Animal Research

[JaBlue]

Is animal research ethical?

I have a specific case in mind here: pain research on rats. There are some experiments we do like run bunches of trials of showing rats a light, giving them a shock, measuring physiological indicators like heart rate, then giving it the light and no shock and measuring those things.

We would never do this to a child or a baby. I am not saying adult here because the studies probably wouldn't be so great on adults since they'd know that it was a study.

The reason we do the studies on rats in particular is because their neurological makeup is actually pretty similar to ours. Moreso than dogs and dolphins, believe it or not. Because their brain is similar to ours we think that they feel pain the same way that we do. This is what allows us to theoretically apply the results of rat studies to humans.

But what is it about babies that makes it OK to test rats and not babies? The first reason to not test babies is because we wouldn't want them to be in pain. But why do we care about babies and not rats? The distinction seems pretty meaningless and arbitrary to me.

I personally would be willing to test on a rat and not a baby. I just don't care about rats being in pain. For that matter I don't really care about babies being in pain unless they're my baby, but for that reason I wouldn't want to put the parents through that. Maybe we should just test on orphans.

Another question arises: would it be OK to specifically breed babies for science? For the sole purpose of testing them? If you maintain that its OK to do this with mice/rats and not babies, why?

Is it possible for one to maintain that one cares about rats being in pain but is still willing to perform the above experiment?

all opinions - and especially those candid ones with a bit of reasoning - appreciated.

[guids]

I dont even really know where to start. So I vote that this thread just gets removed from the forum.

[KJS]

Humans are a more advanced species. We do things out of a selfish instinct (like other animals) but those things (unlike other animals) include more advanced methods, such as subjected non-human animals to testing. We are calculating in our methods, which differentiates us, and we are by and large protected from harm by the other species, which differentiates us. We also have a conscience which causes us to dwell on the ethics of these choices.

Personally, I do not identify with the pain and suffering of animals. Not exactly sure why. I would not want to see a dog beaten senselessly but I feel that as humans we have advanced to the point where if we see merit in subjecting other animals to pain and suffering to serve our purposes, we should. In doing so, we should also not overdo it so that it results in damages to entire ecosystems or species or causes harm to satisfy sadistic desires we may have or to merely make a profit. So I have a bigger problem with using animals to test lip gloss than understand neurology.

So I would have no problem with your rat example. Test away. I would view the baby as different because we are the same species and I think we should protect ours over others. I also would identify with the pain the human would go through and that would be emotionally troubling for me so I would not condone it.

KJS

[hanster]

[ QUOTE ]
But what is it about babies that makes it OK to test rats and not babies? The first reason to not test babies is because we wouldn't want them to be in pain. But why do we care about babies and not rats? The distinction seems pretty meaningless and arbitrary to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This blows my mind. Why don't the researchers test you for the benefits of humankind? Like KJS said, we're the advanced species and do things out of selfish instinct. If an AI comes from another planet and proves to be a more advanced species by having crazy weaponry and research method, I really can't do anything to lent myself to them, can I? Babies are so innocent and so helpless. How you gonna hurt a baby mang? HOWEVER, if we can experiment people that have been sentenced to prison for life with no parole, or are on the deathrow, then I'm all for it. Seriously, how you gonna hurt a baby mang?

[ QUOTE ]
would it be OK to specifically breed babies for science? For the sole purpose of testing them? If you maintain that its OK to do this with mice/rats and not babies, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you plan to do so? Pay some women to go through 9 months of labor and do research on them? I'm sure we could just post on Craiglist and have someone come in and have a baby. I don't think this would work until we can start cloning humans. How did this idea come about anyways? I thought you were some kind of econ major. I think a better question to ask in terms of research is stem cell, which was controversial since the beginning of this decade.

P.S: seriously, how you gonna hurt a baby mang?

[Matt Flynn]

Torturing animals for no real reason: you're an [censored].

Hurting animals when it's reasonably likely to help mankind (and not just your resume): duh.

Where do you draw the line? Same as porn.

[HP]

imo:

a human life is worth more/better/more important than a rat's life. So I think torturing say 1 million rats to death could be worth it, if only to possibly make a few human lives a bit better

you don't feel this way?

[JaBlue]

"In doing so, we should also not overdo it so that it results in damages to entire ecosystems or species or causes harm to satisfy sadistic desires we may have or to merely make a profit."

"Torturing animals for no real reason: you're an [censored].

Hurting animals when it's reasonably likely to help mankind (and not just your resume): duh."

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. What makes causing pain in animals for the good of the human race better than causing pain in animals for the good of my own sadistic pleasures?

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

Why do we obey the golden rule? Because we may not want others to do to us whatever it is we are considering doing to them. Put another way, the first thing we consider is how the other person will feel if we do something to them.

If you are gonna experiment on me, I don't give a [censored] whether its to possibly save lives or for your own pleasure. This example may not appeal to you guys, but I think if "I" am an animal to be experimented on, its pretty obvious that it doesn't matter why I'm being experimented on.

Why does this kind of reasoning apply to human-human situations but not human-animal situations? Remember, we experiment on these rats because we presume that their pain is very much like [if not identical to] ours.
===========

to rephrase my questions:
Is someone willing to experiment on animals committed to being willing to experiment on humans bred for science?

Why or why not?

[El Diablo]

Ja,

Not trying to be cute here, I really think the real answer to your question boils down to as simple an answer as this: Rats are rats, babies are people.

[captZEEbo]

I think you're missing the point. Rats are stupid. Humans are smart. Humans care more about babies than humans care about rats. The line we drew was not arbitrary. Many people view humans as having souls, nobody views rats as having souls. There's a reason why we are willing to spend tons of money on human defense and much much less money for rat defense. Human lives are worth much much more. Humans have the capacity to cause great good for other humans. Rats have no capacity to improve my life, unless a human intervenes and tests on it. Have you ever heard of the food chain?





If it took 1 million tortured rats to make sure no humans lips burned when trying on lip gloss, I say that was a good tradeoff. However, the bigger issue is, we have the potential to save millions and billions of human lives based on the ability to test on rats. If you weren't going to allow that, that'd be a bad tradeoff. There's a reason why there is no penalty for setting a mousetrap.

[JaBlue]

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?

Just correct me where I'm wrong:

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]

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

3. Because their brains are similar to ours, we think that its very likely that their pain is like our pain. Or their pain is the same as our pain.

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

5. When considering how to treat other humans, the golden rule generally applies. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In considering the golden rule, A is imagining a situation where roles would be reversed and B would do X to A. If A doesn't want that, A won't do X to B.

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.

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.

And babies could offer more than rats ever could to our scientific knowledge.
----

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?

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

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.
----

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.

-----

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.