*new* NYTimes article 1 Dec 11
At least 5 percent of the 650 dogs used by American combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. http://nyti.ms/vVaoSc
Research on Chimps
this couldn't be more timely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/science/chimps-days-in-research-may-be-near-an-end.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210
*new* more on chimps in research
http://the-scientist.com/2011/11/17/illegal-breeding-at-chimp-facility/
Brianna started discussion in another section; I'm reposting here:
http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html
I found this to be an interesting article applicable to today's discussion about Research on Animals. Here's my question:
Where is the line between science and curiosity? From a Utilitarian standpoint, painful/fatal research on animals should be done only to benefit the greater good. The animals are being used as a means to an end, therefore, is it ethically right?
I believe that some research should be done to help save human lives, but other experiments seem to have no other point but satisfying curiosity.
Prof. Lorentz brought up an interesting point when he spoke to our class; he said that he has the license to say whatever he wants about energy derived from coal, oil, etc. in his classroom, but if he's going to make claims about it in a journal that it has to be scientifically founded. While part of that seems to definitely be in response to certain interests, I think it's a fair point for those companies to request.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, when Dr. Vanderberg from the New York Times article claims that literally millions of lives could be saved through research on Chimps, I have to wonder where those numbers are coming from.
Also, the utilitarian standpoint doesn't hold up as well if it causes long term suffering to the animal population, which is the implication that is brought up in these articles. If human activity is the most important activity, then perhaps that can be modified.