I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
What else do you suggest?
The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
41–50 of 146 posts
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#42I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
A few hundred? There's plenty of folks who already think animal testing is barbarism.
Unfortunately, like the "doctors" of the bad old days, for medical purposes we don't really have a choice, do we?
We do, however, have a choice when it comes to cosmetics and non-critical research, and I stand by my conviction to use cosmetics not tested on animals exclusively.
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#43I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation.
I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#44I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
But why do you think attitudes to slaughtering would not change over time?
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
But why do you think attitudes to slaughtering would not change over time?
I think they will, but only once compelling meat substitutes become affordable. Even then, I think most of future society's condemnation will be for eating meat, not for animal experimentation. By comparison: When people talk about the holocaust, they are mostly referencing the mass slaughter, not the relatively small number of victims of human experimentation.
(Wow, this got off topic quickly.)
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#46I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
A few hundred? There's plenty of folks who already think animal testing is barbarism. Unfortunately, like the "doctors" of the bad old days, for medical purposes we don't really have a choice, do we? We do, however, have a choice when it comes to cosmetics and non-critical research, and I stand by my conviction to use cosmetics not tested on animals exclusively.
What if humans were so different from other creatures that testing human medicines on other species made no sense and the established practice was testing on human “volunteers”, i.e. poor people. Would it still make sense to argue that we didn’t have a choice?
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#47I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.
What else do you suggest?
How about not testing it, because it's got truly no consequence?
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
What else do you suggest?
How about not testing it, because it's got truly no consequence?
Potentially developing more targeted pain killers for people with chronic conditions or recovering from bad injuries, without relying on known addictive substances is of no consequence?
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#49The obvious theory for different pain sensitivity between men and women is that women need to handle childbirth. Since that is unique to our species, animal testing probably won't be helpful there.
I would think it's much more indirect than that. We know women have much more robust immune systems than men do, presumably partly because of the rigors of pregnancy, dangers of child birth, and demands of child rearing. And this is true across species.
What was immediately fascinating to me about this article was the relationship between the immune system and pain sensitivity. Women suffer from autoimmune disorders much more than men because of their stronger immune systems. Makes one wonder if differences in the pain pathways are adaptive to the stronger immune system.
Regarding painful child birth, from an evolutionary perspective it would only matter if the pain itself resulted in less reproduction. The pain is rather fleeting, all things considered, and worst for the first child. And there are many ways for natural selection to mitigate any negative impact on reproduction, such as flooding the woman with hormones that make her forget it, increasing sexual desire, etc.
Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why do you think attitudes to slaughtering would not change over time?
I think they will, but only once compelling meat substitutes become affordable. Even then, I think most of future society's condemnation will be for eating meat, not for animal experimentation. By comparison: When people talk about the holocaust, they are mostly referencing the mass slaughter, not the relatively small number of victims of human experimentation. (Wow, this got off topic quickly.)
Though it is brought up any time there is a discussion about the rules and hoops IRBs make researchers jump through.