It makes me unhappy, but I feel is a necessity. We have come a long way since that video. My own work does not use animal models, but we had to discuss it as part of our project design practicum when I was in graduate school.
The original video that Sumo is referring to most likely was taken during the 60's, based on the color palette, hair/clothes styles of the scientists, the grainy quality of the film, etc. It's due to the widespread outcry against vivisection that we have the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 -- federal law already seeks to minimize the degree of suffering endured by animals for the purposes of research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers (you'll notice the obvious lack of reference to the food industry there). ANY lab with public oversight (university, state, federal; I cannot speak to what occurs behind the corporate veil that protects private companies outside of inspectors' visits) must specify the species and number of animals used for research on a per project/experiment level, and demonstrate that they have designed it in such a way that are using the minimal number of animals. What experiment will be done is already defined for each animal purchased and housed in research facilities; scientists spend a lot of time with statisticians calculating the absolute minimum number of animals needed to answer their specific question -- not only is the suffering taken into account, but the cost as well -- $250 /per/ mouse, just for a start!!! The quality of life for the animals ALSO affects the outcome of the experiment. Not only is it law that there must be certain space, bedding, food, water, and yes, even enrichment (play) for the animals, but the law has been in place long enough that the labs have noticed they get more reliable results from animals that aren't stressed out! Additionally, the TYPE of animal chosen for the experiment must be appropriate. There are a much wider variety of line-bred model organisms that are currently available -- ie, roundworms, zebrafish -- that can be used to answer basic scientific questions, which removes the need to experiment on what we consider more highly developed (expensive and more ethically objectionable) vertebrates such as primates, dogs, horses, etc. What I am getting at is that from the perspective of (most) scientific agencies and co-workers, the law is a MINIMALLY acceptable baseline to treat their animals. Scientists have a vested interest in the quality of their results, and saving money, by adhering to this law and even going above what it requires.
The throat-slitting comment is a little strange to me. Once an animal is clearly not feeling well, it is separated from the others and monitored closely. Then, once it is clear that is will die, most (rodents) will be euthanized either by gassing or injection. Here is an example of a public policy from a university: http://www.bu.edu/orccommittees/iacuc/policies-and-guidelines/tumor-policy-for-mice-and-rats/ And a list of how certain types of animals are euthanized. You will notice that unless it is done as specified, the scientists MUST provide a justification for their work to be accepted for publication or continued funding: http://dar.research.illinois.edu/content/AcceptableMethodsOfEuthanasia.aspx
As for the suggestion to use prisoners, please let me put that one to rest right now -- and I am not even talking from an ethical perspective. From a scientific perspective, you want as little variability as possible in your populations, which is why using humans, particularly ones who have a documented disregard for rules, is a /terrible/ idea -- it muddies up your results. It's also why fancy line-bred mice are so popular, it reduces the genetic variability as well. But, back to that extra variable of human behavior -- anyone enrolled in a clinical trial has to answer this tremendously detailed questionnaire about their health, habits, etc. and then pinky swear up and down on their life that they will NOT do certain behaviors, and NOT lie, and follow instructions, etc. etc. to ensure that the results are as trustworthy as possible. Beatings, rape, IV drug use, etc. introduce additional stresses that may interfere with the timing of drug doses, and alter the outcome of whatever experiment you have proposed. It's really just not a good idea, your data will stink.
We have been given dominion over animals; it is our duty to be good stewards.
The original video that Sumo is referring to most likely was taken during the 60's, based on the color palette, hair/clothes styles of the scientists, the grainy quality of the film, etc. It's due to the widespread outcry against vivisection that we have the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 -- federal law already seeks to minimize the degree of suffering endured by animals for the purposes of research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers (you'll notice the obvious lack of reference to the food industry there). ANY lab with public oversight (university, state, federal; I cannot speak to what occurs behind the corporate veil that protects private companies outside of inspectors' visits) must specify the species and number of animals used for research on a per project/experiment level, and demonstrate that they have designed it in such a way that are using the minimal number of animals. What experiment will be done is already defined for each animal purchased and housed in research facilities; scientists spend a lot of time with statisticians calculating the absolute minimum number of animals needed to answer their specific question -- not only is the suffering taken into account, but the cost as well -- $250 /per/ mouse, just for a start!!! The quality of life for the animals ALSO affects the outcome of the experiment. Not only is it law that there must be certain space, bedding, food, water, and yes, even enrichment (play) for the animals, but the law has been in place long enough that the labs have noticed they get more reliable results from animals that aren't stressed out! Additionally, the TYPE of animal chosen for the experiment must be appropriate. There are a much wider variety of line-bred model organisms that are currently available -- ie, roundworms, zebrafish -- that can be used to answer basic scientific questions, which removes the need to experiment on what we consider more highly developed (expensive and more ethically objectionable) vertebrates such as primates, dogs, horses, etc. What I am getting at is that from the perspective of (most) scientific agencies and co-workers, the law is a MINIMALLY acceptable baseline to treat their animals. Scientists have a vested interest in the quality of their results, and saving money, by adhering to this law and even going above what it requires.
The throat-slitting comment is a little strange to me. Once an animal is clearly not feeling well, it is separated from the others and monitored closely. Then, once it is clear that is will die, most (rodents) will be euthanized either by gassing or injection. Here is an example of a public policy from a university: http://www.bu.edu/orccommittees/iacuc/policies-and-guidelines/tumor-policy-for-mice-and-rats/ And a list of how certain types of animals are euthanized. You will notice that unless it is done as specified, the scientists MUST provide a justification for their work to be accepted for publication or continued funding: http://dar.research.illinois.edu/content/AcceptableMethodsOfEuthanasia.aspx
As for the suggestion to use prisoners, please let me put that one to rest right now -- and I am not even talking from an ethical perspective. From a scientific perspective, you want as little variability as possible in your populations, which is why using humans, particularly ones who have a documented disregard for rules, is a /terrible/ idea -- it muddies up your results. It's also why fancy line-bred mice are so popular, it reduces the genetic variability as well. But, back to that extra variable of human behavior -- anyone enrolled in a clinical trial has to answer this tremendously detailed questionnaire about their health, habits, etc. and then pinky swear up and down on their life that they will NOT do certain behaviors, and NOT lie, and follow instructions, etc. etc. to ensure that the results are as trustworthy as possible. Beatings, rape, IV drug use, etc. introduce additional stresses that may interfere with the timing of drug doses, and alter the outcome of whatever experiment you have proposed. It's really just not a good idea, your data will stink.
We have been given dominion over animals; it is our duty to be good stewards.
i just wanted to say that human is playing god, but take away basic thing from them and they will soon extinct (well people who are living with nature will survive) while other animals will happily live on 
