Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

"Because we can," ethics in scientific experiments

manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?!Registered User regular
edited August 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
I was recently made aware of some fairly disturbing scientific experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Demikhov
http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/

Two headed dogs, attempting to keep severed heads alive, attempted head transplants, dehumanizing participants as study data. Some of these studies were debunked as hoaxes, others however seem to be verified by reliable sources. A lot of it seemed to boil down to, "because we wanted to see if we could do it."

I knew about the Milgram and prison studies. The Milgram experiment proved some fascinating data about how humans can be ordered to hurt or kill other humans. However, it was also judged horrifically immoral and any future attempts to replicate the experiment were banned.

I think we can all agree that things like helping people live longer, discovering new ways to treat mental illness, and finding new ways to treat pain is a good thing. Knowledge in general is good. However, how we reach those results says a lot about us as human beings in my mind. I'm not interested in spamming sideshow horror pictures or videos. It made me ill enough to see it the first time.

Some people seem to have no problem with these sorts of experiments, citing that anything that advances medical science for humans is acceptable. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs is the rational. Others feel that there are boundaries that should not be crossed, even if they don't always agree what those boundaries are. That people should have some sense of responsibility for the pain they inflict, whether it's on humans or not.

When does science or otherwise go too far in your mind? If at all? Is there anything that can be done to prevent people from playing God? Or are such feelings just getting the way of "real" progress?

manwiththemachinegun on
«13456713

Posts

  • EchoEcho mod Moderator mod
    Some people seem to have no problem with these sorts of experiments, citing that anything that advances medical science for humans is acceptable. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs is the rational.

    Unit 731.

    Most of the people responsible were captured after WW2, but were let go in return for their "research".

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Oh God Unit 731.

    I had trouble sleeping for days after reading that article.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Some people seem to have no problem with these sorts of experiments, citing that anything that advances medical science for humans is acceptable. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs is the rational.

    Unit 731.

    Most of the people responsible were captured after WW2, but were let go in return for their "research".

    That... is the most horrifying I have ever read about the Second World War. I just don't have the words.

    LovelyZilla360
  • LawndartLawndart regular Registered User regular
    I knew about the Milgram and prison studies. The Milgram experiment proved some fascinating data about how humans can be ordered to hurt or kill other humans. However, it was also judged horrifically immoral and any future attempts to replicate the experiment were banned.

    I don't think the bolded part is actually true. There were ethical objections to the Milgram experiments (as he did more than one, with a bunch of different variations) but I don't think that they qualified as "horrifically immoral" nor would it be illegal to conduct similar experiments.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I knew about the Milgram and prison studies. The Milgram experiment proved some fascinating data about how humans can be ordered to hurt or kill other humans. However, it was also judged horrifically immoral and any future attempts to replicate the experiment were banned.

    I don't think the bolded part is actually true. There were ethical objections to the Milgram experiments (as he did more than one, with a bunch of different variations) but I don't think that they qualified as "horrifically immoral" nor would it be illegal to conduct similar experiments.
    The IRB exists because of the Milgram experiments.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I knew about the Milgram and prison studies. The Milgram experiment proved some fascinating data about how humans can be ordered to hurt or kill other humans. However, it was also judged horrifically immoral and any future attempts to replicate the experiment were banned.

    I don't think the bolded part is actually true. There were ethical objections to the Milgram experiments (as he did more than one, with a bunch of different variations) but I don't think that they qualified as "horrifically immoral" nor would it be illegal to conduct similar experiments.
    The IRB exists because of the Milgram experiments.

    You make it sound like one directly led to the other and that's ludicrous and not supported by anything I've ever read.

  • LawndartLawndart regular Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I knew about the Milgram and prison studies. The Milgram experiment proved some fascinating data about how humans can be ordered to hurt or kill other humans. However, it was also judged horrifically immoral and any future attempts to replicate the experiment were banned.

