365 Urban Species. #067: House Mouse

[urbpan]

photos by cottonmanifesto

Urban species #067: House mouse Mus musculus

The house mouse may have had a longer continuous association with humans than any other mammal. The origins of this rodent are shrouded in history, but it is thought to have been native to central Asia. Humans spread into mouse territory thousands of years ago, and the mice have come along as humans spread elsewhere, for the rest of prehistory and into history. It seems likely that the mouse will be the first mammal inadvertently introduced to other planets, should humans continue to expand in that direction.

Cat lovers have cause to thank the house mouse for following humans on trade routes and migrations. The appearance of the house mouse in the stores of grain in Egypt led to the domestication of the house cat. A cat is still the best way to keep mice out of a house, though they aren't perfect. The pursuit of technological improvement is summed up as the search for "a better mousetrap." One modern version of the mousetrap is the "hav-a-hart," which captures the mouse alive, to be released elsewhere. Unfortunately, the natural habitat of the house mouse is indoors, so a mouse "set free" will either find its way back into a house or be preyed upon.

The house mouse is found, like the Indian meal moth and sawtooth grain beetle, anywhere in the world there is grain in storage. But they aren't limited to infesting the human food supply. Nearly any kind of building, structure, or shelter is an invitation to the house mice. If food is provided--and house mice define food much more broadly than we do--the lure of man-made structures becomes irresistable. Nearly everyone has a story about finding mice in an unexpected location. They nest in car heating vents, cupboards and basements, and even, as the picture below shows, under the tracks of the subway.

Mus musculus has transformed itself from a scavenger and a pest, into one of the most significant and valuable species alive. Due to its rapid rate of reproduction, ease of care, and similarity (from a medical point of view) to humans, the house mouse has been domesticated into the lab mouse. Mice are the most useful animal for medical experiments, and breeding them has become a mutli-million dollar specialty industry. Whether we approve of this use of mice or not, we all have benefitted from the research, and have mice to thank for countless treatments and medicines.

Mice are also bred for the pet trade, as pets themselves, or as food for reptiles. Mice make charming, surprisingly intelligent, and sociable pets, their main drawback being a short life span, and a propensity to escape and contribute to the wild mouse population. Captive mice come in a variety of colors, from familiar white to black, as well as tan or pale gray partial albinos, natural grayish brown, and fancy spotted varieties. There are even "nude" mice, bred to have no fur at all.

Other species of mice can be urban, as well. In the Boston area, the white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus comes into houses and other buildings when the weather gets cold or abundant food is supplied. There are different species of mice present all over the world, but house mice outcompete them in the household and urban niches.




The mouse is in the upper right-hand corner of this photograph. The mouse had a series of burrows along the tracks and under some of the railroad ties. These are the Red Line tracks at Park Street Station.

Comments

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Of course I was! :)

In fact, the reason that I used that sentence was that I knew there were people that read this that feel as you do. While it may be hotly contested, it's largely an ideological debate, not a scientific one. I won't begin to list the specifics of medical progress using mice (although Alexis might jump in and do that) but I would challenge the idea that it has not been a success on the whole. Scientists discard theories and methods that don't work, and the continued use of mice suggests that something is working.

I'm not a huge fan of animal experimentation, but I don't think it's in and of itself any more wrong than keeping animals for other purposes. At least there are strict standards for animal care in laboratories, as opposed to (for example) farms.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Ah, but my point was that even from a "scientific" (human-centric) viewpoint using mice as models is controversial and has lead to many, many wrong conclusions. Just one famous example is the drug Fen-phen, which was not dangerous in mice, but was in humans (causing damage to the human heart). And of course, there is the famous Thalidomide case, where thousands of children were born with malformed arms and legs. So, this argument against non-human animal models isn't just about ideologies or even other species, it's about also human health.

Consider that in a ten year study the FDA "found that out of 198 new medications, 102 (52 percent) were either recalled or relabeled secondary to side effects not predicted in animal tests." (from NAVS.org (http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_medicalresearch))

I do agree that many scientists think that non-human models are useful, but as I pointed out before, you could also say that hammers are useful tools for computer repair, since they sometimes can work to fix a problem. I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else. I don't think, for the most part, that these scientists are malicious in their intent to continue to use questionable or unreliable models. I think they honestly believe that they are doing a good thing (for humans at least).

Perhaps a more accurate thing you could say, which wouldn't be debatable, would be something like: "Whether we approve of this use of mice or not, scientists have used them for research for a long time and many believe that doing so has led to countless treatments and medicines for humans."

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I think my statement is accurate. Yours is, as well. I don't wish to insert the implication that medical science is misguided.

I think the controversy is largely one-sided, and ideological: I believe that emanates from the Animal Rights community, and their belief that animal use is unethical; that is, I don't think anyone in the mainstream medical science community thinks there is a threat to the public from using animal models for preliminary testing.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

which wouldn't be debatable

And I don't mind debate following from one of my posts--in fact, I'm delighted by it! :)

[turil.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I think my problem with your statement is that it seems that you, yourself, have brought ideology into the subject by saying that "we all have benefitted" from experiments on mice. Not only was that a blanket statement (including all humans, even those in primitive societies that may have little or no contact with the Western world), but saying that we've benefitted from the experiments is clearly (to me anyway) a moral claim, not a scientific fact. What is good in one person's eyes may not be good in another's eyes. Actually, Cottonmanifesto's comment about abortion is an excellent example of this. Some people would readily say that they've benefitted from abortions, while others would say that they have not. It's an entirely personal viewpoint.

