Vivisection

RE*AC*TOR

A little background:- I'm a PhD student, studying diabetes. Part of this work involves mice. However, I am at a lost to justify using mice. Arguements like, "greater good" or "humans are more important" fall apart fairly readily without much effort. The only reason stopping me from actually not doing this work, is its convenient for my PhD (ie a selfish reason). Can any here suggest a reason to me why it is morally acceptable?

Note :- gonna post this in Philosophy and Personal Issues - apologies for the overlap, but I'm at a loss as to which might be more suitable...

Phil_321

Can you explain why those arguments you listed "fall apart readily without much effort". They seem pretty valid to me.

Gordon

This is a humanities thread.

RE*AC*TOR

Ok [cracks kniuckles in preparation for a lot of typing].
We find it morally unacceptable to perform such experiments on humans. Yet, its acceptable on animals? Why? Because they are less intellgient than us? Why don't we experiment on mentally retarded people then? We assume its ok because they are lesser organisms than us. We use this way of thinking to justify it to ourselves. A simple anaolgy is the use of black people as slaves, or the use of jews/gypsies/blacks etc for experiments in prison camps in world war 2. However, they suffer, that's a fact. The greater good arguement is also invalid for a number of reasons. First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable. Second, the greater good is an abstract term. Pain is not a collective experience, we experience pain as individuals, not collectively - as do animals.

At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.

ArthurDent

good thread. I don't disagree with the points you've made about using animals for experimentation, but wonder if you have any suggestion on what alternatives there are out there.

Loathed as I am to see animals suffering, I'm still gonna take medicines that were tested on them and there is no way I'm going to try a treatment that hasn't had some preclinical studies carried out to look at toxicity and side effects.


Do you believe that people are willing to take drugs that have not been tested? AFAIK work carried out to use non animal testing is still at a pretty early stage and cell lines etc can only go so far in identifiying probable issues ( and those cells are from animals/humans).

I think we are probably stuck with animal testing at the moment.

RE*AC*TOR

There are few alternatives. The reason being that to do work on animals is easy, very little money is put into exploring alternatives. With regard to the medicines, preclinical trials etc. you make a good point. However, my problem isn't a one of practicality, its a moral one, and it still stands with that taken into consideration.
Cells lines (with the exception of stem cells) as you correctly state only tell you so much - but offer no moral problem (cells taken with consent from a human). The issue with them is they are isolated cells in an artificial environment - the results don't necessarily translate. But the same can be said of animal work. Something that is safe in rats or has an effect in rats does not mean it will work in humans.

OfflerCrocGod

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable.

Quit. It's your personal decision and your personal opinion not ours. It's what divides us from the rest of the Animal Kingdom

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.

We do, that's true, we can cogitate on a higher level then these other animals so we use them for our purposes. The fact that you can feel as if you are in an awkward situation is something that is unique to you as a human, mice don't feel awkward. Your choice; there are plenty of others who will take your place and make the medicine and other by-products of animal testing that Mankind wants.

RE*AC*TOR

You're absolutely right, it is my decsion. For my personal benefit I'm choosing to carry on with this even though I think its wrong.

Phil_321

Good to see your conscience didn't get the better of your intelligence there.

RE*AC*TOR

I wouldn't say intellignece has anything to do with it. Its more of a case of being spineless, or lacking any serious moral fibre.

Commissar

Or then again it could just be a case of realism?

RE*AC*TOR

yeah, just like the realism of people involved in the slave industry... or those who worked in prison camps experimenting on jews/gypsies etc during WW2....

oscarBravo

I think you're missing an important distinction: slaves, jews et al were all humans (despite the warped mentalities that thought differently). Mice are not.

This is not an arbitrary distinction. Let me put it this way: would you feel bad about experimenting on plants? On microbes? If not, why not?

RE*AC*TOR

Can these animals suffer.... yes. Can plants suffer, can they feel pain? Not to our knowledge. Yeah Jews, Slaves are humans... so what? Humans are animals as well. We just happen to be top of the heap, so we can exert out power to use/abuse weaker species for our benefit.

Praetorian

Dear RE*AC*TOR,

I presume what you are working on could potentially provide a cure or a preventative treatment for diabetes?

I believe that stupid little animals like mice don’t truly experience pain like humans do. They aren’t sentient and they don’t have a soul if you will. I don’t think they suffer like humans do. No amount of mice is worth a single human dying or suffering a cruel disease like diabetes.