    I don't think the bolded part is actually true. There were ethical objections to the Milgram experiments (as he did more than one, with a bunch of different variations) but I don't think that they qualified as "horrifically immoral" nor would it be illegal to conduct similar experiments.
    The IRB exists because of the Milgram experiments.

    I know, but that doesn't mean that the Milgram experiments were "horrifically immoral" (especially compared to things like the Little Albert experiment), nor would they be illegal to replicate. It'd be difficult to convince an IRB to do so, and there'd be more of a focus on post-study debriefing, but it's not like the concept of deceiving study participants about aspects of a study has been banned.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    My psychology professor pointed out Milgram's experiment was immoral for one very basic reason, who had the long term psychological damage? Being mocked by others and seeing yourself manipulated into doing awful things? The unknowing participants.

    I believe they altered how the experiments were conducted, you couldn't do it today the same way Milgram did.

    I just can't fathom how cutting off a monkey's head, attaching it to another's body, and trying to keep the snarling, desperate wretch alive as long as possible serves anything other than the experimenter's ego.

    Even if some great medical advance came from it, would you want it knowing how it was produced? Are the ends justifying in the means in this case? Same for those chemical warfare "experiments", if you can muster the sincerity to call it that, I think that's the key question.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    There have been historical eases of unethical research that have contributed to how we work with participants today. We will discuss what some of these historical cases were and how they have contributed toward present values and ethics in research. The cases we will look at are the unethical Nazi experiment, the Stanley Milgram's experiment, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, the Willowbrook study, and the Laud Humphrey's "Tearoom Sex" study. These studies led to the creation of the Belmont Report and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) which were formed to protect human subjects involved in research.

    http://www.und.edu/instruct/wstevens/PROPOSALCLASS/MARSDEN&MELANDER2.htm
    Coercion means to compel or force someone to participate in or perform an action that would not ordinarily be done of the individual's own free choice. In the Milgram experiments in the 1960s, subjects were coerced by an authority figure to continue to administer false (sham) electrical shocks of supposedly increasing intensity to actors who were pretending to be volunteer subjects even when the actors appeared to be in great pain and were begging not to be shocked. The researcher compelled subjects to continue administering shocks to the volunteers even when, ordinarily, the subject would not have continued the behavior.

    http://www.daemen.edu/academics/policiesandprocedures/humansubjects/Pages/Definitions.aspx
    The Monster Study occurred before the post-World War II push toward better ethical practices in the
    medical and behavioral sciences, while the Milgram study was conducted before the Belmont Report. However,
    the Stanford study occurred after the ethical practices of the Belmont Report were in place. The ethical problems
    surrounding those cases involved the deception and distress of participants and the proper scope of informed consent. Since then, the APA has responded by tightening and clarifying the scope of informed consent. This demonstrates that even with proper ethical practices in place, loopholes can exist and need to be corrected.

    http://ijire.net/issue_2.1/grimes.pdf


    The Belmont Report was birthed from highly publicized experiments and guess what the IRB is based off? The Belmont Report.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    And I'm seeing like a least 4 other, far more horrible examples given.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Two more examples to look up if you feel like being even more depressed by humanity: Tuskegee syphilis study, and Robber's Cave.

    I'll post more substantially later today.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    To balance out the horror show that is the darkside of science, were any of these scientists ever convicted on criminal charges? Because something seems really, really wrong the fact that so many of these guys seem to be able to operate with near impunity.

    Odds seem low, but I can hope right?

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Firstly, people suck.

    Secondly, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on some of these. A lot of the information we get is extremely useful. "Worth the cost" is very subjective.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Two more examples to look up if you feel like being even more depressed by humanity: Tuskegee syphilis study, and Robber's Cave.

    I'll post more substantially later today.

    Am I gonna not sleep some more?

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Firstly, people suck.

    Secondly, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on some of these. A lot of the information we get is extremely useful. "Worth the cost" is very subjective.

    Yes, but you have to admit a lot of these experiments, especially the Russian animal replacement ones, were essentially dick waving competitions over which country was better at biology. The benefits, if any, were secondary to "who's the best?" That's not even getting into the ones that were apparently, "for the LULZ."

