Animal Research

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Modern scientific community is overwhelmingly materialist. sorry zeeb, most of these guys don't believe in souls! [I could be wrong here, but the people I've talked with -one of them actually does this rat experiment- are ALL materialists]

[/ QUOTE ]well the govt does and they make the laws which determine if we can test on rats or not.

[ QUOTE ]
2. We test rats because their brains are the closest to ours of any animal's.

[/ QUOTE ]just to nitpick for fun, this is not true. I think chimpanzees are the closest. However, rats are close enough for us to get a good idea of what would happen and they are by far the cheapest animal that produces meaningful results.

[ QUOTE ]
4. We don't experiment on babies because we don't want them to be in pain.

[/ QUOTE ]we don't experiment on babies also because we can experiment on rats. we'd rather rats not get hurt, but the feelings of rats are too insignificant to impede scientific research? If most of the population cared about killing rats, we wouldn't do it. The distinctions are arbitrary, but are laws are based on popular opinion (for the most part).


[ QUOTE ]
6. We don't use the golden rule when thinking about rats. Because we don't care about them. Because we think they don't feel things that we do like emotions. But this conflicts with #2, namely that the very reason we study rats is because their neurophysiology -and, we think, what they feel- is a lot like ours.

[/ QUOTE ] This analogy is goofy. I mean "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." First off, most animals don't follow this already, we're the only group that does. Secondly, do you think lions eat zebras because they want the zebras to eat the lions? No. You do unto others that are equal species to you what you want them to do to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Now look, I'm all for studying rats. But I also think that studying babies should be fine too, that is, assuming that the mommy and daddy are cool with it. Nobody would ever study babies like this, but why not?

[/ QUOTE ]b/c we have parents that protect us

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that they care about humans being in pain more than rats being in pain, but why? Is it really because we're "more advanced?"

[/ QUOTE ]yeah it is. why do you think we have such bigger brains?

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that rats are way more advanced than babies. Babies can't do anything for themselves. They rely on caregivers. Let a baby go free in the wild, or your backyard for that matter, and it will be dead in a few days at most.

[/ QUOTE ]who cares our parents won't let that happen. If you don't want to test on rats, why don't you offer to test on your kids?

[ QUOTE ]
And babies could offer more than rats ever could to our scientific knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]true, but we don't need that scientific knowledge bad enough to torture and kill babies.
----

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say that baby testing was sufficient to find a cure for cancer.

How many babies would you be willing to sacrifice to testing if there is a 90%, 60%, or 30% chance to find the cure?

[/ QUOTE ]30% chance I would be willing to kill as many babies as parents that are willing to give them up, that is assuming this is our only shot at curing cancer.

[ QUOTE ]
I hold that a million babies being tested in this scenario is inconsequential when considering the benefit over time provided to the human race.

[/ QUOTE ]Depends if the parents are willing to give them up or not, and also if there is no other alternative to finding the cure for cancer other than baby killing (like maybe we could test on death row peeps, really old people that don't know any better, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
And I think if you are willing to agree with me there, you're not far off from agreeing that studying baby brains for any purpose that would benefit mankind over time would be fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]well not for any purpose. And again, this is a weird hypothetical b/c we can just test on rats b/c rats are meaningless to most of the population.
----

[ QUOTE ]
One last final question that nobody has addressed: Why is it OK to cause pain for science and not pleasure? When you think about causing something pain, you put yourselves in their shoes as explained above. A dog doesn't know or care if you kick it for pleasure or science. And (I think - argue against it if you disagree) the dog's viewpoint is the only one that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]This type of logic is goofy. I mean there's a give and take here. Should we never eat any food that came from any form of animal inconvenience? Shall we not live anywhere where animal habitats were destroyed? You have to realize in order for animals to survive we have to inconvenience or harm other animals, just like every other species. Animals points of view don't really matter that much. The only reason that we can start to think that animals are so important and have such great feelings is due to the "exploitation" of animals for the entire length of humanity. We're only starting to change our ways, because we can finally afford to. Imagine if we always thought in the way you are suggesting, the world population would probably be like 200,000 or less.

-----

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, Zeebo, you said "we have the potential to save millions and billions of human lives based on the ability to test on rats," this may or may not be true, but in the experiment I outlined, no lives are going to ever be saved. They are just studying the physiological response rats have to pain conditioning. Some knowledge about human physiological pain response will be gained, but I don't think that knowledge is gonna save lives or ensure less discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]But that information could lead to more information that is life saving later on. I mean who knows. Knowledge that advances sciences advances us. Do you think every life-changing invention spawned out of 0 subject knowledge? It's all built on eachother.

[KJS]

A rat with emotional problems will not be a strain on human society. A person will, particularly on its immediate family.

KJS

[waarior]

Jablue,

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, I know there's the simple answer of "rats are rats, babies are people," what I'm trying to get at is: is this really a defensible justification?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be interested in reading some stuff by the philosopher Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton.

He would argue that it is not a defensible justification.
Also has many controversial and thought provoking articles on infanticide, poverty & wealth, abortion etc..

Pretty Comprehensive Wiki article

[Kimbell175113]

Babies have human genes. So do I. My human genes tell me to preserve the babies. Because (loop back to the beginning here).

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
Now look, I'm all for studying rats. But I also think that studying babies should be fine too, that is, assuming that the mommy and daddy are cool with it. Nobody would ever study babies like this, but why not? I suppose that they care about humans being in pain more than rats being in pain, but why? Is it really because we're "more advanced?" Seems to me that rats are way more advanced than babies. Babies can't do anything for themselves. They rely on caregivers. Let a baby go free in the wild, or your backyard for that matter, and it will be dead in a few days at most.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the main reason we care about babies more is for whatever reason, humans naturally show more compassion towards other humans, than they do towards animals. Most of the time.