Can you imagine the amount of people you could help? Living, breathing, thinking people. Have you got any friends or relations with the disease; would this change your position on the mice if you had? The mice probably wouldn’t even be alive if it weren’t for us breeding them in the first place.

We had to, and have to use the animals on our planet to ensure we survive.

RE*AC*TOR

interesting point. Its something like - if you could kill one rat to save your wife/husband/son/daughter/mother/father would you do it. Of course I would, but I'd also gladly kill people for that too. That's an emotional question, not a moral one.

oscarBravo

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Can these animals suffer.... yes. Can plants suffer, can they feel pain? Not to our knowledge. Yeah Jews, Slaves are humans... so what? Humans are animals as well. We just happen to be top of the heap, so we can exert out power to use/abuse weaker species for our benefit.

I agree that our position of power carries with it responsibilities - all rights have corresponding duties. That's why we mandate humane treatment of animals, even the ones we are breeding for the sole purpose of killing them for their meat.

That doesn't change the fact that there is an important distinction between people and animals. You can argue semantically about why that distinction should be, on the grounds of sentience or intelligence or ability to experience pain, but morality is based on the idea that humans are intrinsically more important (to humans) than animals are. To reject that distinction is to reject morality as we know it.

I wouldn't ever be deliberately cruel to an animal for the sake of it. At the same time, I have a can of fly spray in the kitchen cupboard, mousetraps set in strategic places, and I'm not uncomfortable with the death of a laboratory animal if it will help cure my sister's diabetes (or my brother's MS, or...)

GuanYin

Praetorian wrote:

Dear RE*AC*TOR,

I presume what you are working on could potentially provide a cure or a preventative treatment for diabetes?

I believe that stupid little animals like mice don’t truly experience pain like humans do. They aren’t sentient and they don’t have a soul if you will. I don’t think they suffer like humans do. No amount of mice is worth a single human dying or suffering a cruel disease like diabetes.

Can you imagine the amount of people you could help? Living, breathing, thinking people. Have you got any friends or relations with the disease; would this change your position on the mice if you had? The mice probably wouldn’t even be alive if it weren’t for us breeding them in the first place.

We had to, and have to use the animals on our planet to ensure we survive.

While I think animal testing is an important area, it is not a standalone tool for exploring human disease or medicines and as such you are overstating the case.

The correlation between rat/mice and human studies israther crude in most cases and even in those cases that mimic human conditions the animals physiology is too different to produce results that can give any real data on how a drug will work in humans.

For most of the basic drug absorption studies and disease markers human cell culture models (both primary and carncer cell lines) are more than adequate for the aquisition of bulk data. True, the next step for a therapeutic strategy is to take the model to animals, but the work here should be rather limited in the overall scheme of things. In the end, no drug gets on the market without substantial human testing.

There is also a trend now in predictive computer studies for how drugs may work in humans and surprisingly its been quite sucessful.

All in all, your life expectency would be dramatically lowered now if it wasn't for animal medical studies and although I don't believe they should ever be a major component in scientific experimentation they are a required evil.

Falkorre

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok [cracks kniuckles in preparation for a lot of typing].
We find it morally unacceptable to perform such experiments on humans. Yet, its acceptable on animals? Why? Because they are less intellgient than us? Why don't we experiment on mentally retarded people then? We assume its ok because they are lesser organisms than us. We use this way of thinking to justify it to ourselves. A simple anaolgy is the use of black people as slaves, or the use of jews/gypsies/blacks etc for experiments in prison camps in world war 2. However, they suffer, that's a fact. The greater good arguement is also invalid for a number of reasons. First off (and most obvious) is I beleive the end does not justify the means. If I have to do something morally wrong to achieve good - its still wrong. Not only does the animal suffer, but i suffer because I allow myself to do something I find objectionable. Second, the greater good is an abstract term. Pain is not a collective experience, we experience pain as individuals, not collectively - as do animals.

At the end of the day, I feel we use animals because we can. Its a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. It puts me in an awkward situation.

I agree 100%

I am one of the people who may be the recipient of whatever "miracle drugs" they may come up with by means of this research.

I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

You may ask then "why do you take the drugs you are allready on",... well, the reason is twofold, firstly the majority of drugs I take I have been on since childhood, before I had any say in what I took, to come off them would require a withdrawl that I probably wouldnt live through.

