• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where do you draw the line?

Piggy said:
Such animals would likely be useless for research.

But if we disabled pain receptors, then it would be difficult to torture such animals, except by extreme boredom, or perhaps fear.




Good for you.

Btw, there's an experiment I'd like to try on your spouse.




Oh, ok, then in that case you should have no objection at all to my experiment on your spouse, who is, after all, just another animal.



I dunno, a labotomy?
Click to expand...

You missed the point entirely. The only reason you care is because you feel empathy, as I do for my girlfriend (Not married) so if you wanted to experiment on her, I'd likely punch you in the throat. But a chimpanzee is NOT my spouse and is not empathized as such. The WHOLE POINT of this thread is that there is no particular agreeable consensuses (i'm sure it changes with the zeitgeist) because we feel empathy differently for different things. Some people love the home they were born in, the town they lived in, and will never leave. Others want nothing more than to get the hell outta Dodge.

And to you you EMPATHIZE with them, but you don't empathize with bacteria we culture. The reason I THINK is because you relate more and empathize more with the complex creatures. It's not that they feel pain or that they can be tortured because even if they didn't feel pain you'd still care ( I assume from your post anyways) So to you it's not even the TORTURE of the animal that really bothers you, it's that you feel that regardless of the circumstances you FEEL that they're tortured and that bothers you.

So you're an interesting example of a potential case study, you think it's incredibly wrong to experiment on animals, and I don't. You think that it'd require serious brain damage to consider it, while I with my brain intact think it's already fine.

It's interesting, but I'm also a biologist, not a historian (I assume you are) and as a biologist I have this ditty to throw your way; how far down the chain of evolved forms of animals does pain equal suffering? Most animals that can experience pain do not have the complex nervous system to actually "suffer". Does THAT make any difference to your stance? I'd assume it shouldn't, but then do you think experimentation on algae, bacteria, complex echinodermata and all the way up to reptiles, birds, some mammals...

And let's get real when it comes to HUMAN experimentation. Have you ever had a relative who underwent a drug trial? Do you KNOW what that's like? That feeling that they may get better, they may get worse, they may be on the placebo of the drug and not on the drug at all? For all that work, I'm glad knowing that MANY an animal has suffered, been tortured, and died to at least make the trial POSSIBLE, just for the CHANCE. Welcome to trying to stay alive, it requires broken eggs, so tough noogies otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Do we really need to put drain cleaner into the eyes of rabbits held in stocks in order to know that it will cause harm to human eyes?
Click to expand...

No.

Draize test.

While I'm far more of an animal liberationist than most, at the same time I get profoundly irritated with animal liberation groups who use outright lies to proselytise.

In the modern Draize test you only test a substance if it's been shown not to irritate skin or an isolated eyeball, then you test it on one rabbit and immediately wash the substance out if there is any sign of irritation, and then maybe do tests on multiple rabbits if there is no sign of irritation the first time.

Worst case scenario is something that we think wouldn't irritate an eye turns out to do so, the rabbit gets prompt treatment and that substance never gets to go near a human eyeball, which is the whole point.

In response to the OP, I don't think I can draw a hard and fast line based on species. I don't like experiments done on chimps one bit, but if we could kill fifty chimps and by so doing find a cure for HIV/AIDS I'd consider it a bargain we should take.

I'm going to have to take refuge in the standard mantra of minimise the number of animals used, minimise the complexity of the animals used, minimise the suffering of the animals used and only experiment on animals if there is a genuinely sound case to be made that we will find something out that will alleviate enough human and animal suffering to make it worth it. If experimenting on chimps can be reconciled in a particular case with those principles, I can't draw a line against it.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
No.

Draize test.

While I'm far more of an animal liberationist than most, at the same time I get profoundly irritated with animal liberation groups who use outright lies to proselytise.

In the modern Draize test you only test a substance if it's been shown not to irritate skin or an isolated eyeball, then you test it on one rabbit and immediately wash the substance out if there is any sign of irritation, and then maybe do tests on multiple rabbits if there is no sign of irritation the first time.