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Firstly, people suck.

    Secondly, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on some of these. A lot of the information we get is extremely useful. "Worth the cost" is very subjective.

    Yes, but you have to admit a lot of these experiments, especially the Russian animal replacement ones, were essentially dick waving competitions over which country was better at biology. The benefits, if any, were secondary to "who's the best?" That's not even getting into the ones that were apparently, "for the LULZ."

    Even so, you can get very good data out of things like that.

    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • EchoEcho mod Moderator mod
    Mortious wrote: »
    Even so, you can get very good data out of things like that.

    The Unit 731 deal should have been "hand over your data and you'll only get life instead of a firing squad."

    And then shoot them anyway.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    Casual
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Firstly, people suck.

    Secondly, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on some of these. A lot of the information we get is extremely useful. "Worth the cost" is very subjective.

    Yes, but you have to admit a lot of these experiments, especially the Russian animal replacement ones, were essentially dick waving competitions over which country was better at biology. The benefits, if any, were secondary to "who's the best?" That's not even getting into the ones that were apparently, "for the LULZ."

    Even so, you can get very good data out of things like that.

    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    Where do you stop though? While humans eat animals for meat, we also arrest people for cruelty to animals. That's not uncommon. Why do scientists get a free morality pass? Animal testing has been outlawed in some cases, like for cosmetics if I remember correctly.

    Not even getting into the controversy of slaughterhouses, most of the animals in these experiments were subjected to horrific agony and a slow, painful death. Even as an American meat eater, I have issues with that sort of thing.
    Echo wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Even so, you can get very good data out of things like that.

    The Unit 731 deal should have been "hand over your data and you'll only get life instead of a firing squad."

    And then shoot them anyway.

    If only that was the case. It's hard to argue against the death penalty for crimes that awful.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Firstly, people suck.

    Secondly, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on some of these. A lot of the information we get is extremely useful. "Worth the cost" is very subjective.

    Informed consent is a pretty great place to start in my book.

    edit:animal experiments don't really have that as an option of course. Undue duress should be avoided.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Where do you stop though? While humans eat animals for meat, we also arrest people for cruelty to animals. That's not uncommon. Why do scientists get a free morality pass? Animal testing has been outlawed in some cases, like for cosmetics if I remember correctly.

    Not even getting into the controversy of slaughterhouses, most of the animals in these experiments were subjected to horrific agony and slow death. Even as an American meat eater, I have issues with that sort of thing.

    Animal cruelty is purposeless would seem to be the major difference.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Even so, you can get very good data out of things like that.

    The Unit 731 deal should have been "hand over your data and you'll only get life instead of a firing squad."

    And then shoot them anyway.

    While the acts in wiki article were horrible, they were also described without any real context.

    If they contained the purpose, acts and results, and then what new advances that were made using those results (especially ones that couldn't be done without using a technique like that) we probably would have a different view on them.

    Or probably not.

    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
    @ OP
    You know we don't get a free pass anymore, right? We would lose our jobs and funding if we tried stuff like that.

    Except for that dude who is developing fringe reproductive treatments that are working and also making chimera babies, but no one has publicized him much.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Where do you stop though? While humans eat animals for meat, we also arrest people for cruelty to animals. That's not uncommon. Why do scientists get a free morality pass? Animal testing has been outlawed in some cases, like for cosmetics if I remember correctly.

    Not even getting into the controversy of slaughterhouses, most of the animals in these experiments were subjected to horrific agony and slow death. Even as an American meat eater, I have issues with that sort of thing.

    Animal cruelty is purposeless would seem to be the major difference.

    Being cruel for now reason, or bad reasons (saving money, time) is something to be avoided.

    But for science? That's where it gets murky. A lot of our experiences is defined by pain (physical and mental), and the easiest way to understand that is to inflict pain in a controlled environment.

    Same with medical advances. Seeing how the human body reacts to certain events is extremely useful.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • HambrabaiHambrabai regular Registered User regular
    To balance out the horror show that is the darkside of science, were any of these scientists ever convicted on criminal charges? Because something seems really, really wrong the fact that so many of these guys seem to be able to operate with near impunity.

