Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

"Because we can," ethics in scientific experiments

1356713

Posts

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.
    The stress put on the actual experimenters can be correlated back to cuteness or ability to identify with the animal subject. Actually, when I think about it, there are fairly good work-related reasons not to do super sad animal research if there are better and more pragmatic in vitro assays.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    Having a "supervised" version of Lord of the Flies seems rather sketchy. Especially since at one point the kids were planning on bashing each other with rocks. I would have loved to have seen that in the report.

    Yeah, when I first started reading about it I was getting a lord of the flies vibe as well, but the rest of the article didn't seem so bad. It did not mention plans for physical violence so I didn't see that. It just seemed to me that they set up two groups to compete competitively against each other and then brought them together again at the end. Almost like high school rivalries and such. I guess there wasn't enough info just in the wiki.

    Yeah the wiki gives zero "Lord of the Flies" type stuff at all.

    They took 2 groups, forged in-group bonds, then put those 2 groups in competition with each other, which led to conflict and animosity. Then they gave them tasks that required working together and everyone got along just fine.

    Well, wikis don't always tell the whole story.
    Tensions increased further when the Eagles won the second tug-of-war through a strategy of sitting down and digging in their heels. Judging this unfair, the Rattlers launched a commando style raid on the Eagles' cabin that night. The following morning, the Eagles took revenge on the Rattlers' cabin; then, fearing reprisals, they began to store rocks to stone their new enemies. Once again, the staff intervened.

    They put the kids in a situation where they were likely to harm each other without supervision. That's pretty freaking bad man.

    Well, it sounds like there was supervision since the staff intervened.

    But yeah, that's more extreme conflict then the wiki article makes it sound.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    So like I said, I don't know very much on this subject, so what safeguards are in place, in general, to prevent scientific abuse? Obviously, there's not going to be universal enforcement across different countries, but I'd like to leave this conversation knowing my DNA won't be scrambled like an egg at some point to build a better Easy Bake Oven. I've seen folks mention the Institutional Review Board, are there any types of government oversight? I realize how crazy that sounds since most of the worst offenses were committed by governments, but I guess you have to start somewhere.
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »

    Painkillers was mentioned above, so controlled pain/pain relief for instance.

    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    Now I like the eye example on the rabbits. It still allows vital research, and decreases harm. I'm down for doing more things like that.

    The funny thing about painkiller research is that, as I understand it, we mostly do it on people anyway since pain is a highly subjective experience. You do animal trials to confirm the drug isn't toxic, or have weird whole organism side-effects, but the only real way to know if it works is to give it to people and see if they report reduced symptoms.

    Primate research isn't banned, but you have to have a very good justification for it. The classic case would be something like Ebola research where the only real way to know if the vaccine is working is to find an animal the disease infects, and see if they survive it. That can be a whole range of things, but the nearest you get to humans is chimps (and they do catch it in the wild anyway). But - that's last hurdle type stuff. And pretty self-limiting anyway since handling the Ebola virus is amazingly dangerous.

    A bad justification these days would be stuff like the Pit of Despair. That whole series of experiments (hell, that 1 guy really) is more or less the reason you can't do stuff like that anymore, and also a pretty good example of what I mean about the dangers of allowing humans to commit wanton animal cruelty.

    It did go too far, and there might have been better ways to go about it. But that doesn't mean blanket bans, or that we should never even try to do things like this.

    If it went too far in the first place, why shouldn't we try to prevent it from happening again?

    Prevent things from going to far, but don't prevent them from happening at all.

    I'm fine with controls, and ethic boards. I like the rabbit example earlier. But stuff needs to be done sometimes.

    Part of me giving these things a pass might be the fact that the way we learn about these things is usually through the media. And they like sensationalizing things, without providing context. Like the abortion ban on than one technique based purely on that it sounds bad.

    I don't like banning things on how much emotion it evokes.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    Having a "supervised" version of Lord of the Flies seems rather sketchy. Especially since at one point the kids were planning on bashing each other with rocks. I would have loved to have seen that in the report.

