7 ms·

Say what you want about its applicability to human subjects, the quality of life for lab mice and rats has increased significantly in the last 50 years!

melling 7y ago
We can dismiss it as not particularly useful but it does contribute to human knowledge. Most of us contribute much less to the body of human knowledge.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  How is it not useful? It is a required step in order to develop human-working remedies. You can't just skip it because no one is going to experiment on humans directly (well, dependent on the risk).
lnanek2 7y ago
Considering this study probably involved slicing open hundreds of rat heads, I think us humans being interested in neurons more now vs. 50 years ago, has only made things worse for them. Although 50 years ago they likely suffered more amputations and the like.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Well, it's a strange issue. Without such testing, they wouldn't exist at all. So, is a life of, maybe okay but maybe awful lab testing better than none at all? On a human level, we generally value being alive no matter the conditions, e.g., debilitating illness, chronic pain, etc., over not being alive. Of course there are exceptions like euthanasia, which are relatively rare. So why not apply that ethical equation to lab animals as well? I'm just hypothesizing here. I don't particularly like animal testing, think its cruel, think it may be necessary, think it's a morally ambiguous situation, etc. Which is to say it's a complicated topic.
  - AlexDragusin 7y ago
    Luckily, work is being done to emulate various human organs [0] so that we can move away from animal testing. [0] https://newatlas.com/organs-on-chips-testing/33337/ https://newatlas.com/organs-on-chips-testing/33337/
  - Lorkki 7y ago
    > Without such testing, they wouldn't exist at all. So, is a life of, maybe okay but maybe awful lab testing better than none at all? There's no experience of any kind related to not existing in the first place, so the two options are completely orthogonal. It's like asking whether you'd suffer from your parents never having met.
    - short_sells_poo 7y ago
      > There's no experience of any kind related to not existing in the first place, so the two options are completely orthogonal. It's like asking whether you'd suffer from your parents never having met. I agree with your first statement that not existing in the first place means that you don't have the capacity (or burden) to regret or cherish that existence. The second statement is a little bit more nuanced, because assuming you derive happiness from your existence, and you already exist, you'd not have been able to experience the happiness if your parents didn't meet, therefore you'd suffer a net loss. I realie that there's a bit of circular logic in there of course, hence why I condition the assertion on the fact that you already do exist and therefore can make a judgement whether you'd prefer to exist or not.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Hardly orthogonal: better to exist in suffering or not exist is rather acutely the topic of interest to those contemplating suicide.
      - Lorkki 7y ago
        Again, two different things - ending an existence, versus there being no existence to begin with. Conflating the two makes one argue ethics from a realm of infinite possibilities instead of focusing on reality, which doesn't really make for great moral choices. For instance, should people have as much unprotected sex as possible, without any regard to their or their offspring's well-being, just to give the most children the chance to exist?
m3kw9 7y ago
On the ones that survive?

melling 7y ago

We can dismiss it as not particularly useful but it does contribute to human knowledge. Most of us contribute much less to the body of human knowledge.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
How is it not useful? It is a required step in order to develop human-working remedies. You can't just skip it because no one is going to experiment on humans directly (well, dependent on the risk).

lnanek2 7y ago

Considering this study probably involved slicing open hundreds of rat heads, I think us humans being interested in neurons more now vs. 50 years ago, has only made things worse for them. Although 50 years ago they likely suffered more amputations and the like.

ineedasername 7y ago
Well, it's a strange issue. Without such testing, they wouldn't exist at all. So, is a life of, maybe okay but maybe awful lab testing better than none at all? On a human level, we generally value being alive no matter the conditions, e.g., debilitating illness, chronic pain, etc., over not being alive. Of course there are exceptions like euthanasia, which are relatively rare. So why not apply that ethical equation to lab animals as well? I'm just hypothesizing here. I don't particularly like animal testing, think its cruel, think it may be necessary, think it's a morally ambiguous situation, etc. Which is to say it's a complicated topic.
- AlexDragusin 7y ago
  Luckily, work is being done to emulate various human organs [0] so that we can move away from animal testing. [0] https://newatlas.com/organs-on-chips-testing/33337/ https://newatlas.com/organs-on-chips-testing/33337/
- Lorkki 7y ago
  > Without such testing, they wouldn't exist at all. So, is a life of, maybe okay but maybe awful lab testing better than none at all? There's no experience of any kind related to not existing in the first place, so the two options are completely orthogonal. It's like asking whether you'd suffer from your parents never having met.
  - short_sells_poo 7y ago
    > There's no experience of any kind related to not existing in the first place, so the two options are completely orthogonal. It's like asking whether you'd suffer from your parents never having met. I agree with your first statement that not existing in the first place means that you don't have the capacity (or burden) to regret or cherish that existence. The second statement is a little bit more nuanced, because assuming you derive happiness from your existence, and you already exist, you'd not have been able to experience the happiness if your parents didn't meet, therefore you'd suffer a net loss. I realie that there's a bit of circular logic in there of course, hence why I condition the assertion on the fact that you already do exist and therefore can make a judgement whether you'd prefer to exist or not.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Hardly orthogonal: better to exist in suffering or not exist is rather acutely the topic of interest to those contemplating suicide.
    - Lorkki 7y ago
      Again, two different things - ending an existence, versus there being no existence to begin with. Conflating the two makes one argue ethics from a realm of infinite possibilities instead of focusing on reality, which doesn't really make for great moral choices. For instance, should people have as much unprotected sex as possible, without any regard to their or their offspring's well-being, just to give the most children the chance to exist?

m3kw9 7y ago

On the ones that survive?