3 ms·
Absolutely, there is probably some jig to hold the mouse and do the break reliably in the same way each time. I knew a researcher that did research that involve
by cjbgkagh 2y ago
Absolutely, there is probably some jig to hold the mouse and do the break reliably in the same way each time. I knew a researcher that did research that involved killing newborn baby rabbits and he said that he hated that part of the job but kept reminding himself that he is working on a cure for very sick human children that currently had no hope of treatment. It was exploratory research so there was only a small chance of success and many years later there was success in a unrelated field so in the end his work was redundant - but he couldn't have known that at the time.
By my morals it's ok to kill animals for the benefit of humans, animals kill animals for sustenance and for now we are still a part of nature. In the future perhaps we won't need to and I'll happily support that. For now in order to get to that future we must do the unpleasant thing with an understanding that it should be not be done egregiously, gratuitously, or needlessly. Not for the sake of the animals, although that is a given, but for the sake of the humans involved in harming those animals as I think doing such things does take it's toll.
- amelius 2y agoBut, were the animals at least unconscious when the experiments (and preparations thereof) took place? Anyway, if you've ever seen a cat play with a half-dead mouse you might change your previous opinion on these experiments. On the other hand, this research might lead to people putting patches on their jaws to stop the cosmetic effects of ageing. Ethics is a difficult discipline ...
- cjbgkagh 2y agoUnfortunately they were conscious, they were painful deaths and it was the experiment that killed them. They were not euthanized after the experiment which is more the norm. I was told there was no viable alternative to obtaining the data. I only found out because I was helping process the data and I asked where the data was from. What I don't like is that the inefficiencies in science means that many, and perhaps most, of the experiments that are being done are probably unnecessary and only being done due to bureaucratic inertia. I lament the horrible state of science and the needless suffering that causes both humans and animals. So on one hand I think it's possible to justify the what is in effect torture of animals if a case can be made that the science obtained from it could be worth it. On the other hand I don't think it's normally the case that this is true and science should do a better job in justifying this torture. If unable to then it should stop.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]