    Odds seem low, but I can hope right?

    Most of the top researchers at Unit 731 were granted immunity by the United States for their research, the Soviet Union tried some of them but still used their data to build their biological weapons program. Pretty much none of the people involved in such horrible projects as MK-ULTRA, Project SUNSHINE, and Operation May Day were ever convicted of anything and in a lot of cases people involved in similar experiments went on to keep doing them under government supervision.

    Quid wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Two more examples to look up if you feel like being even more depressed by humanity: Tuskegee syphilis study, and Robber's Cave.

    I'll post more substantially later today.

    Am I gonna not sleep some more?

    Robber's Cave isn't extremely horrible, pretty strange but nothing life threatening. But the Tuskegee Study is downright horrible and had a counterpart in the Guatemalan Syphilis Study of 1946-48, to the point some of the researchers from Guatemala moved to the Tuskegee study afterwards.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I would be sad, and all because I couldn't keep my dick out of the ground beef.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    And I'm seeing like a least 4 other, far more horrible examples given.

    The Milgram study alone wasn't the only reason IRBs were developed, but it was a significant proximal cause.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Where do you stop though? While humans eat animals for meat, we also arrest people for cruelty to animals. That's not uncommon. Why do scientists get a free morality pass? Animal testing has been outlawed in some cases, like for cosmetics if I remember correctly.

    Not even getting into the controversy of slaughterhouses, most of the animals in these experiments were subjected to horrific agony and slow death. Even as an American meat eater, I have issues with that sort of thing.

    Animal cruelty is purposeless would seem to be the major difference.

    If that was the case, why have some forms of animal testing been banned? Obviously testing cosmetics on animals has real benefits for humans. So why stop unless it was purely for a moral motive of, "this is wrong, we shouldn't be doing this?"

    Stapling a puppy's head to another dog in order to say, "we're the best at science" does not directly equate to research on organ transplants. There are methods of research that would not have involved such a pointless exercise.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    The hypothesis was that they could induce a long-term phobia towards small fuzzy animals.

    That's pretty fucked up.

    Sure, it's not as fucked up as vivisection, but it's still fucked up.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Hambrabai wrote: »
    To balance out the horror show that is the darkside of science, were any of these scientists ever convicted on criminal charges? Because something seems really, really wrong the fact that so many of these guys seem to be able to operate with near impunity.

    Odds seem low, but I can hope right?

    Most of the top researchers at Unit 731 were granted immunity by the United States for their research, the Soviet Union tried some of them but still used their data to build their biological weapons program. Pretty much none of the people involved in such horrible projects as MK-ULTRA, Project SUNSHINE, and Operation May Day were ever convicted of anything and in a lot of cases people involved in similar experiments went on to keep doing them under government supervision.

    God dammit. That just ain't right.

    I guess the only comfort to be had is that with the development of the internet and information techology, more light can be shed on crimes like this to hopefully bring pressure against them from recurring.

    It ain't much, but that's all I got.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    The hypothesis was that they could induce a long-term phobia towards small fuzzy animals.

    That's pretty fucked up.

    Sure, it's not as fucked up as vivisection, but it's still fucked up.

    Still not seeing it though.

    We screw up people like this all the time accidently.
    It doesn't seem like it's a life limiting experience.

    So surely knowing how we get phobias, and how to prevent/cure them is useful?

    Though it looks like he never got around to the curing part.

    And to dig my crazy hole deeper. That shocky dog one is interesting. Very sad, but also interesting.

    Mortious on
    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Mortious wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    The hypothesis was that they could induce a long-term phobia towards small fuzzy animals.

    That's pretty fucked up.

    Sure, it's not as fucked up as vivisection, but it's still fucked up.

    Still not seeing it though.

    We screw up people like this all the time accidently.
    It doesn't seem like it's a life limiting experience.

    So surely knowing how we get phobias, and how to prevent/cure them is useful?

