Ethics in science.

Typedef

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992677

It is a very old argument.
Are animals considered to be 'lesser', the appropiate vehicles by which human beings can test out new drugs and vaccines, experiment and evaluate the merits or lack thereof of certain medical hypotheses.

I sometimes find myself a bit of a fence sitter on this. Yes I say animals that humans have used for generations as a natural resource could, should and will be experimented on for the benefit of humans.

Then I think. Does a truely advanced society, an enlightened civilisation really need or rather can it really allow itself to subjegate every other organism 'permissably' in it's own service? A kind of neo-Orwellian caste system on steroids? A system based on the exploitation of the weak and defenceless in the name of progress? Put like that such a system would seem to smack of the old colonial 'while mans burden'.

If humans were to stop using animals for experimentation then most assuredly some medicines could 'never' be brought into the market place, because said medicines would never be tested.

In effect man, makes a choice to put himself (or rather the species) before all others, yet does higher intellegence not imply a certain seperation from the base instincts and the ability to utilise other organisms in this way?

http://www.cwu.edu/~cwuchci/apprentice.html

What of simians? For me, I find the concept of experimentation on Simians extremely disquieting. There is even evidence to suggest that chimpanzees have learned sign language. Imagine that, humans keep chimps in cages, a genetic cousin, capable of learnign sign language.

The fact that chimpanzees do seem to readly pass on information from one generation to another may be all the really seperates humans to any great degree. Considering the chimpanzee can be taught sign language then the chimp is more than adequetly capable of demonstrating self awareness, for to communicate with a human via a human language the chimp would in effect be capable of demonstrating itself to be more human (by intellegence criteria) than some mentally handicapped humans.

In fact it would seem that chimps even have the ability to pass on knowledge.

The research at CHCI involves a group of five chimpanzees who use the signs of American Sign Language (ASL). Four of the five, Washoe, Moja, Tatu, and Dar, were part of the cross-fostering research that began at the University of Nevada, Reno in 1966 with Drs. R. A. and B. T. Gardner. Each chimpanzee was raised in an enriched environment in which their human family members used only ASL, much like the environment in which a deaf child grows up. The fifth chimpanzee, Loulis, was adopted by Washoe in 1978 and learned his signs from the other chimpanzees

So in such circumstances how can the 'evolved' human experiment on such a clearly intellegent animal? If humans are so truely intellegent then humans must be capable of realising that to selfishly experiment on simians that are clearly beyond quasi-mindless mamalian automata is an abrogation of what humans profess seperates them from the animals, namely self awareness.

Is it really the case that the epicentre of medical research, experimentation, the most incredible fruits of human ingenuity also demonstrate the human's basic lack of self awareness, or just id like darwinian compulsions? By showing how capable the human is of cruelity and how incapable the human is of enlightened compassionate restraint?

Keeks

I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this issue aswell. To me it all depends on what the goal of the experiment scientists are trying to achieve.

I don't agree with any of the gentic experiments, such as cloning or growing an ear on the back of a rat (??), or even any of those cosmetics testing. I just can't rationalise the need for such testing/experiments.

If experiments are to be preformed on animals, then i would prefer to see them done purely for medical reasons.

But at the end of the day, all these medical tests will need human test subjests.

stackboundary

Typedef is right.

A truely illucidated species, capable of reflection and non self exclusive logical contemplation would never demean it self by debasing organisms as clearly advanced as the so-called 'lesser' simians are.

Che Lives!

RampagingBadger

I agree with part of what was said. I don't think any non medical testing on animals is justified. The ends just don't justify the means. However I think in some instances testing on other apes is justified.

Chimpanzees have a natural immunity to AIDS. There is even some evidence to suggest that the epedemic started with them. I personally couldn't say to someone dying of AIDS that we might have been able to help them but we decided not to try that route for the chimpanzees sake. If you can honestly say you'd rather die than have someone experiment on chimpanzees then fair enough. But I know what I'd say.