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.
Showing posts with label Animal Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animal Research. Show all posts
Monday, February 9
"Altered Goats"
Here's an interesting case (go blogger news ticker!) about a vaccine secreted in the milk of genetically modified goats. I hope for consistency's sake all you Kantians out there who object to using these goats merely as a means don't like feta in your salad. . . .
Call to Action?
I came across an interesting pair of editorials in Nature focusing on the questions of "replacement" of animal models in research: Here and then a reply here (I'm guessing you'll need to be on campus to access these). If you can't do it there, leave a comment to that effect and I'll post a PDF. The reply takes a pretty strong stance: "A ban [on animal research] could be justified only if and when all brain function is understood, and if no further challenge is posed to neuroscience by the evolution of modern societies and their pathologies. Obviously, neither of these conditions will ever be realized." I want us to keep this stance in mind when we start talking about global health next week.
Saturday, February 7
Animal Research
While my group decided to go ahead and allow the ointment to be tested on dogs, I disagreed. There are two main reasons I objected:
First, it seems unethical--of course, tentatively using the term ‘ethical’-- to threaten the lives of members of one species (in this case, dogs) in order to potentially benefit the lives another species (humans).
Second is the issue of consent. Because dogs are not able to voluntarily consent to be subjected to discomfort, pain, and possibly death, in order to (potentially) benefit humans, they should not be used in the study.
Those who are pro-animal research generally base their feelings off of an assumption of human superiority. Because of this assumption, the cost to the ‘lesser’ creatures doesn’t outweigh the benefits to us. Generally it is thought that humans are superior because we have the ability to reason and use language. As I said in class, I don’t think this fact makes it more ethical for us to dispose of other living creatures as we see fit. Rather, I think it makes us more responsible to act in an ethical way and protect the lives of other ‘subordinate’ creatures that cannot speak out and defend themselves.
I’d like to respond to the point made in a previous post about how animals are “just animals” and if we kill an animal we can “just get a new one and problem solved”. In order to put this in perspective, imagine the following scenario: Scientists want to conduct the same study with the same ointment. But instead of using dogs, they choose babies in orphanages, because, well, humans can always give birth to more children (we are grossly overpopulated after all) and clearly they are “just” babies. Now imagine scientists claim “well, some babies might die from the study, but it will be a minimal number we assure you”. I find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to comply with the idea that this study would be ethical.
Let’s combine this example with the concept of some sort of innate human superiority. It is not as if these infants can reason, speak, or contribute to society in any real way. In fact, they are doing nothing but wasting tax dollars; they are, in effect, a drain on society as a whole. Given this, would those in favor of animal research be inclined to say that since they lack these skills, as animals do, they should be used to benefit those living creatures that can reason, speak, and contribute? I think not.
One final point, since my post it getting rather long. I am more than willing to admit that medical progress has been made using animals in research (i.e. insulin). I cannot say if I think the same progress would have been made without the use of animals, but that is not the current issue. The issue is whether or not benefit to a species that is able to reason, speak, and ‘make progress’ can take precedence over the cost to a species that cannot do so. As should be obvious by now, I am strongly inclined to say no.
First, it seems unethical--of course, tentatively using the term ‘ethical’-- to threaten the lives of members of one species (in this case, dogs) in order to potentially benefit the lives another species (humans).
Second is the issue of consent. Because dogs are not able to voluntarily consent to be subjected to discomfort, pain, and possibly death, in order to (potentially) benefit humans, they should not be used in the study.
Those who are pro-animal research generally base their feelings off of an assumption of human superiority. Because of this assumption, the cost to the ‘lesser’ creatures doesn’t outweigh the benefits to us. Generally it is thought that humans are superior because we have the ability to reason and use language. As I said in class, I don’t think this fact makes it more ethical for us to dispose of other living creatures as we see fit. Rather, I think it makes us more responsible to act in an ethical way and protect the lives of other ‘subordinate’ creatures that cannot speak out and defend themselves.