    Though it looks like he never got around to the curing part.

    And to dig my crazy hole deeper. That dog one is interesting. Very sad, but also interesting.

    Yeah, that's sort of my point.

    With the Frakenstien stuff, If someone did something like than in a Resident Evil game, most people would be inclined to shoot them in the head. Another experiment was one involving an artificial pump to reanimate a dog's head. That particular experiment is regarded by some as a hoax, as the video itself is a reenactment (A video on Youtube labeled Zombie dog which is what led me into this crapstorm), but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was actively attempted.

    I'm not saying you're bad for finding it fascinating, which it is I suppose in a very clinical way, but I just can't disconnect from the emotional aspect of, "what would that feel like?" "what would that be like?" I just don't find it justifiable. There's enough horrible things in life without trying to purposefully find new ways to make people and animals suffer.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    @ OP
    You know we don't get a free pass anymore, right? We would lose our jobs and funding if we tried stuff like that.

    Except for that dude who is developing fringe reproductive treatments that are working and also making chimera babies, but no one has publicized him much.

    Wait... what?

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    @ OP
    You know we don't get a free pass anymore, right? We would lose our jobs and funding if we tried stuff like that.

    In the western world, anyway.

    We still engage in ethically-questionable research in the third world. Nothing as bad as vivisection, again, but I'm pretty sure that someday mainstream ethics classes and research methods classes will look back on placebo-controlled HIV studies as an example of what not to do.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    And is it just me, or is that Little Albert one not so bad? Maybe I just really dislike kids.

    The hypothesis was that they could induce a long-term phobia towards small fuzzy animals.

    That's pretty fucked up.

    Sure, it's not as fucked up as vivisection, but it's still fucked up.

    Well, knowing whether or not humans were susceptible to conditioned responses in the same way that animals were would be pretty important to our understanding of human psychology. Note that the doctor originally had a hypothesized way of removing the phobia too.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme regular Registered User regular
    A lot of the things cited here are largely legacy's of the cold war - most of the people didn't go down, because at the time the US and Soviets both were terrified that the other was going to develop some type of practical biological weapon.

    As far as I know, pretty much no one is bothering these days since the status quo has now been established that there isn't a WMD you can use which doesn't end up with nuclear retaliation.

    Zilla360
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    The fact remains that many studies are done in the Third World that simply could not be done in the countries sponsoring the work. Clinical trials have become a big business, with many of the same imperatives. To survive, it is necessary to get the work done as quickly as possible, with a minimum of obstacles. When these considerations prevail, it seems as if we have not come very far from Tuskegee after all.

    So now we can just outsource all our evil medical experiments?

    How very modern.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Where do you stop though? While humans eat animals for meat, we also arrest people for cruelty to animals. That's not uncommon. Why do scientists get a free morality pass? Animal testing has been outlawed in some cases, like for cosmetics if I remember correctly.

    Not even getting into the controversy of slaughterhouses, most of the animals in these experiments were subjected to horrific agony and slow death. Even as an American meat eater, I have issues with that sort of thing.

    Animal cruelty is purposeless would seem to be the major difference.

    If that was the case, why have some forms of animal testing been banned? Obviously testing cosmetics on animals has real benefits for humans. So why stop unless it was purely for a moral motive of, "this is wrong, we shouldn't be doing this?"

    Stapling a puppy's head to another dog in order to say, "we're the best at science" does not directly equate to research on organ transplants. There are methods of research that would not have involved such a pointless exercise.

    Cause people get squimish.

    Also, people are weird about animals.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    You say that like it's a bad thing. Given how far people are willing to go in the name of progress, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme regular Registered User regular
    Urgh. Really shouldn't have reread the Unit 731 wiki article.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I'd rather be curing cancer then coddling some people's feelings for animals that are fuzzy.

  • PaladinPaladin regular Registered User regular
    well if you develop a spore that liquidates the area in a person's brain that makes them object to animal research, then you are in several steps indirectly helping to cure cancer

    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.