h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With apologies to Otto (I did read the instructions ), time is short so, well, I'll get on with it:

Ste made the following statement relating to science and morality: "Science is amoral. This is not a bad thing."

I would say that it is a bad thing. Science as an abstract concept is obviously amoral, (and, indeed without any characteristics at all - but I digress) so any link to morality must surely be to do with scientists and their actions.

Vivisection has been taken as an example. Can scientists who perform experiments on animals escape responsibility for their actions? Is testing on animals ever acceptable?

You should read Fashion Cat's Personal Space.

I was hoping to hear from Kelli, Xanatic or Ste.

You can take a horse to water.... it always seems to be that way.

Yes I read Fashion Cat's personal space. She only seems to have experimented with flies, about which I can't seem to amass the required amount of outrage. In fact I can't seem to amass the required amount of anything at the moment.

Your idea is good, Jack, but your enemy is inertia. This discussion's in full swing elsewhere. Obvious (?) question: what does Speaker's Corner offer that the other forums don't? Not much, that I can see, although I'm open to persuasion.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, the main aim of Speaker's Corner is that people write guide entries putting forward their views in a longer and more detailed way than in just a conversation. The idea is that the discussion then takes place under the threat. The purpose is for people with strong views to write a guide entry (*not* an edited guide entry) on something they feel strongly about, and for it to be read by others without being submitted for peer review. This is explained on the homepage of Speaker's Corner.

So far, discussions have been in the usual thread-based format. There's nothing wrong with this, but if that's all Speaker's Corner is, then I would agree that it doesn't offer anything new....

Otto

What has this entry to do with the subject?

I have a dilemma - I am a vegetarian of over thirty years standing who is passionately opposed to animal vivisection. I also suffer from a serious, chronic disease and owe my life and current reasonably fit state to the results of this work.

Should I continue my opposition and be a hypocrite, or abandon my belief?

Hi Aardvark....

I'd recommend getting hold of anything by Peter Singer on the subject of animal rights and wrongs. I find his style irritating, and I don't agree with his conclusions, but it's the best statement of the animal rights case I've come across.

My entry above was a response to an earlier comment.

Otto

I would relax your belief, to a position that you think that animal testing is wrong, and to push for alternatives to be used where they are available and developed where they are not.

A lot of vegetarians have inconsistant views when you call them on it.

The worst one being those who are totally against the keeping of farm animals for meat, but still think that they should be able to get their leather shoes and coats. They often think that an imediate overnight ban would have no bad consequences for any people or animals involved.

<>

I think many (most ) of us do. The moral issues aren't always obvious or easy. All animals - and plants - are living creatures, deserving of respect. Yet the necessities of survival mean that some of them must die so that we can eat. This is the nature of life an earth.

To respect living things has to be right and moral behaviour. Fake sentimentalism isn't. If a potato, some carrots and a chicken must die to make my lunch, I'm not going to be overcome with guilt.

Every day we take decisions involving the lives of our fellow creatures. Moral behaviour requires that we treat them all with respect, and never kill unnecessarily. If we can manage that, we have nothing to reproach ourselves for. We must judge science, and our use of it, in the same way. That's my take on things, anyway.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

As they say, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. I work in pharmaceutical research, where we must do animal testing *by law*. The vast majority of this testing is done on rodents (which most people don't seem to care about, simply because they don't have big baby-ish eyes). If, during the thalidomide years, this sort of extensive testing had gone on we wouldn't be have been dealing with the aftermath in the sixties and seventies. I can still remember coming across limbless individuals as a child.
Also, I have to take beta-blockers (among other medicines). There is no way that one could have developed and tested the efficacy of these drugs (which are currently saving my life) without animal testing.
Finally, the drugs companies don't actually *like* to do this testing for all sorts of reasons. They try and minimize suffering and use of animals wherever possible. Also, it's bloody expensive.

FM

<>

And that would be in order of priority, wouldn't it? But seriously: your points are not attractive to me, but they're thoroughly pragmatic. The world we have to live in is imperfect in many ways....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

not only is animal testing expensive, it is also inacurate.

this means that some of the things that pass the tests are actually harmfull, while others that are not harmfull fail the tests.

this is the worst of both worlds, hence the attempts to find computational alternatives.

Are *computational alternatives* widely used today?

If so, in which areas of research?

Any www links?

Animal tests are NOT inaccurate, otherwise they simply wouldn't be used. All kinds of tests have false positives and false negatives. Nothing is 100% right 100% of the time, but for, say, teratogenicity or carcinogenicity animal testing is generally spot on. In-silico testing, as it's known, is very much in its infancy. If one wants to trust one's health (or life) to the outputs of a computer program then one, in a nutshell, is a bloody fool.

<>

This line of thinking was behind my previous post, although I would still be very interested to hear of research methods (WITH substantiated results) that differ

I'll have a look in our library (about 10 feet away from my desk) and get back to you.

Look at http://www.frame.org.uk/: this gives a balanced view of this emotive topic.

Without the colon at the end of the link =
http://www.frame.org.uk/


However, FRAME recognises that the immediate and total abolition of all animal experiments is not possible, if vital medical research is to continue and the remaining diseases