mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >

The caged rodents in today’s labs aren’t the guinea pigs of yesteryear. They’re specifically bred and highly standardized. Need a mouse that’s resistant to anthrax but will get drunk easily? There’s a lab mouse designed for that. Need a mouse that can get Parkinson’s disease but will never catch polio? There’s a mouse for that, too. Writer Maggie Koerth-Baker did some serious digging to reveal the strange story of Clarence Cook Little, the visionary researcher who saw the potential in an overlooked rodent and revolutionized biology in the process. Of course, you’ll have to pick up a copy of the issue to read the full story, but here’s a tidbit:
The son of a dog-show judge, C.C. Little arrived at Harvard in 1906, set on studying man’s best friend. But one day during class, Professor William Castle gave him some career advice. He slid a mouse across his desk to Little and told him to find out everything he could about that organism. “This,” he said, “will be the one to watch.” Castle, a founding father of genetics in America, was not the kind of person you ignore. Fortunately, Little listened. Between 1909 and 1914, C.C. Little toiled in the biology labs of Harvard’s Bussey Institute, using mice to learn how mammals inherit traits from their parents. But when he ran his experiments, Little found that the creatures lacked the sort of standardization expected of other lab subjects. At the time, experimenting on mice usually meant catching a bunch in the basement of some campus building and carting them over to the lab. While certainly fresh and feisty, Little’s test subjects were difficult to obtain and differed greatly from one another. So he began to dream of mice strains that were identical and docile, “like newly minted coins.” Little’s solution? Inbreeding.
The story only gets better from there. Be sure to pick up a copy. Or better yet, go ahead and subscribe here!
Animal Rights arguments aside (currently reading the article now), the advancement of medical knowledge would be nowhere near what it is today if it weren’t for lab mice testing.
posted by Steven on 8-26-2009 at 12:57 pm
*nerdgasm* Lab rodents are sooooo cool. Rats, prarie voles, pigmy hamsters are all so interesting when put under the microscopes of research. While I sympathize with the argument for animal rights, I know how much effort is made to make sure lab animals are comfortable and treated with resepect. Some research, like behavioral studies, aren’t even grusome.
posted by Lynnie on 8-26-2009 at 1:37 pm
I can’t put the animal rights argument aside. These small creatures can feel pain and fear and their welfare is immaterial to labs everywhere. Perhaps a few researchers try to make them “comfortable,” but to most they are just another tool, like a test tube. “Some research, like behavioral studies, aren’t even gruesome”??? Gosh, that makes me feel better. I have a pet mouse. He has a personality. He displays affection and intelligence. He plans and executes his plans. He knows his name and answers to it.
posted by Siobhan on 8-26-2009 at 6:07 pm
your mouse probably responds to the tone and pitch of your voice, not its name. without these animals, there would be a lot more human suffering than there currently is, which is already too much.
posted by mighty_m on 8-26-2009 at 10:52 pm