    Yeah, when I first started reading about it I was getting a lord of the flies vibe as well, but the rest of the article didn't seem so bad. It did not mention plans for physical violence so I didn't see that. It just seemed to me that they set up two groups to compete competitively against each other and then brought them together again at the end. Almost like high school rivalries and such. I guess there wasn't enough info just in the wiki.

    Yeah the wiki gives zero "Lord of the Flies" type stuff at all.

    They took 2 groups, forged in-group bonds, then put those 2 groups in competition with each other, which led to conflict and animosity. Then they gave them tasks that required working together and everyone got along just fine.

    Well, wikis don't always tell the whole story.
    Tensions increased further when the Eagles won the second tug-of-war through a strategy of sitting down and digging in their heels. Judging this unfair, the Rattlers launched a commando style raid on the Eagles' cabin that night. The following morning, the Eagles took revenge on the Rattlers' cabin; then, fearing reprisals, they began to store rocks to stone their new enemies. Once again, the staff intervened.

    They put the kids in a situation where they were likely to harm each other without supervision. That's pretty freaking bad man.

    Well, it sounds like there was supervision since the staff intervened.

    But yeah, that's more extreme conflict then the wiki article makes it sound.

    But it was still a useful experiment right?

    There's a difference between "knowing" that 2 groups of people that are competing for resources eventually end up in conflict, and having a step by step breakdown of the escalation.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    So like I said, I don't know very much on this subject, so what safeguards are in place, in general, to prevent scientific abuse? Obviously, there's not going to be universal enforcement across different countries, but I'd like to leave this conversation knowing my DNA won't be scrambled like an egg at some point to build a better Easy Bake Oven. I've seen folks mention the Institutional Review Board, are there any types of government oversight? I realize how crazy that sounds since most of the worst offenses were committed by governments, but I guess you have to start somewhere.
    All our current regulations stemmed from a lot of these lynchpin ethical cases. The first line of defense is self report. If your advisor or boss asks you do to something unethical, you let your department know. For animal work, you must not only abide by your protocol, but you must never deviate from the approved method of euthanasia. Also, your work is closely monitored by an animal facility, a veterinarian specializing in animal research, and a team of veterinary technicians, who monitor your animals when you are not around. You are also extremely discouraged from doing injections yourself if it is more practical to let a trained vet tech handle them. You also take a lot of classes and trainings on how to properly handle and enrich your animal of choice so that you do not cause it undue harm.

    There are three ways you can be sanctioned when you screw up, depending on the severity:

    Least Severe: Your funding is revoked and you can no longer do that research.
    Moderately Severe: Your funding is revoked and you are no longer allowed to do any research at any institution.
    Most Severe: You go to jail for violating animal abuse statutes.

    For humans it is largely the same, except the penalties can be way more severe in nature.

    And on the paper-ethics side, if you plagiarize, falsify, doctor, make up, or tamper with your shit unduly, you lose all your funding and get banninated from science altogether.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    And if you are worried more about the consent/human side, a scientist could not get funding for a project that involved humans that was not first reviewed by a grant reviewer and by the IRB. For clinical trials, the FDA regulates everything and they do a very good job protecting patients (usually....).

    There was a recent antibody trial that caused system organ failure in the patients, but that was largely an unforseen (though should have been anticipated) consequence.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I'd rather be curing cancer then coddling some people's feelings for animals that are fuzzy.

    Ethical guidelines for animal experimentation exist to ensure good science is done as much as to prevent unnecessary suffering. When you let people carry out cruelty in a routine fashion, it leads to waste and poor planning. Animals which are stressed, in poor health or any number of other conditions are not going to provide remotely suitable datasets.

    To some extent this is an attitude I kind of want to blame of paganistic morality plays: the assumption being that if we do something wrong, it must produce results more quickly. That's not how it works.

    I'm all for that, but it still allows the animal to undergo pain and/or death if the experiment calls for it? Assuming it's well planned, and an alternative isn't available, or wont have the same results?

