Do you know what the laws are like in other provinces or countries?

like the discovery of insulin.

Almost certainly they were anesthetised the whole time.

I would genuinely like to understand what the cost/benefit analysis was, what alternatives methods of research were considered, and why they weren’t viable.

In some jurisdictions, I think that's published. Not sure about Ontario.

Animals can only be used in research when there is convincing scientific justification, when expected benefits outweigh potential risks, and when scientific objectives cannot be achieved using non-animal methods. In Canada, there is federal and provincial legislation overseeing the humane treatment of animals.

This type of intervention makes scientific evidence appear secondary to partisan political opinion, weakening the integrity of the research enterprise. Moreover, such actions embolden activist campaigns that often misrepresent the reality of modern animal research and are usually counterproductive. These campaigns frequently ignore or sidestep the strict welfare standards and regulatory requirements that govern research facilities, as well as the medical breakthroughs that benefit both human and animal health. 

This was a particular research group that was flaunting the laws, it's far from the standard. You're embellishing it into some kind of trend when you have no understanding how scientific research is conducted or enforced in this country, it's absolutely not that, and if you want to pearl clutch you should be looking toward Ford's constant attacks on municipalities and environmental standards to get his cut from developer friends, full stop.

People want to be contrarian and support animal abuse just because it’s Doug Ford.

They said they told him how researchers would induce hours-long heart attacks as part of efforts to improve medical imaging processes for humans.

If only you'd bother actually reading the whole article, the same phrase you took a bit from actually explains why they do that. But no, better to just attack the whole thing pretending we do that for fun.

Sadly most aren't adopted out as their systems/organs are wrecked so they get euthenized

There are regulations, but they’re not the same. I think it’s not really appropriate to compare animal testing to human testing for the primary reason that humans have the ability to provide consent.

For animal testing, I really don’t like the current idea being proposed here of basing this on how we feel about cats and dogs vs. mice and other animals. Some other metric like brain size or something about consciousness maybe, but that’s very hard to determine as well.

While I personally think there’s enough benefit to society to do some animal testing, I think a law that said no animal testing would be more ethically consistent than banning only cats and dogs.

The real thing that should be addressed here is better regulation, not arbitrary bans.

It was recently announced that a new study using cats showed they developed dementia the same way humans do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce93rn5g848o

Doug brought back the blood sport of penned hunting in 2024.

Willing human beings are a better choice than unwilling animals. It’s not just speciesism since I don’t think speciesism is “bad” in the sense that it is inevitable, but rather that it is questionable how much results replicate across species.

That's frankly embarrassing for the most populated province, and is also a huge spotlight on the 'leadership' refusing to invest in the growth of the industry. I hope we make it past businessmen politicians and make it to science-based leaders.