Also, leaving the morals aside, and just talking about the scientific idea of health, as far as I know, my life has not been positively affected by an experiment on mice in the least. I'll admit that it's possible that I may have inadvertantly used something that had been tested on mice, but I don't think I'm any healthier due to that testing. Also, people who have been harmed by drugs that were shown to be safe in mouse trials may have an even stronger reason to disagree with you, since they not only did not benefit from the mice experiments, but they were specifically harmed by the scientists relying on them.

You may very well benefit from mice trials, but to say that everyone does is putting both an ideological claim and a scientific claim out there that, from my own standpoint, is not true. And it's not so much the debatability of your statement, as it is the seeming disrespect you have for other people's beliefs about the subject that bothers me.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I'm not dividing the world into the haves and have-nots, I'm speaking of humanity on the whole. Humanity on the whole is better off because of lab mice. I don't think that's inaccurate.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

If you have ever taken prescription medication, been treated in a hospital, doctors office, or emergency room, or have had surgery, you have benefitted from experiments done on mice.

I feel that Jef's statement is accurate.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I avoid a alopathic medical treatment as much as possible, though I have had a few prescription medications (mostly antibiotics and painkillers) in the past. I would note that I, personally, feel safe taking these medications because millions of other humans have taken them before myself and have survived. So I would not say that I have benefitted from the mice testing, but I have benefitted from the human testing. Perhaps the humans who took these drugs first considered it useful to have had the drug given to mice first, but I am not them.

Also, I believe that there is a good chance that testing on mice has, perhaps, eliminated some very drugs that could be very effective and beneficial to humans, but were ruled out because the mouse's biology is different than a humans' body. Heck, even some drugs work well in one human and not so well in other humans.

I understand that Jef thinks his statement is true, I'm just saying that it's not true for me, since it's a moral conclusion, rather than a scientific one.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

I avoid a alopathic medical treatment as much as possible, though I have had a few prescription medications (mostly antibiotics and painkillers) in the past.

I would have died in childhood, most likely, without the use of penicillin so I tend to be appreciative of the wonders of modern medicine.

So I would not say that I have benefitted from the mice testing, but I have benefitted from the human testing. Perhaps the humans who took these drugs first considered it useful to have had the drug given to mice first, but I am not them.

This is akin to saying that you haven't benefitted from the invention of the wheel because you never had to use a wooden or stone wheel.

[turil.livejournal.com]

"I would have died in childhood, most likely, without the use of penicillin so I tend to be appreciative of the wonders of modern medicine."

Ah, but penicillin was first tested on a human :-P

Regardless, I understand that many people appreciate the wonders of "modern medicine". As I mentioned, I too have used it occasionally, even if it's a last resort. It can be quite useful.

"This is akin to saying that you haven't benefitted from the invention of the wheel because you never had to use a wooden or stone wheel."

Hmmmm. But I do use wheels, which I could not do if someone hadn't invented (or discovered) the wheel! However, I could have used the drugs I've taken even if they had not been tested on mice first. To me, the mice testing was superfluous.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Ah, but penicillin was first tested on a human :-P

So were X-rays. Poor Curies. Just because it was done a million years ago, doesn't make it safe or preferable. My daughter has taken modern antibiotics that were definitely tested on animals first.

To me, the mice testing was superfluous.

Okie doke.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Just one famous example is the drug Fen-phen, which was not dangerous in mice, but was in humans (causing damage to the human heart). And of course, there is the famous Thalidomide case, where thousands of children were born with malformed arms and legs. So, this argument against non-human animal models isn't just about ideologies or even other species, it's about also human health.

Again, fault is to be found with clinical trials. Mouse models of human diseases and agent testing is at the very beginning of a long road to drug development.

I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else.

This statement, in particular, shows a serious lack of understanding about what it takes to work with animals/animal models in today's research environment. It is NOT easy. It's almost prohibitively expensive and very difficult to get protocols (which require literally pages of justification) approved.

Also, I'd love to see a more objective citation than the incredibly biased NAVS site.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I thought the FDA findings were pretty unbiased...

Anyway, I have no real desire to prove that non-human animal models are dangerous (I'm sure that your mind is set at this point no matter what I say, anyway). I was merely pointing out that the subject is far from clear cut. Many people have solid reasons for believing that using non-human animal models is more dangerous than not, and many people have solid reasons for believing that using them is more beneficial than not.

I think it's valuable to acknowledge the difference in people's beliefs about this, quite literally, life or death subject.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

I thought the FDA findings were pretty unbiased...

It would seem to, but I wasn't able to find citations of/links to the actual data on that site.

I think it's valuable to acknowledge the difference in people's beliefs about this, quite literally, life or death subject.

I seem to have hurt your feelings which definitely wasn't my intent. I have no problem acknowledging different viewpoints, but I have more respect for those that have been formed with information as opposed to hype.