    Wanton cruelty is stupid. A little bit of clinical detachment can be a good thing.

    Edit: Though again, only if it happens to other people

    Well when would the experiment call for it? Pain and anxiety is also considered very different death where animals are concerned in terms of livelihood.

    Animal experimentation guidelines have been getting stricter and stricter. For example it's basically impossible to do primate research these days, and doubly impossible to do invasive research on them - you can't just kill chimps and other members of the homo family. It's looser for the smaller monkeys.

    A friend is currently doing animal studies on rabbits in my lab. Specifically she's looking at the elution of drugs from nanoparticles as a means of treating ocular diseases causing preventable blindness. Part of the requirements of research on the eyes of animals is that you're only allowed to work on 1 eye at a time, in case whatever you're doing causes blindness - its to prevent unnecessary cruelty. The process to get approval for this has involved ethical review by about a dozen people across 3 different departments.

    I feel more comfortable with this. I understand the necessity of using animals for some kinds research. Playing Frakenstien or driving animals crazy/tormenting them on purpose is crossing a line though.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    Having a "supervised" version of Lord of the Flies seems rather sketchy. Especially since at one point the kids were planning on bashing each other with rocks. I would have loved to have seen that in the report.

    Yeah, when I first started reading about it I was getting a lord of the flies vibe as well, but the rest of the article didn't seem so bad. It did not mention plans for physical violence so I didn't see that. It just seemed to me that they set up two groups to compete competitively against each other and then brought them together again at the end. Almost like high school rivalries and such. I guess there wasn't enough info just in the wiki.

    Yeah the wiki gives zero "Lord of the Flies" type stuff at all.

    They took 2 groups, forged in-group bonds, then put those 2 groups in competition with each other, which led to conflict and animosity. Then they gave them tasks that required working together and everyone got along just fine.

    Well, wikis don't always tell the whole story.
    Tensions increased further when the Eagles won the second tug-of-war through a strategy of sitting down and digging in their heels. Judging this unfair, the Rattlers launched a commando style raid on the Eagles' cabin that night. The following morning, the Eagles took revenge on the Rattlers' cabin; then, fearing reprisals, they began to store rocks to stone their new enemies. Once again, the staff intervened.

    They put the kids in a situation where they were likely to harm each other without supervision. That's pretty freaking bad man.

    Well, it sounds like there was supervision since the staff intervened.

    But yeah, that's more extreme conflict then the wiki article makes it sound.

    But it was still a useful experiment right?

    There's a difference between "knowing" that 2 groups of people that are competing for resources eventually end up in conflict, and having a step by step breakdown of the escalation.

    Seems useful to me on the surface, since it basically exposes the nature of intra-group conflict that is divested of any sort of uncontrolled baggage.

    But I suspect you'd need to be in that field of study to really know if it what useful or just saying something people already knew.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats
    Unless you have a certain license, you can't touch sodium pentothal. If you're doing pentothal sacrifice, the vet techs have to do it.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    The other side of ethics - lying about your research.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann#Cold_fusion

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    If you were to tier small rodent sacrifice by suffering it would be like:

    Least Suffering

    Sodium Pentothal
    CO2 Asphyxiation
    Manual Cervical Dislocation

    Most Suffering

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    But is a rat really a sufficient sacrifice to convince Baal to look with favour on your scientific endeavours?

    Couldn't your department afford a goat or something?

    shryke on
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    But is a rat really a sufficient sacrifice to convince Baal to look with favour on your scientific endeavours?

    Couldn't your department afford a goat or something?

    With the way some of these folks act that would certainly make sense.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    But is a rat really a sufficient sacrifice to convince Baal to look with favour on your scientific endeavours?

    Couldn't your department afford a goat or something?

    I think that's a hold-over from Norway, since they do the Odin thing over there. So goats and ravens are out.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON IndiaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    But is a rat really a sufficient sacrifice to convince Baal to look with favour on your scientific endeavours?

