Live data from Hacker News

I Was an Animal Experimenter

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#31
post #9

Animals suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against animal suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of wild animals with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, predators, fights and disease. Stopping animal research is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not .

I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans: Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is lik…

This is not the slamdunk you think it is. If you could ensure the human population lived to exactly 70 years old and didn't suffer during that time, there is a very fair argument it would be a moral imperative to implement this social order since it would be a massive improvement over the current state of world affairs.

Scale down that number to find where you think the line is.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#33
post #16
post #4

100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Why should we? Right now we need to do this kind of experiments to relieve massive pain from humans. Some tests(not all of them) can't be done without live animals. Why should animal suffer for human? Well human have higher moral value because of higher ability of pain, emotions and cognition. Don't get me wrong given the choice I would stop any animal cruelty if there would be alternative. As far as I know there isn…

> Well human have higher moral value because of higher ability of pain, emotions and cognition.

Those are arbitrary categories. Let's say I decide you have lower ability to feel pain, emote and have inferior cognition.

How exactly do you prove me wrong. By grimacing a lot when I cause you pain? Well animals absolutely clearly demonstrate they hate pain, too. Yet, here we are discussing your opinion to the contrary.

Truth is... they don't speak, so we can speak for them whatever is convenient for us.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#34
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans: Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is lik…

This is not the slamdunk you think it is. If you could ensure the human population lived to exactly 70 years old and didn't suffer during that time, there is a very fair argument it would be a moral imperative to implement this social order since it would be a massive improvement over the current state of world affairs. Scale down that number to find where you think the line is.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that animal experiments would be ethical if they removed all suffering for humans?

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#35
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not have an answer to the question of whether experimenting on nonhuman animals can be justified out of necessity. I have some thoughts, though: Assume that in the near future, we give nonhuman animals the same moral value as humans. And then say we wanted to conduct an experiment on an animal to cure a human ailment. Before we harm a nonhuman animal, we need to ask whether we have the right to harm that animal.…

It is morally illogical to grant non-human values equivalent human moral value. We certainly don't grant it to ameoba, bacteria, the tiny multi-cellular organisms that live on our skin. The micro-wasp (which the aforementioned ameoba is larger than, but which has neurons). But you can win any argument by first granting that it must be true, which is what you do in your second paragraph.

> But you can win any argument by first granting that it must be true, which is what you do in your second paragraph.

If we disagree on that point, then we will obviously reach different conclusions and there is no point in arguing with each other. That is why I stated it as an assumption.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#36
I did animal research for a few months before I couldn't take it anymore. The standards are for PR, are hardly enforced, and nobody cares beyond not looking bad. I don't care what they say they do, if they are taking the initial step of choosing to use animals theyre a poor choice for self-enforcement of animal welfare.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#37
Animal experimentation is horrible and terrible. Even in the most ethical of studies suffering is inflicted upon animals that otherwise would not have happened; entire genotypes of animals doomed to additional suffering have been bred in some cases. But the alternative is far worse: to not perform these animal studies, or rather for some privileged group to use force to prevent others from performing such studies, and so bring progress in medicine to a grinding halt. Without animal studies there would be no new meaningful advances in medical science. It is a harsh and unpleasant aspect of the human condition that forcing suffering upon animals in the course of scientific studies is necessary to advance both human and veterinary medicine. A few suffer for the benefit of many - an equation that should make any sane and compassionate person uncomfortable.

Animal studies are even required to refine the science needed to move beyond animal studies. Ethics and morality aside, studies employing animals are expensive and time-consuming. Given the choice, scientists would much rather experiment on cells in a dish, or on slabs of unfeeling cultured tissue, or upon simulations of animals, if these methods would generate results of the same quality.

In comparison to what might be and what is possible, we live in a barbaric age of suffering, war, death, and sundry other horrors that we like to keep behind the curtains and out of the mind's eye. But barbaric as it is, this age is far better than the past by all such measures. We no longer absolutely, definitely need to slaughter animals for food to sustain the populace, for example, and rates of violence between humans are far lower than in the pre-modern era of tribes and universal poverty. The option stands open today for a society of vegetarians: it is practical from a technological and economic standpoint. That we have not moved rapidly in that direction is our shame, and our descendants will look back on us as savages for this and many other reasons.

Those people who criticize and take action against the use of animals in medical research should first look to their diets, and then to the practice of farming animals. Vast and expansive animal suffering is caused in the name of putting meat into the marketplace - greater many times over each month than in all the animal experiments in modern history. Persuade the omnivores of the human race to relinquish their participation in the meat market before savaging the medical science that will benefit both man and beast.

In short, the human condition is a rotted, cloying swamp, but we're closer to the edge than we were - no longer up to our necks in it, we now have the luxury of finding more of our surroundings to be disgusting and primitive. The way out to solid ground is forward, through more of the same, until our biotechnology becomes good enough to do away with the suffering we must inflict upon animals in order to build better medicine. Perhaps along the way, societies will arise whose members also reject the needless suffering we presently choose to inflict upon animals in order to eat the same diet as our ancestors.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#38
If that is Paul's belief system, he sold it out awfully quickly because he was "fascinated by one class lab". He is now "astonished that the daily grind of depriving, shocking and killing these animals did not move me to leave my job." He quit because he lost interest and wanted to be a programmer, stealing a lab coat in the process...

I don't mean to be too harsh, but the thing that comes through loudest to me is that, by his own measure, Paul may be a bad person.

Re: I Was an Animal Experimenter

#39

I can say with confidence that this sort of thing would never occur in a modern research laboratory. Note that standards for ethical experimentation on animals (including humans) hadn't really appeared until the 70s and 80s. A couple of points here: Any type of animal experimentation must be accompanied by an IACUC protocol that is approved by a committee, typically at least 3 people, and usually including a veterina…

"Any surgery that happens must be done under anesthesia using approved chemicals." I had a girlfriend who was working on a some kind of graduate neuroscience degree in the late 90's. She used to tell me stories about students, and researchers killing/maiming animals in order to carry out their experiments. Her lab job was to kill rats in the lab(adults, and babies). She would slam their heads into a piece of granite.…

I asked them if they are still pithing frogs in order to basically show the students the heart will beat once severed from the frog.

Well, that's one way to (mis)characterise it. Another way is to say that doing that to frogs gives the students practical knowledge in how real specimens behave, how to take care of specimens, and techniques in getting data out of an active specimen. You can watch every video and listen to endless lectures; it's still not going to help you learn to tie a ligature properly. Education involves more than the passive absorption of factoids.

Source: taught just that practical class as a TA.

Post reply on HN