|
|
#1 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
This isn't as you might expect, intended to be a thread about the ethics of animal experimentation in general, but instead a specific topic that I've always found quite interesting.
In an Environmental Ethics class I'm taking, we recently had a guest lecture by Dr Dave Brodbeck (You can actually listen to podcasts of his lectures here if you're interested) from the Algoma University College's psychology department, on the subject of animal cognition, and one of the things he mentioned was very interesting to me. When talking about conducting experiments on animals, he described the incredibly lengthy procedures one has to go through to get permission to experiment on animals. You have to appear before an ethics board and describe exactly what benefit you hope to derive from your testing, precisely what manner of experimentation you plan to conduct, exactly which ways you will be doing things that harm the animals, and all through your experimentation, you are required to document everything you do, and are apt to get spot inspections of your lab to ensure that you're following to the letter, the ethical guidelines you are working under. However, these rules apply -only- to experimentation on animals with backbones (And octopi) If your subject animal is an invertebrate, you can just test away, any way you feel like, with no such standards at all. You could smash a hundred lobsters with a sledgehammer in your lab because you feel like it, but one dead squirrel without proper approval and your entire laboratory and the institution supporting it can actually just have their entire funding from all sources cut out from under it. This seems pretty absurd to me, and I'm curious what the CT folk think about the ethical guidelines on animal testing extending only to vertebrates. I mean, yes basically all "higher thinking" animals have backbones (your primates, dogs, etc) but I'm pretty sure that from an animal cognition standpoint, there are plenty of vertebrates that rank below some of the more advanced invertebrates (For example, I think the exception made for octopi doesn't extend to squid, which to me are easily as advanced as octopi are) Should the ethical guidelines for animal testing extend further? Should there be ethical guidelines for animal testing at all? Which animals should be exempt? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | ||
|
EHHS Sucks!
|
When I read this, the first question I asked myself was "Do invertebrates feel pain?"
After some research I found a link to this article: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...e/shelly-e.htm Which says that the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain as the following: Quote:
Quote:
From what I could draw from this article, it seems that most Invertebrates do not feel pain, which would explain why the guidelines for testing on invertebrates are so lax. Personally, I feel that the guidelines for animal testing only need to be extended in the sense of Scientists having to go through the same song and dance to test invertebrates as they would vertebrates. There is no way for us to currently know for sure whether or not invertebrates do in fact feel pain, and though it may be unlikely that they do, I don't feel it's fair to assume with definitive proof. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
I actually had to do a pretty in depth study of this at the beginning of the year. For the sake of argument I offered to take the side of the corporations who use animal testing, while the rest of my honors class was against me. I never thought I would actually agree with them, because animal testing is just so horrible, right? Well in reality it’s not so bad. Well it’s bad for whatever is being tested on, but would you rather us just pour our new shampoo on some kid and see if it melts his skin off? Of course not. Our only choices are to use animal testing, stop making new products all together, or buy them from other countries that use animal testing. Nearly every product on the market has used animal testing at some point. Even products labeled No Animal Testing usually use it. They get around the technicalities by saying they didn’t test their final product on animals. They did however test it on animals then add a new chemical to change the scent or color so that it would technically be a new product and they didn’t need to test it on animals, because they already know its safe. I could go on for awhile, but I doubt you really want to hear it all. I wish I still had my paper, I could email you a copy; it had some great sources on it. One of my biggest sources was the psychology book by Myers.
Quote:
The biggest reason its all about vertebrates and invertebrates is because of human nature. We tend to like animals that look more like us. Have you ever heard anyone say "Aw look at the cute little spider." Not very likely, but a little kitten or puppy has similar features to a human child. It is true that some invertebrates cannot feel pain as far as we know, but using your example of a lobster, I saw someone burning one alive and it was definitely in pain. I've also seen a spider cower after I crushed one of its legs (I hate spiders). Yes these are responses to help ensure the animals survival, but that’s all pain is. Many of us wouldn’t have the sense to take our hand out of a flame if it didn’t hurt. So by that same logic it makes sense that animals who react to something as if in pain would feel pain. Quote:
Yes. Tearing a dogs leg off for the heck of it just isn’t right. I would like to say none. Even humans should be used to some extent. But then we get into the problem of how to choose them? No one should be subject to experimentation, but it would make advancement much more easy, and quick. I know I'm not volunteering, so I don’t expect anyone else to either. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
No, they shouldn't extend further. If anything ethics committees have dug too deep into the scientific circle, and in many areas it's incredibly hard to do research now, if not impossible, and progress is hampered severely. These committees obviously exist for a reason, but you can go too far. I don't think many people are nearly grateful enough for the knowledge that is gained from these types of animal experimentation and how it is applied to things we take for granted, even though we depend on them.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 324
|
I agree with Reach and Xptrip. The majority of invertebrates have such a small capacity for pain, that harmful experiences that we regularity encounter don't phase them in the least.
Both my parents are cancer researches, and my mom works exclusively with mice. I worked the past summer in her lab. In short, whenever noticeable amounts of pain are shown by the mice, they are put to sleep to adhere to animal ethics guidelines. Though that may be moral and just, it inhibits the scientist's ability to view the later effects of cancer and other harmful diseases, which ultimately leads to less knowledge and understanding of the disease. For vertebrates, the guidelines are strict and inhibiting, yet very moral, thus is hard to argue on either side. As for invertebrates, the guidelines are almost the same as vertebrates. The thing is, though, is that when an invertebrate feels such extensive pain (the most pain it could possibly feel), it is likely going to die within a short period of time and the pain is not all that great. The animal ethics guidelines are almost the guidelines of life for invertebrates, thus are unneeded. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|