    Couldn't your department afford a goat or something?

    I think that's a hold-over from Norway, since they do the Odin thing over there. So goats and ravens are out.

    Good point. You probably aren't winning that Nobel prize if you piss off Odin or Thor.

    shryke on
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.

    Edit2: That reminds me of that speech one earlier. Using Orphans? It's like he tried to hit all the tropes.

    Mortious on
    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON IndiaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON IndiaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.
    Your human subject has to re-integrate with society? No way! They have another date with a needle. For the rest of their life.

    Basically what you're saying is that it's okay to experiment on rats because they don't have any prospects for the rest of their life, but this is not a great argument for 2 reasons. First, we're the reason the rat has no further prospects. Second, we can make it such that humans have no further prospects, but that wouldn't make it more okay to experiment on them.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Why are we using "can feel pain" as a metric?

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON IndiaRegistered User regular
    You should just read the article @MrMister linked because it says it much better than I can, but the idea is that any other plausible criterion will give us the unintuitive result that experiments on mentally retarded humans are OK.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats
    Unless you have a certain license, you can't touch sodium pentothal. If you're doing pentothal sacrifice, the vet techs have to do it.

    what about ketamine

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.
    Your human subject has to re-integrate with society? No way! They have another date with a needle. For the rest of their life.

    Basically what you're saying is that it's okay to experiment on rats because they don't have any prospects for the rest of their life, but this is not a great argument for 2 reasons. First, we're the reason the rat has no further prospects. Second, we can make it such that humans have no further prospects, but that wouldn't make it more okay to experiment on them.

    We place more worth on people than rats.

    If the science needs to be done, and we can only use rats or humans, use rats. If we need humans, use humans.

    It doesn't mean that we do things unethically, or that we don't try to minimize harm.

    Edit: I'm guessing we might have different ideas about the experiments were talking about. I'm not talking about the two headed money dog ones, but closer to cancer/disease treatment ones. And yes, also things similar to isolation monkey one. I recall one with over population and fluctuating resources involving rats. Didn't end well for the rats.

    Mortious on
    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    there's a simpler reason - you can breed, purchase, and control rats. Humans are a little harder to come by than rats and a lot harder to work with. They're more expensive to maintain and need more freedoms for legal purposes. It's not really a moral issue, it's a practical issue.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Mortious
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Also its probably worth considering that we routinely butcher thousands of cattle and livestock for foodstuff consumption.

    With that in mind, the incidental death of laboratory animals is kind of a minor concern unless you're a moral vegetarian of the "killing animals is wrong" persuasion. If you're not - or, your concern is suffering - then by and large you're ok with animal experimentation as we currently implement it, which is based on minimizing suffering.

    Another note: lab animals (mice, rabbits etc.) are not recycled. You don't move them from one experiment to the next - they're bred and bought for specifically defined experiments, then euthanized after the experiment is done.

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON IndiaRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.
    Your human subject has to re-integrate with society? No way! They have another date with a needle. For the rest of their life.

    Basically what you're saying is that it's okay to experiment on rats because they don't have any prospects for the rest of their life, but this is not a great argument for 2 reasons. First, we're the reason the rat has no further prospects. Second, we can make it such that humans have no further prospects, but that wouldn't make it more okay to experiment on them.

    We place more worth on people than rats.

    If the science needs to be done, and we can only use rats or humans, use rats. If we need humans, use humans.

    It doesn't mean that we do things unethically, or that we don't try to minimize harm.

