Wednesday, February 4
Posted by Justin Swift at 10:05 PM
One point from Tuesday's class keeps coming to mind. I'm curious what you all think. It seems that our arguments fell into two general categories, one that focused on the fact that a study needed to minimize risks to animal subjects and mazimize benefits to human health and knowledge, and another argument which stated that in principle research on animals was in unacceptable. I felt that I was mixing these two up during the discussion and am curious what other people think. Did we come to a consensus that animal research was wrong in principle or just that the risk to the dogs in that particular experiment was too high for the potential benefit tp humans? What do you say?