I’d like to respond to the point made in a previous post about how animals are “just animals” and if we kill an animal we can “just get a new one and problem solved”. In order to put this in perspective, imagine the following scenario: Scientists want to conduct the same study with the same ointment. But instead of using dogs, they choose babies in orphanages, because, well, humans can always give birth to more children (we are grossly overpopulated after all) and clearly they are “just” babies. Now imagine scientists claim “well, some babies might die from the study, but it will be a minimal number we assure you”. I find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to comply with the idea that this study would be ethical.
Let’s combine this example with the concept of some sort of innate human superiority. It is not as if these infants can reason, speak, or contribute to society in any real way. In fact, they are doing nothing but wasting tax dollars; they are, in effect, a drain on society as a whole. Given this, would those in favor of animal research be inclined to say that since they lack these skills, as animals do, they should be used to benefit those living creatures that can reason, speak, and contribute? I think not.
One final point, since my post it getting rather long. I am more than willing to admit that medical progress has been made using animals in research (i.e. insulin). I cannot say if I think the same progress would have been made without the use of animals, but that is not the current issue. The issue is whether or not benefit to a species that is able to reason, speak, and ‘make progress’ can take precedence over the cost to a species that cannot do so. As should be obvious by now, I am strongly inclined to say no.
Proposal J and animal research in general
I believe that animals are essential for research, and to not use them at all, would in my belief not be right. There has been huge advances in medicine due to animals being used for research. A very common case that refers to animal research is in the 1920-1930s, a rabbit would be injected with urine from a woman who thought she might be pregnant, the rabbit would eventually die and the doctor would check the rabbit's ovaries for detection of pregnancy, and if there was growth on the ovaries (Corpus Hemorrhagica) the woman would know she was pregnant. Using animals, was the very first way to detect pregnancy and now, there are more advance technologies to distinguish pregnancy. My question is do you think we would have even made those more defined advances without using the rabbit? Maybe, but most likely it would have taken a lot longer. I mean someone might have thought over time, well let me just see if my pee helps with knowing if I'm pregnant or not. But the rabbit helped detection of pregnancy advance more and also for researchers to gain more knowledge. With proposal J, yes I think they should use an animal to test the product first, but as we discussed in class it would be more beneficial to use an animal that has closer characteristics in skin as us, such as a pig. That way the researchers will not spend time shaving a dog (which a shaved dog isn't common anyways) and will also be able to get faster/more common results from the pig, hence not spending as much money on research. One of the main reasons some people are now having such a big deal about using animals is research, is due to the media and animal activists groups that are now forming, such as PETA. As Rollin mentioned in his book, the scientists don't do a good enough job expressing to the public about facts etc. So instead the public then gets a precieved perception on certain topics because they hear it from PETA etc. Common example is BST being administered to cows. Most super markets will now not buy milk that has BST (Bovine Somatropin) added to it. Number one, BST is a hormone. Hormones are specific to each species, in other words BST will not affect humans. BST is already in the blood system of cow, more is injected so the cow can produce more milk so it can keep up with the growing amount of people who drink milk everyday (so yes it is our fault). To have animal treated without more BST is fine, but then it is required to pump out more milk with out another injection, which may be torture to the cow anyways. I'm sure you don't see very many adds that say "oh by the way a cow already has BST in it or it is just a hormone that won't affect humans" I think if there were adds out like that more people wouldn't care if there is BST in their milk, but instead due to the media and animal groups, it is now a big deal. I also see where people may come from with the whole consent situation, but I'm sorry, they are just animals. If we kill a rabbit, they freakin multiply in days! Just get a new one and problem solved. No animal has ever gone extinct from animal research. I would have to agree to use a more common animal for research though however, such as a dog vs a panda. If we used pandas, there is where I would have a problem. I'm sorry this blog is so long, I'm sure I have angered at least some people by now, I just thought I would express my opinion when it comes to animal research. Feel free to leave your opinion too.
Wednesday, February 4
Risk/Benefit Vs. Principle
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)