9 ms·
> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the K
by Codesleuth 3y ago
> A 54-g metal (tungsten) bolt was used to deliver an impact to the dorsal aspect of the skull, resulting in a rotational acceleration of the head through the Kimwipe. Mice underwent seven repetitive less-than-mild injuries (rlmTBI, 24-inch height; W/5 mm flat) OR repetitive mild injuries (rmTBI, 36-inch height; W/5 mm flat) in 9 days.
This seems very cruel, even in the face of progress. The price that animals pay for human survival is unimaginable.
- corethree 3y agoNot as cruel as animal slaughter. Imagine the horror of being sliced into flesh cubes for consumption. Compared to that this is tame.
- fallowx 3y ago[flagged]
- alecco 3y agoThis is nothing compared to wild life, like starvation, disease, or being eaten alive by a cat. Just check the NatureIsMetal subreddit. I do take issue with redundant animal testing for trivial things like cosmetics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- therein 3y agoI'd take it further, in my opinion, it is essentially unjustifiable in a deeply karmic way. I genuinely think that I would be able to work on a weapons guidance system and even know that it has been used to target a military vehicle without feeling much guilt but performing the kind of work you have quoted on animals would make me stop and think. And just stop. It is not worth the progress. Not worth the credits, the money. Not worth graduating.
- niemandhier 3y agoThe people conducting this kind of research pay an emotional price for it. Here is a very thoughtful account of how it can affect you: https://www.cnet.com/science/i-killed-563-mice-for-science/ https://www.cnet.com/science/i-killed-563-mice-for-science/ I did this myself for many years, and honestly, I believe the world would be a better place if the people designing weapons were exposed to the suffering they cause to the same degree we are.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- euroderf 3y agoA friend in biology spent many work days doing little else than putting mice into a guillotine. Chopping off their little heads to get a snapshot of their brain chemistry after a dose of something. It definitely messed her up, and she was quite aware of the toll it was taking.
- moltenc 3y agoAlmost as if actions in this life have karmic consequences. Your friend has quite the next life to look forward to.
- euroderf 3y agoYou mention karma. My own take on it is that you are not so much punished for your sins as by your sins.
- moltenc 3y agoAll sin is essentially just desire. Anything you desire, you will get, in this life or the next. The trouble is most people's desires are unconscious, programmed in or are otherwise unoriginal, which leads to all sorts of trouble and misery. Simply put, to desire is to suffer and make others suffer.
- niemandhier 3y agoScience does not hide the suffering it causes, unlike, for example, food production or pest control. Hence, people often react with shock when confronted with the reality of animal experiments needed for medical progress.
- liamN 3y agoBeing open about it doesnt make it right.
- refurb 3y agoThese animals are anesthetized. ”The mice were anesthetized for 5 min using 4% isoflurane in a 70:30 mixture of air:oxygen” The regulations around animal testing are strict. You need to reduce all suffering to the maximum extebt possible. You can apply for research where suffering occurs, if justified by the research (say anesthetic or analgesics interfere) but good luck getting it approved. You’ll be told “come back with a better approach”.
- doublerabbit 3y agoAnd that makes it all okay? Still insanely cruel. Would you volunteer to be anaesthetised and then have your head bashed in multiple times? No? Why should animals.
- xescure 3y agoNo, but if I were a TBI sufferer, I’d take quality of life improvements even with these costs. If you want to ‘have it all,’ we’ll need to invest heavily in creating more advanced biomedical research models. This requires strong societal and political willpower.
- maipen 3y agoBecause we humans are more important than them. I don’t understand the issue. We should try to minimize the pain and suffering of these test subjects, in a few decades I am sure we will have better alternatives…
- Zambyte 3y ago> Because we humans are more important than them. This seems to be self evident to you. Can you explain why this is true?
- amenhotep 3y agoCan you explain why it's not? Are you seriously proposing that if you were in a trolley problem choosing between saving the life of a random human you know nothing about and a random mouse you know nothing about, you would have difficulty making the decision?
- vdaea 3y agoA human life is worth an infinite amount of animal lives.
- mandmandam 3y agoSaid the human, apparently blithely unaware and certainly dismissive of any possible bias. The infinite animals, on the other end, made no such genocidal claims. In fact, on the whole, they were about 100% less fond of ethnic cleansing than the hairless apes. Not satisfied with continuing their perverse murder of the biosphere, the apes regularly turned on their own also, inventing ever-more horrifying methods of doing so. This didn't seem to register on the human who proclaimed such inherent value in human life in the slightest. In fact, at that current moment multiple genocides were happening, some of them with the full-throated support of that human's voted-for government. Some 40% of citizens and 90+% of politicians and media figures were not only ignoring said mass murder, but in fact paying for it. You might find this hard to belive, Xanthrax, but these humans are so thoroughly convinced of their superiority by an effect they themselves have identified and named: the Dunning-Kruger effect. Snark snark baby, Xethrop out.
- dal 3y agoIs it genocide if you breed more of them than you put down?
- Qwertious 3y agoIt can be depending on the context (cultural genocide, for instance, often involves mass rape of native populations), but it isn't in this context - it's just mass slaughter.
- vdaea 3y agoMost animals would genocide the entire planet if they could. If there are too many of a certain species, they are entirely capable of extinguishing entire populations of the animals and plants they eat. Some of them, like cats, wipe out the animal population of an entire area out of boredom.
- dekhn 3y agoI used to work at a hospital that did radiation research. Their animal of choice was dogs. Few things sounded worse than hearing the dogs start to wail (as a group) multiple times a day. They would basically irradiate dogs to give them cancer and then study them as they died. I stick to tardigrades, but even then I feel bad if I accidentally kill one or many.