We've evolved to not want to hurt babies. I think that's about it

btw, [censored] the golden rule. Numero uno ftw

[Howard Treesong]

What about a hypersmart rat versus a brain-dead human? In other words, change the condition on intelligence. In that event, Zeebo, does your answer change?

I too view animals as property and think that there are great distinctions of kind (not just of degree) between humans and every other species. But I quite frankly have difficult articulating the difference precisely, which suggests to me that the distinction is not so crystal-clear as I thought.

I think Ja is asking good questions that nobody here really has answered. I'm very uncomfortable (for Sam Harris reasons) about a faith-based answer to this issue.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
evaluating this kind of action it seems to me that doing so from the animal's POV is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

As silly as this statement is, people actually do this alot i.e. ascribe human qualities to non humans.

[JaBlue]

Tablerat,
I agree with your reasons for why we should study rats. I think your defense of why we don't study babies isn't addressing my question. My question is really, "why shouldn't we study babies?" Imagine scenarios where studying babies was feasible. I'm not saying these conditions exist today, just that they could exist at some time. Maybe use unwanted babies. Maybe pay people to be impregnated and give up their baby. Maybe clone babies. Whatever. The point is, there are lots of imaginable circumstances in which baby research would be possible. If you agree that there could be circumstances where baby research would be feasible, then it seems of interest to decide whether or not it could be worthwhile. Saying, "right now its no good for economic reasons" is fine, but not really addressing what I'm asking.

EDF, you guys really dropped the ball on this one. Why has nobody seriously tried attempting to answer my questions except for zeebo and tablerat? Nobody has even touched the question that I think is most important, "is someone willing to test on rats also committed to being willing to test on babies?" I think the answer is yes. Most people say no. I have given good reasons for my belief, others have not.

I know this is a sticky issue, but come on. What gives?

I'll give some more food for thought. I've been thinking about this and talking a bit with some friends.

The biggest problem with proposed baby testing is that it might suggest that humans are expendable. That is, if it is OK to crack baby skulls open and look inside because they're bred for science, why not do the same for people on death row? One can see how this could quickly turn into a slippery slope- if babies and prisoners are OK, what about human vegetables? If all of them, what about the mentally deficient? If them, what about the less intelligent?... and so on. I don't think very many [at least outside this forum] want to accept a world where the smart enslave the dumb just 'cause they can.

My first reaction to this problem would be to say that humans simply are expendable. "The unique sanctity of human life" is just something our chauvinistic species made up. Its easy to presume that deer might have a similar view where deer are not expendable because they are in a class all by themselves too. In saying that humans are expendable, though, there has to be some cut off to avoid the slippery slope. I'd say that an easy way of making this cut off that might make sense is complicity. If possible subjects are asked whether or not they are willing to be tested on and say "no," then they should not be forced to be tested on. Those who cannot respond or understand the question will have to have more rules specific to their particuclar case, but in general, if there is hope that they will one day function, and especially if the family does not consent, they cannot be asked. The key difference with the babies being bred for science is that it is OK with everyone except the baby. Babies are expendable, so this is OK. I admit this view as sketched out is very rough and I haven't thought about it but more than a few minutes, but I hope that it will at least open up discussion.

One last thought, to those of you who are saying that rat testing is ethical because "we are a more advanced species," how do you feel about the possibility of other life forms enslaving and torturing us simply because "they are more advanced" - that is, because they can ? That is, what if hyperintelligent martians are somewhere in the universe and know about us. Is it acceptable for them to come here and do whatever they want to us in the name of research? I think this is a very tough pill to swallow for someone committed to universal morality, and may ultimately show that we are not justified in testing rats. The obvious response is probably going to be, "we'll take our chances," but I'll give you guys something to do and let you evaluate that one for now.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
EDF, you guys really dropped the ball on this one. Why has nobody seriously tried attempting to answer my questions except for zeebo and tablerat? Nobody has even touched the question that I think is most important, "is someone willing to test on rats also committed to being willing to test on babies?" I think the answer is yes. Most people say no. I have given good reasons for my belief, others have not.

I know this is a sticky issue, but come on. What gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought my answer was ok:

------------
I think the main reason we care about babies more is for whatever reason, humans naturally show more compassion towards other humans, than they do towards animals. Most of the time.

We've evolved to not want to hurt babies. I think that's about it
------------

do you care to comment on that? And no, I wouldn't test on babies cause it makes me feel bad, that's all there is to it. There's no ethics behind my position (unless you define 'ethical' to mean whatever makes me feel best)

[BeaucoupFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine scenarios where studying babies was feasible. I'm not saying these conditions exist today, just that they could exist at some time...[snip]...The point is, there are lots of imaginable circumstances in which baby research would be possible

[/ QUOTE ]
No there aren't. If they don't exist today, why would they exist tomorrow? Please give an example.

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody has even touched the question that I think is most important, "is someone willing to test on rats also committed to being willing to test on babies?" I think the answer is yes. Most people say no. I have given good reasons for my belief, others have not.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your good reasons are "why shouldn't we?". Not exactly groundbreaking.
Since we are willing to eat animals, therefore should we also be committed to eating babies? etc

[ QUOTE ]

I know this is a sticky issue, but come on. What gives?


[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a sticky issue, its simply not an issue. Are you really expecting some major discussion on this? I normally just ignore threads like this, but EDF is supposed to be a better forum.