    Edit: I'm guessing we might have different ideas about the experiments were talking about. I'm not talking about the two headed money dog ones, but closer to cancer/disease treatment ones. And yes, also things similar to isolation monkey one. I recall one with over population and fluctuating resources involving rats. Didn't end well for the rats.
    You place more worth on people than on rats. That doesn't mean you're correct to do so. As the article points out, all throughout history people have placed more worth on certain groups (men, white people, property owners, etc.) than they have on others. Because of this, they thought it was okay to deny women the right to vote or to enslave people with dark skin and so on. Nowadays we think that all human beings are equal and that this sort of behavior is wrong. We need to go one step further and realize that human beings are not some magical special species that gets super awesome special treatment because we're just fucking great. We need to realize that other species feel pain and that because of this it's wrong to use them for experiments we wouldn't use humans for. Basically when you decide to do an experiment on an animal, you need to ask "would I do this to a person?" If the answer is no, then what justification do you have for doing it to any animal other than blatant prejudice?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    You should just read the article @MrMister linked because it says it much better than I can, but the idea is that any other plausible criterion will give us the unintuitive result that experiments on mentally retarded humans are OK.

    Oh, this is that argument then.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.
    Your human subject has to re-integrate with society? No way! They have another date with a needle. For the rest of their life.

    Basically what you're saying is that it's okay to experiment on rats because they don't have any prospects for the rest of their life, but this is not a great argument for 2 reasons. First, we're the reason the rat has no further prospects. Second, we can make it such that humans have no further prospects, but that wouldn't make it more okay to experiment on them.

    We place more worth on people than rats.

    If the science needs to be done, and we can only use rats or humans, use rats. If we need humans, use humans.

    It doesn't mean that we do things unethically, or that we don't try to minimize harm.

    Edit: I'm guessing we might have different ideas about the experiments were talking about. I'm not talking about the two headed money dog ones, but closer to cancer/disease treatment ones. And yes, also things similar to isolation monkey one. I recall one with over population and fluctuating resources involving rats. Didn't end well for the rats.
    You place more worth on people than on rats. That doesn't mean you're correct to do so. As the article points out, all throughout history people have placed more worth on certain groups (men, white people, property owners, etc.) than they have on others. Because of this, they thought it was okay to deny women the right to vote or to enslave people with dark skin and so on. Nowadays we think that all human beings are equal and that this sort of behavior is wrong. We need to go one step further and realize that human beings are not some magical special species that gets super awesome special treatment because we're just fucking great. We need to realize that other species feel pain and that because of this it's wrong to use them for experiments we wouldn't use humans for. Basically when you decide to do an experiment on an animal, you need to ask "would I do this to a person?" If the answer is no, then what justification do you have for doing it to any animal other than blatant prejudice?

    I would not include a white man in an observational study of black women.

    I also am not a huge fan of human meat

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    We have an ethical duty to minimize suffering if at all possible. And I would modify the "Does it feel pain" to also include "Does it remember or perceive the pain?"

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I dunno man. Bacteria remember pain. It won't be the same bacterium, but it will be able to anticipate and avoid noxious stimuli, especially as a biofilm.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Does the ban on primate research hamper our advancement of science? Also, what's the reason for it? If it's "we can get the same results for less harm", cool, go for it. If its "wook at his wittle face" then the reasoning gets wonky for me.

    That's sort of reasoning-from-cuteness is often brought up as a foil in these sorts of conversations. The best arguments against animal experimentation do not use any such appeals, however; rather, they appeal to alleged parallels between animals and low-functioning humans like babies and the severely retarded who we, one supposes, would not countenance any such experiments on. This is just a straightforward appeal to consistency, and has nothing to do with how adorable anything is.

    Okay wow, that's a little bit long for me to read just now, so I apologise if I miss something.

    I'm not sure than an appeal to human-like level of brain function is a valid tactic. Especially when your baseline is babies. (I'm starting to think I have an issue with children)

    If you use brain function as a comparison between potential test subjects, sure. e.g. Rats vs Chimps, where both would give comparable results, use rats. But if you need chimps for your alzheimer curing smart drug, then use chimps.
    You definitely did miss something. "Human-like level of brain function" is not the relevant consideration when we're deciding whether we can carry out experiments on a living creature. The relevant consideration is "can if feel pain?" If something can feel pain, it's not okay to use it for experiments or whatever. Singer things that any reason you give for letting us use animals would also be a reason for letting us use humans. If you think it's wrong to experiment on humans, then you have to realize that humans are equal to other animals when it comes to the characteristic that matters: capacity to feel pain.