The second reason is somtimes, no matter what your intentions, the pain can make you push these things to the back of your mind, because without them you know you would suffer even more than you are currently, and you know you couldnt live that way, and no matter how strong your beliefs, survival instinct kicks in.

But, when I sit and think about it. I would rather die than see any of my pets die in such horrific ways, I have to feel the same about *all* animals.

B

oscarBravo

Falkorre wrote:

But, when I sit and think about it. I would rather die than see any of my pets die in such horrific ways, I have to feel the same about *all* animals.

Have you ever swatted an insect? Do you eat meat? Or fish?

I honestly think it's noble of you to feel this way, but it's also not terribly pragmatic. Animals die in horrible ways in the wild, that's the nature of nature. What makes us different from animals is our unwillingness to be dictated to by nature. That difference is, in my opinion, what gives us the right to use animals - where necessary - to further our aims as a species.

Falkorre

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you ever swatted an insect? Do you eat meat? Or fish?

To my mind, the difference is nature Vs. Torture.
I would hope the animals killed for consumption are killed in a humane way.
I know there is some that arent but the hope is they are.
With vivisection, animals are *hurt*, caused pain, cut, stung, poisened, blinded, suffocated, drugged and basically most suffer prolonged painfull deaths.

It is natural for humans to be omnivores, it is *cruel* for humans to be torturers.

Just my own opinions,

B

GuanYin

Falkorre wrote:

I agree 100%

I am one of the people who may be the recipient of whatever "miracle drugs" they may come up with by means of this research.

I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

You may ask then "why do you take the drugs you are allready on",... well, the reason is twofold, firstly the majority of drugs I take I have been on since childhood, before I had any say in what I took, to come off them would require a withdrawl that I probably wouldnt live through.

Ode for the self-righteous.

Every preservative in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
Every colouring in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
Every drug you have ever taken, from paracetamol to antibiotics has been tested on animals.
Every medical balm or over the counter drug you have had, cough syrup to eye drops, has been tested on animals.

Your condition aside, you would probably be dead by now anyway if it wasn't for animal research.

So you're either a total hypocrite, incredibly naive, a liar or all or any combination of the above.

Falkorre

syke wrote:

Ode for the self-righteous.
Every preservative in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
Every colouring in every food or drink you consume has been tested on animals.
Every drug you have ever taken, from paracetamol to antibiotics has been tested on animals.
Every medical balm or over the counter drug you have had, cough syrup to eye drops, has been teste don animals.
Your condition aside, you would probably be dead by now anyway if it wasn't for animal research.
So you're either a total hypocrite, incredibly naive, al liar or all or any combination of the above.

:rolleyes:
Yet again, old sykee takes what is said, brings it to a ridiculous extreme, tries his/her (sorry dunno) best to make somone look silly. :rolleyes:

I prolly *am* a bit naive when it comes to this, as is probaboly 90% of the population syke. Not all of us know everything there is to know about everything.(must be nice). In a way, I hope I am.

As I said syke, I take drugs I need, an yeah I use stuff that probably has been tested on animals initially (altho I seriously make an effort not to).
But I do not LIKE this, which was my point! I never once said I dont, at least *read* a post before you make silly attempts to make the poster look silly. :rolleyes:

B

GuanYin

Falkorre wrote:

I prolly *am* a bit naive when it comes to this, as is probaboly 90% of the population syke. Not all of us know everything there is to know about everything.(must be nice). In a way, I hope I am.

Rest easy, if you are actually anything like your postings on boards, you are.

Falkorre wrote:

As I said syke, I take drugs I need, an yeah I use stuff that probably has been tested on animals initially (altho I seriously make an effort not to).But I do not LIKE this, which was my point! I never once said I dont, at least *read* a post

So when you said:

I am here to say, personally, I would rather not have a drug than see one animal suffer in my name.

Do you drink soft drinks? Do you eat sweets? Do you use artificial sweeteners? Toothpaste? Mouthwash? can I go on? How much of an effort is a serious one? Do you ensure that you buy non-animal tested cosmetic care items like shaving foam and such?

If you sprout on saying you don't agree with something and would rather die than have an animal tested product, but don't even bother to look and see what is animal tested (which by your own implication is the case)..

What you actually meant to say is,
"I tell people I don't like using animal products but to be honest, I never make any effort to find out what products I've used have been tested on animals and even still I wouldn't let this influence my judgement. For now I'm happy to look and sound PC, cos its the sort of image I like to portray, but I hope noone sees through this and pegs me as the hypocritical preacher that I am"

Falkorre wrote:

before you make silly attempts to make the poster look silly. :rolleyes:

You don't need me to make you or your posts look silly.

