3 ms·

This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy; it might b

This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy; it might because most peoples' values differ from yours; or it might be because we know neuroscience better than you do EDIT: Just to make clear, I don't want this to be taken as a wholehearted endorsement of the treatment of the animals in the Silver Springs case. There were some questionable practices. However, I feel that there was a scientific reason to be performing the general class of experiments.

jkn 14y ago
Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved. Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or new noninvasive techniques)
- ctdonath 14y ago
  And if the delay costs human lives? perhaps lots of them? You make it sound like there is no consequence of the delay except time. Alas, time is among the most precious things each of us has, and I personally don't have another 50 to spare.
  - jkn 14y ago
    How is that the animals' problem? But note that I was referring to some discoveries. I just don't believe we're close to making an efficient "use" of the millions of animals subject to experiments every year.

jkn 14y ago

Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved. Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or new noninvasive techniques)

ctdonath 14y ago
And if the delay costs human lives? perhaps lots of them? You make it sound like there is no consequence of the delay except time. Alas, time is among the most precious things each of us has, and I personally don't have another 50 to spare.
- jkn 14y ago
  How is that the animals' problem? But note that I was referring to some discoveries. I just don't believe we're close to making an efficient "use" of the millions of animals subject to experiments every year.