Worst case scenario is something that we think wouldn't irritate an eye turns out to do so, the rabbit gets prompt treatment and that substance never gets to go near a human eyeball, which is the whole point.

In response to the OP, I don't think I can draw a hard and fast line based on species. I don't like experiments done on chimps one bit, but if we could kill fifty chimps and by so doing find a cure for HIV/AIDS I'd consider it a bargain we should take.

I'm going to have to take refuge in the standard mantra of minimise the number of animals used, minimise the complexity of the animals used, minimise the suffering of the animals used and only experiment on animals if there is a genuinely sound case to be made that we will find something out that will alleviate enough human and animal suffering to make it worth it. If experimenting on chimps can be reconciled in a particular case with those principles, I can't draw a line against it.
Click to expand...

And not to appear as if I'm riding on the tail of this response but I think this begs to be pointed out. We test appropriately and hypothesize VERY predictable results. There is no obvious torturing when it comes to experimentation of animals. There are strict guidelines including how you acquire the subjects, how they're maintained, and disposed if required. There is no rusty lab with hooks hanging with the bodies of dead rabbits.
 
Lowpro said:
And not to appear as if I'm riding on the tail of this response but I think this begs to be pointed out. We test appropriately and hypothesize VERY predictable results. There is no obvious torturing when it comes to experimentation of animals. There are strict guidelines including how you acquire the subjects, how they're maintained, and disposed if required. There is no rusty lab with hooks hanging with the bodies of dead rabbits.
Click to expand...

I have to say that this is mostly true but I still come across the occasional appalling experiment in the modern literature where animals are killed to test hypotheses we already know to be true, killed for research with no obvious benefit to anyone or anything, or killed for research on topics we could better research in humans.

I think most ethics committees are doing a good job making sure that unethical researchers don't do make-work studies on animals but some pointlessly cruel studies do still slip through here and there.
 
Hehe I'd have to ask how modern we're talking. I know a lot of post-WW2 research (specifically nuclear research) was extremely appalling, however I also want to point out that radiation itself and its effects were mostly unknown.

As for the statement:

killed for research with no obvious benefit to anyone or anything
Click to expand...

Sometimes we kill animals because we need to observe the changes after longterm treatment medications. There is no "benefit" here, but the data goes towards a possible benefit. I actually cannot mention to much about my previous research as it is still ongoing, but we've had to stop the lives of MANY a specimen just for histology purposes over MANY trials.
 
Lowpro said:
If you want to draw a line, I think you should draw it to any animal that can communicate that it doesn't want to be treated so poorly.
Click to expand...

Well even amoebas do that, as indeed do plants - if you've got the equipment and knowledge to understand the message, anyway.

If it can evoke a response in YOU, that YOU feel something's morally unjustified that's where the line can be drawn.
Click to expand...

That of course makes it very subjective. Would that make it OK to for say deaf/blind people to pull the shock lever on chimps, since they won't hear/see the screams?
 
truethat said:
I'm probably weird. I'm completely anti pet. It comes across to me as slavery on the part of the animal. Domestication is humans shoving their way onto animals and it creates a cycle of abuse because anyone can own a pet. And people are jerks.
Click to expand...

From what I can recall there's some evidence that suggest domestication of dogs and cats might have occurred in the other direction - ie they domesticated us for their purposes - and at the least it developed symbiotically

My cat certainly has a pretty damn good lifestyle!
 
Last edited:
icerat said:
Well even amoebas do that, as indeed do plants - if you've got the equipment and knowledge to understand the message, anyway.



That of course makes it very subjective. Would that make it OK to for say deaf/blind people to pull the shock lever on chimps, since they won't hear/see the screams?
Click to expand...

The whole point is that it's subjective, and to be honest it'd probably be alright provided we're all deaf/blind and don't feel the empathy but that's repeating myself for four posts now.

It's all subjective, there is no definite answer that's for sure. Also icerat I don't know if you read my previous post(s) but amoebas do not feel pain and do not communicate a desire to not be treated poorly. They make no attempt to communicate at all. The best we do is anthropomorphize the reaction to stimuli. But do they feel pain and suffer (same for plants) nope.
 
truethat said:
It comes across to me as slavery on the part of the animal.
Click to expand...