RE*AC*TOR

oscarBravo wrote:

...You can argue semantically about why that distinction should be, on the grounds of sentience or intelligence or ability to experience pain, but morality is based on the idea that humans are intrinsically more important (to humans) than animals are.

We cannot really know if animals are sentient, its an abstract term to define consciousness. Intelligence doesn't hold water, as by that criteria we could with no qualms experiment on the mentally disabled. I have no doubt that animals can experience pain. Need proof?... kick a dog!

oscarBravo

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

We cannot really know if animals are sentient, its an abstract term to define consciousness. Intelligence doesn't hold water, as by that criteria we could with no qualms experiment on the mentally disabled. I have no doubt that animals can experience pain. Need proof?... kick a dog!

You miss my point: it doesn't matter what semantic terms you use to define the difference. The point is that most forms of morality are based on the understanding that humans are superior to other forms of life. There are moralities that don't hold with this belief - the Jains are, I believe, an example - but I personally don't subscribe to them. I believe humans to be intrinsically superior to animals and, as I've said earlier, that that conveys both rights and duties.

Falkorre

:rolleyes:
Can't be arsed even beginning to point out all the BS in this post, needless to say syke, I am so glad you know ME and can translate for me..............oh wait, YOU DONT, and YOU CANT! Now sod off an stop needling me.

Ah well, yet again I am made realise that me posting on these boards is a waste of time, guess there will always be the boards Nazis (elitists) here who hate to see somone else daring to post their opinion.
And unfortunately they have bigger mouths than the decent ppl here.

Bye-Bye Bordsie! Falkorre is taking his leave of this entire place. (For good this time).

B

RE*AC*TOR

oscarBravo wrote:

You miss my point: it doesn't matter what semantic terms you use to define the difference. The point is that most forms of morality are based on the understanding that humans are superior to other forms of life. There are moralities that don't hold with this belief - the Jains are, I believe, an example - but I personally don't subscribe to them. I believe humans to be intrinsically superior to animals and, as I've said earlier, that that conveys both rights and duties.

Can you give me a rational explanation of why humans are superior? Given this superiority, is it then justified to use inferior species to our aims?
I understand what you mean, but I fail to see the logic in it.

*edit* SKYE i appreciate your input, but this is the humanities forum charter here

particularily note:-

amp wrote:

Trolling.
Saying something which is designed not to provoke debate but anger or annoyance for the purpose of laughing at people. Something we know a bit about.

and:-

syke wrote:

Rest easy, if you are actually anything like your postings on boards, you are....hypocritical preacher that I am....don't need me to make you or your posts look silly.

GuanYin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

*edit* SKYE i appreciate your input, but this is the humanities forum charter

Why thank you, however, you have edited my post so that it not actually what I said.

I was merely reassuring the poster that he was, as he said he hoped "naive".

The hypocritical preacher was another reference, based on the double standards put forward by the poster. There is no such term in the quote you put in by me.


So infact you are perhaps posting to start a flame?

amp

The charter is not a book of law. It is there to give guidelines to users about what will get them into trouble. The charter is also open to interpretation based on the moderator in question.

In this instance, you are incorrectly calling Sykes post a troll. If anything it's mild flaming.

I would ask Syke to tone down his language and be less abrasive with his posts.

To quote the charter again, back on topic.

P.s. Cheerio Falkorre, miss you already man!

GuanYin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Can you give me a rational explanation of why humans are superior? Given this superiority, is it then justified to use inferior species to our aims?
I understand what you mean, but I fail to see the logic in it.

Every multi-celled species on the planet uses other species for its own aims, either purposely or inadvertantly.

Mankind was using othercreatures for food, tools and weapons before we had evolved into "sentient" modern man.

One could argue that it is in our nature to use our surroundings and it what we evolved into "the ultimate survivalist species".

Natural imperitave has no logic or purpose, unless you wish to bring the divine into the matter.

Now, if you wish to discuss illogical aims, why would a species that has become what it is today (and I mean evolved into modern man, this is before we talk about technology) by making use of resources in ways other animals can't, stop doing so on the grounds of a moral issue regarding creatures with two year lifespans that would not have been born if it wasn't for the experimental grant money to begin with and who have no emotional ties with the individual in question?