Monday, February 9

Proposal L and Animal Research

First off, my group unanimously agreed to go ahead with Proposal L. This was the proposal where they want to study the placebo effect on pregnant women with morning sickness. Of course this proposal was not perfect... It would need some adjustments to make it a legitimmate scientific experiment. This was just a proposal, but the overall purpose of this experiment I view as extremely beneficial. I believe that these women signed up for a scientific experiement for a reason and that the controversy of the deception in this proposal is not an issue. Giving someone a sugar pill is not going to kill them, scar them for life, or do any damage what-so-ever. I gave my friend a sugar pill once and told her it was asprin for her headache... her headache went away. Maybe her headache would have gone away by itself, but maybe alot of pain and illnesses are psychological and I feel that this placebo effect should be studied. These women will be notified after the experiment is going on, and I am sure that 98% of those women would be glad they contributed to helping other women with morning sickness. What if morning sickness was all in the brain, what if it isnt? When people say that science research is bull and what is the purpose of science, then they need to stop taking vitamins, stop taking cold medicine or pain medicine and then come back and tell me that there is no reason for science.
This leads me to animal research... I am a pre vet major, I have been an animal lover since I was a little girl, my life revolves around horses and other animals. As much as I love animals, I value the life of a complete stranger over any of my pets. Humans are superior, we have souls, emotions, intelligence, reason, etc. An animal has instincts and treats us the same way it would treat the alpha animal in its herd, pack, flock, or whatever. Animal research does not just benefit humans, it benefits other animals as well. So one cannot argue that humans are the only ones benefitting from animal research. We do have vaccinations, pain medicine, antibiotics, and cosmetics for animals. So when ten animals have to go through pain or discomfort, they are saving thousands and thousands more animals and humans from that same pain and discomfort. Honestly, I would give my dog or my horses to research if there was a chance that by doing so researchers could find a cure for my brothers disability. I dont think consent is the issue, an animal cant sign a consent. They dont even think that way! I have watched animals beat the shit out of another animal, chew their own legs off, eat their own young, and kill one another. So to compare babies to animals is ridiculous! Sorry to put it so harshly, but we dont eat our own young... I think that alone puts us above animals. With all the benefits that animal research has brought us, even if animals have to suffer, I think it is worth it to make advancements in science. If you dont think so, then again, stop taking cold medicine the next time you have a cold or dont take pain killers the next time you hurt your self, or use neosporin on your cut, or eat half the foods you eat, dont get the flu vaccination, if you get rabies or a snake bite dont go to the hospital for help, if or when you have children dont give your children cough syrup when they are horribly sick. Basically stop using any modern convience that you have in your house, because whether or not they are still testing those products on animals, they did have to test an animal at one point in history for that product to gain the knowledge whether or not YOU or YOUR family or friends would die from using that product. I would much rather an animal die then one of my family members or friends. Im sure if a dog was in the same position we are in, they would choose to test on us, but that is not the case. And again, humans arent the only ones who benefit from animal research. I think this post is long enough so I will stop there.... but if you didnt notice I am totally for animal research.

1 comment:

  1. In response to, “Humans are superior, we have souls, emotions, intelligence, reason, etc,” I think that this is a very strong claim. You could argue that humans have become superior because we say that we are superior. Or that it is because we have decided that our way of life is better than how other animals live. But, either way, what is the justification for this? One could say that it is true because no other species has evolved or developed the level of technology that humans have, or that it is because of the level of communication and/or language that exists. Also, as you state, it could be because humans have souls, or emotions, or a high level of intelligence and reason. Does this not still partially come down to the point that it is because we say we have all of these traits and that other animals do not?
    For example, with souls, what is a soul? Can you or anyone else give a definite and/or completely accepted definition of what a soul is? I would argue that you could not. Therefore, how do you know that animals do not have souls? Is it because you say so? There are some spiritual beliefs that say animals do have souls and that they deserve respect and fair treatment. In response to individuals who hold these beliefs, are you then to tell them that they are wrong in what they think, when in return they can use the same argument against you?
    In respect to emotions, intelligence, or reason, how do you know that other animals do not have emotions, intelligence, or reason? For emotions, we do not have a real understanding of our own emotions, especially in terms of what exactly they are. With intelligence and reason, you can ask a similar question as above, what is intelligence? What is reason? I would assume that you would run into similar problems of defining and stating what both are.
    However, let’s say there is an accepted understanding of what emotions, intelligence, and reason are. Also, let’s say that you concede that animals have some emotions, for example maybe other animals have the emotion of grief, but that it is different from our own sense of grief and not at the same level, and this is why humans are superior. Also, let’s say you state similar rationale for intelligence and reason. But, this still does not work or provide proper justification. If an another human has a lower level of capability or capacity for emotion, intelligence, or reason than I do, does this mean that I am superior to them, and that I can then treat them as a non-human animal?
    I’m not trying to provide any answers or state that I stand on one side of the argument, but that you cannot make a statement like, “Humans are superior, we have souls, emotions, intelligence, reason, etc,” and just move on, and not provide any reasoning for why.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.