Yes, Im sure my 10 year old labrador feels enslaved, as we run around picking up her poo off the lawn while she's eating her dinner or lying down in the loungeroom with 3 kids making a fuss of her - all the while merrily wagging her tail.

Im very sure she'd much rather have died at 4 years while scavenging in a flea-infested pack while slowly starving to death.
 
devnull said:
Yes, Im sure my 10 year old labrador feels enslaved, as we run around picking up her poo off the lawn while she's eating her dinner or lying down in the loungeroom with 3 kids making a fuss of her - all the while merrily wagging her tail.

Im very sure she'd much rather have died at 4 years while scavenging in a flea-infested pack while slowly starving to death.
Click to expand...

Anthropomorphization is a powerful force in the human psyche.
 
Lowpro said:
They make no attempt to communicate at all. The best we do is anthropomorphize the reaction to stimuli. But do they feel pain and suffer (same for plants) nope.
Click to expand...

Reaction to stimuli sends a clear message. It is communication. Whether it's "pain" or not is a matter of definition. Where you see flawed anthropomorphizing I see flawed anthrocentricism. What makes our "reaction to stimuli" particularly special? We're much more like amoeba than we'd care to admit.
 
icerat said:
Reaction to stimuli sends a clear message. It is communication. Whether it's "pain" or not is a matter of definition. Where you see flawed anthropomorphizing I see flawed anthrocentricism. What makes our "reaction to stimuli" particularly special? We're much more like amoeba than we'd care to admit.
Click to expand...

Umm no. There is no limbic reaction for starters. Amoebas and plants share no characteristics to complex nerve functions which include pain, suffering, in fact, and feeling at all!

That's like saying their search for light using photoreceptor cells is a reaction/communication that implies happiness, with no proof of it.

Thanks but you're wrong, it's wholly anthropomorphizing your feelings of "reaction to pain" and then their "reaction to <blank>" as if they're even close to synonymous.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I have to say that this is mostly true but I still come across the occasional appalling experiment in the modern literature where animals are killed to test hypotheses we already know to be true, killed for research with no obvious benefit to anyone or anything, or killed for research on topics we could better research in humans.

I think most ethics committees are doing a good job making sure that unethical researchers don't do make-work studies on animals but some pointlessly cruel studies do still slip through here and there.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that some animal testing is required for legal reasons not research.
 
Oh, and as to the OT:

2 things:

1) A rabbit is not worth a human. Nor is a dog. Nor are my dogs. Id slaughter my dogs in an instant if it meant the life of my kids.

2) We shouldnt make animals (or people for that matter) suffer unnecessarily.

So while I have no qualms about using animals in research, it should be handled humanely. If you're gonna cut up an animal, at least knock it out first. If you're gonna run drain cleaner into the eyes of a rabbit, put it on some form of anesthesia. If you're running drain cleaner into the eyes of a rabbit while it is awake, you probably need to step back and look at how your life arrived at such a point.
 
truethat said:
I think we've done enough experimenting. I've never understood why we don't use death row inmates for experiments. Allow the person to pay his debt to society by being experimented on. If he lives he goes free.
Click to expand...


I see two main problems with your idea. First, the living person on death row isn't just waiting for execution. He's actively pushing the courts to find a reason not to execute him. He's appealing his case, arguing that facts were withheld from the jury, claiming that new evidence has come to light, arguing that the police violated civil rights, etc. So, you'd be experimenting not on a murderer but on a person who had been adjudicated at the trial level of murder. He might be innocent. The police might have so overstepped that public policy would be better served by not carrying out the death sentence. So, you're doing medical experiments on people for whom the death penalty is only a possibility.

Second, I think you'll find that the inhabitants of death row are not good candidates for any kind of testing. They frequently have mental illnesses. They share an unhealthy lifestyle of monotony, carbohydrates, and physical violence. They are most often male. It's a terrible sample that may be useless in determining safety of a drug for, say, young, pregnant mothers with diabetes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom