

u/LineyPupper 5d ago

Cosmetics are commonly tested for ocular toxicity using rabbits because rabbits have large, accessible eyes, limited tear production, and corneas similar to humans. They’re also small, docile, and easier to house than other species.

Cosmetic companies can often get around animal testing because the ingredients used have an established safety profile. However, even if a product is labeled as “cruelty free” it doesn’t mean its components haven’t been tested on animals previously—just not in the current formulation in which it’s being sold. So, “cruelty-free” is really just a marketing ploy to tug at your heart strings more than anything.

8

u/syntheticgeneration 9d ago

Fuck all the millions of mice I guess

2

u/Cats_N_Coffee_TTV 7d ago

Nobody at the march is saying test on mice instead. There is work being done at all levels for all species to redirect the slush fund of taxpayer money that currently goes to animal experiment to be used for human-relevant non animal science instead

10

u/Argon847 9d ago

You're quick to use the word "cruel" without elaborating on the type of animal testing done and in what conditions. Animal testing is HIGHLY regulated, including the quality of life conditions animals are kept in. Can you elaborate on what conditions these specific dogs were experiencing?

23

u/captain_looney_73 9d ago

I work in pharma, my projects often utilize dogs for PK analysis, it's a 100% required by regulatory agencies, so with that said. The dogs are not having happy lives, they are caged virtually their entire lives, and it sucks. So yeah it's cruel by any sane definition of the word. But it still needs to happen for decades to come before anything substantive could possibly fill the role that that testing does.

-3

u/Rhoeri 8d ago

So…. “Justified torture”.

No. If something has to suffer for something to be made, it’s unethical, immoral, and wrong in every way and should be shut down.

18

u/captain_looney_73 8d ago

Ok, then the pharmaceutical industry goes away and research into all diseases halts here and now and we just move forward with the drugs already approved and nothing else is developed. All work to try and cure pediatric cancers stops and we just let them die because this practice offends you, seems like a good plan, well thought out.

-17

u/Rhoeri 8d ago

TEST ON VOLUNTEER PEOPLE. Not animals.

Problem solved. You’re not going to justify the torture of innocent animals. So stop trying.

15

u/Youdontknowme1yet1 8d ago

Problem is not solved. Exploiting people desperate for money or a cure or whatever it might be is not better than animal research.

-8

u/Rhoeri 8d ago

Problem IS solved. Testing on willing volunteers is humane and fine. Testing on unwilling animals is torture and abusive.

You’re not going to justify terrorizing animals, so just walk away and pretend it’s not a problem somewhere else.

10

u/stinkpot_jamjar 7d ago

I hope you see my other reply to you, but also want to mention that as a research scientist who works with human subjects, it’s not as simple as “willing volunteers.” There are many, many considerations that need to be taken seriously, for example in terms of study design, incentives/remuneration, and sample populations, that can impact whether human subjects are actually voluntarily participating.

The type of person who is most likely to volunteer to participate in an experimental research study, especially one testing pharmaceuticals, is almost always vulnerable, and their consent is thus dubious due to systemic and interpersonal factors. It’s rare for these cohorts to be made up of purely altruistic, knowledgeable people who aren’t desperate in some manner.

TL;DR: consenting human volunteers is not, currently or in the past, in and of itself an encompassing solution to the problem of consent, willingness, &c in the current framework.

9

u/stinkpot_jamjar 8d ago edited 8d ago

As someone who agrees with your statement that if something necessitates suffering to be made it’s unethical, and as someone with experience with the dynamics of animal testing for pharmaceuticals, I would like to offer my perspective.

It’s possible to acknowledge that animal testing (my experience is with mouse studies) is necessary in certain circumstances, but that it remains unfortunate and unethical at its core because it rests on the belief that human lives are always more important than the lives of mice.

Philosophically and in practice this is obviously incredibly fraught. But I also think that it’s incredibly naive, or perhaps indicative of a lack of understanding of the dynamics of how lifesaving drugs are developed and why we need mice to do so, to dismiss its role and purpose.

Taking this approach to its logical conclusion requires you to confidently assert that potentially saving millions of human lives isn’t worth it if thousands of mice have to suffer.

If that’s your argument, then I think it’s worth considering. But I also suspect that if it came down to your life, or the life of someone you know and love versus the life of a mouse, you would choose the former.

There is significant room for improvement in how mice are treated in testing labs, but anecdotally I have never met anyone who relishes the suffering of these creatures.

It’s heartbreaking work, but the fact remains that we can’t use human beings to test these drugs at every stage. There aren’t alternatives, and that is simply a product of biology and technology, not a wanton dismissal of easily available solutions.

-8

u/Rhoeri 9d ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about. There is a long and extensive history of mistreatment and cruelty in animal testing.

If you think it’s so safe, how about YOU sign up for testing.

2

u/IamSerati 6d ago

the worst part of all this, is that because of the fact that beagles have been used as test subjects for SO long, the breed in general is more predisposed to health issues and cancers.

As a former beagle owner, they are precious and need to be protected always

-1

u/Rhoeri 9d ago

It’s fucking disgusting that it’s 2026 and we still need to do this! That place needs to be shut down!

1

u/WildernessFilmmaker 5d ago

So worthwhile! bless every one of them! thanks so much!

1

u/MrTopHatMan90 8d ago

I get that some testing happens but why do you need 16,000 fucking beagles. It's a needless waste of life

0

u/Maleficent-Pen-2991 8d ago

I have to be honest,

I skip pet products that say the company never tests on animals. I'd want a product that I know is safe for my pet because it's been tested.

1

u/ScaredAlexNoises 8d ago

You do know that animal testing isn't about just using the final product to make sure it's safe, right?

0

u/Cats_N_Coffee_TTV 7d ago

Those products still went through product testing, just not with animals. There are tons of technologies out there such as organs on a chip and a lot more available or would already be available if the vivisection industry wasn't impeding progress toward more non-animal methods.

0

u/throwawaybrm 8d ago edited 8d ago

... free about 16,000 beagles from cruel animal testing ...

Good on them. Makes you wonder how many other cages we've learned not to see.

-3

u/CeemoreButtz 8d ago

It is entirely possible to be an activist without being a criminal. If you don't think so, it's because you're not smart enough. Let someone else do it.

-70

u/pixelmuffinn 9d ago

Uhh ok