    Okay, pain feeling is a metric I can work with.

    I'm fine with reducing harm in whichever way you can, without impacting the validity of the experiment.

    I don't think animals are equal to humans, even if you're using pain as the main metric.

    Edit: Wow, that came off a bit callous. What I meant was, I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to animal research. Also, I rank people higher than animals for purposes such as these. I might be biased in that regard though. Also babies. Feel free to use babies.
    Why aren't non-human animals equal to humans if we use pain as the metric? Do you think that, for instance, a rat feels less pain than a human would when you poke it with a needle?

    Well, I meant main metric, not only.

    And after you finish your experiment on the effects of severe pokie trauma, your human subject has to re-integrate with society, where as your rat has a date with one more needle.

    I place humans above animals in this regard.
    Your human subject has to re-integrate with society? No way! They have another date with a needle. For the rest of their life.

    Basically what you're saying is that it's okay to experiment on rats because they don't have any prospects for the rest of their life, but this is not a great argument for 2 reasons. First, we're the reason the rat has no further prospects. Second, we can make it such that humans have no further prospects, but that wouldn't make it more okay to experiment on them.

    We place more worth on people than rats.

    If the science needs to be done, and we can only use rats or humans, use rats. If we need humans, use humans.

    It doesn't mean that we do things unethically, or that we don't try to minimize harm.

    Edit: I'm guessing we might have different ideas about the experiments were talking about. I'm not talking about the two headed money dog ones, but closer to cancer/disease treatment ones. And yes, also things similar to isolation monkey one. I recall one with over population and fluctuating resources involving rats. Didn't end well for the rats.
    You place more worth on people than on rats. That doesn't mean you're correct to do so. As the article points out, all throughout history people have placed more worth on certain groups (men, white people, property owners, etc.) than they have on others. Because of this, they thought it was okay to deny women the right to vote or to enslave people with dark skin and so on. Nowadays we think that all human beings are equal and that this sort of behavior is wrong. We need to go one step further and realize that human beings are not some magical special species that gets super awesome special treatment because we're just fucking great. We need to realize that other species feel pain and that because of this it's wrong to use them for experiments we wouldn't use humans for. Basically when you decide to do an experiment on an animal, you need to ask "would I do this to a person?" If the answer is no, then what justification do you have for doing it to any animal other than blatant prejudice?

    And I'm okay with that. Maybe in the future, future-people will call me a speciesist (specist?).

    We do it all the time, with a variety of things involving animals. Pets are morally wrong according to some. And they have a point, if you agree with their world view. I happen to not though.

    Once we're past the point of needing animals to advance science, either through cloning parts needed, really advanced computer simulation or alien intervention, then sure ban it all. Until then:
    PBF189-Keep_on_Truckin.jpg

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I dunno man. Bacteria remember pain. It won't be the same bacterium, but it will be able to anticipate and avoid noxious stimuli, especially as a biofilm.
    Bacteria don't have a neural network to perceive pain. They respond to a stimulus. That is it.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I dunno man. Bacteria remember pain. It won't be the same bacterium, but it will be able to anticipate and avoid noxious stimuli, especially as a biofilm.
    Bacteria don't have a neural network to perceive pain. They respond to a stimulus. That is it.

    maybe that's all it takes

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats
    Unless you have a certain license, you can't touch sodium pentothal. If you're doing pentothal sacrifice, the vet techs have to do it.

    what about ketamine
    Pentobarbital overdose is the most preferable euthanasia method in all cases. As a general rule, a dose that is at least 3 times an anesthetic dose will be effective. Ketamine is not acceptable for euthanasia when used alone but can be humane when used in conjunction with sedatives and tranquilizers. However, it is not very efficient as it requires very high doses. Carbon dioxide overdosage is commonly used. Physical methods of euthanasia have a high potential for being inhumane and are only acceptable when scientifically necessary and must be performed by carefully trained personnel. Physical methods are acceptable for fully anesthetized animals. In fact, physical assurance of euthanasia is critically important in all cases. Very deeply anesthetized animals may appear dead; yet, they may recover from the anesthesia at a later time. A convenient method of assuring euthanasia is to create a bilateral pneumothorax by permitting air to enter the chest cavity. This is best accomplished by making a small incision through each side of the chest. Physical assurance of euthanasia of mice and other similarly small rodents can be accomplished by cervical dislocation.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats
    Unless you have a certain license, you can't touch sodium pentothal. If you're doing pentothal sacrifice, the vet techs have to do it.

    what about ketamine
    Pentobarbital overdose is the most preferable euthanasia method in all cases. As a general rule, a dose that is at least 3 times an anesthetic dose will be effective. Ketamine is not acceptable for euthanasia when used alone but can be humane when used in conjunction with sedatives and tranquilizers. However, it is not very efficient as it requires very high doses. Carbon dioxide overdosage is commonly used. Physical methods of euthanasia have a high potential for being inhumane and are only acceptable when scientifically necessary and must be performed by carefully trained personnel. Physical methods are acceptable for fully anesthetized animals. In fact, physical assurance of euthanasia is critically important in all cases. Very deeply anesthetized animals may appear dead; yet, they may recover from the anesthesia at a later time. A convenient method of assuring euthanasia is to create a bilateral pneumothorax by permitting air to enter the chest cavity. This is best accomplished by making a small incision through each side of the chest. Physical assurance of euthanasia of mice and other similarly small rodents can be accomplished by cervical dislocation.

    oh ok

    what some people are doing nowadays is

    butt shot of ketamine overdose, drop in a couple dry ice, then push up on the jaw really hard until the neck snaps

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I dunno man. Bacteria remember pain. It won't be the same bacterium, but it will be able to anticipate and avoid noxious stimuli, especially as a biofilm.
    Bacteria don't have a neural network to perceive pain. They respond to a stimulus. That is it.

    maybe that's all it takes
    That is not all it takes. Sorry!

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I don't think it's commonplace at all to have a vet tech sacrifice your rats
    Unless you have a certain license, you can't touch sodium pentothal. If you're doing pentothal sacrifice, the vet techs have to do it.

    what about ketamine
    Pentobarbital overdose is the most preferable euthanasia method in all cases. As a general rule, a dose that is at least 3 times an anesthetic dose will be effective. Ketamine is not acceptable for euthanasia when used alone but can be humane when used in conjunction with sedatives and tranquilizers. However, it is not very efficient as it requires very high doses. Carbon dioxide overdosage is commonly used. Physical methods of euthanasia have a high potential for being inhumane and are only acceptable when scientifically necessary and must be performed by carefully trained personnel. Physical methods are acceptable for fully anesthetized animals. In fact, physical assurance of euthanasia is critically important in all cases. Very deeply anesthetized animals may appear dead; yet, they may recover from the anesthesia at a later time. A convenient method of assuring euthanasia is to create a bilateral pneumothorax by permitting air to enter the chest cavity. This is best accomplished by making a small incision through each side of the chest. Physical assurance of euthanasia of mice and other similarly small rodents can be accomplished by cervical dislocation.

    oh ok

    what some people are doing nowadays is

    butt shot of ketamine overdose, drop in a couple dry ice, then push up on the jaw really hard until the neck snaps
    They may want to review their IACUC guidelines and check with their head of veterinary research.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I dunno man. Bacteria remember pain. It won't be the same bacterium, but it will be able to anticipate and avoid noxious stimuli, especially as a biofilm.
    Bacteria don't have a neural network to perceive pain. They respond to a stimulus. That is it.

    maybe that's all it takes
    That is not all it takes. Sorry!

    what is all it takes, because when you get right down to it the series of electrochemical reactions necessary to perceive pain are just a succession of stimulus-response steps, just like all organisms and even all matter. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that makes the idea of a brainless colony's survival mechanism different from pain by torture except sentience

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sign In or Register to comment.