Experimental life forms
30/8/20 12:11![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kiaa posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhat living things do you feel comfortable about sacrificing for the sake of science?
Clearly hardly anyone has a problem with bacteria. But what about insects? Above this is where I draw the line because above that there is a level of sentience that makes me uneasy.
What about rats? Larger mammals that are closer to us? Things could get tricky here. For instance, if I would have troubles sacrificing monkeys for testing new shampoos or hair conditioner, I would have less for testing for instance potential treatment for Alzheimer.
How about you?
And before you say science doesn't care about these things, and there are some people who think that chimps that are the closest to us genetically are probably no different an experimental life form than E Coli... The field of medical ethics is active, strongly promoted, taught at universities and continuously improving due to the efforts of science.
The idea that science treats reasonably sentient life forms as if they are no more than E Coli just isn't the case.
There IS product testing that is of concern. Even that is coming under strengthening limitations. Once it was common to test shampoo on the eyes of chimps. That wasn't science. And, it is strongly opposed.
A recent case is that a group of scientists working on gene modifications using technology such as CRISPR chose to study the possibility that changes other than the targeted change might take place. They found that changes carefully targeting one gene could result in inadvertent changes in other places on a chromosome.
The result is that limits on such genetic modifications are once again being strengthened.
I know there is a wide range of concern about medical experimentation and testing. Some would refuse to allow the caging of rats - let alone anything further. And, they may have a case. And, they would hold to that in the face of the unbelievably powerful results that save or improve people's lives every day.
However, let's not pretend that medical science doesn't give a crap about ethics.
So, back to my original question. Where do you draw the line?
Clearly hardly anyone has a problem with bacteria. But what about insects? Above this is where I draw the line because above that there is a level of sentience that makes me uneasy.
What about rats? Larger mammals that are closer to us? Things could get tricky here. For instance, if I would have troubles sacrificing monkeys for testing new shampoos or hair conditioner, I would have less for testing for instance potential treatment for Alzheimer.
How about you?
And before you say science doesn't care about these things, and there are some people who think that chimps that are the closest to us genetically are probably no different an experimental life form than E Coli... The field of medical ethics is active, strongly promoted, taught at universities and continuously improving due to the efforts of science.
The idea that science treats reasonably sentient life forms as if they are no more than E Coli just isn't the case.
There IS product testing that is of concern. Even that is coming under strengthening limitations. Once it was common to test shampoo on the eyes of chimps. That wasn't science. And, it is strongly opposed.
A recent case is that a group of scientists working on gene modifications using technology such as CRISPR chose to study the possibility that changes other than the targeted change might take place. They found that changes carefully targeting one gene could result in inadvertent changes in other places on a chromosome.
The result is that limits on such genetic modifications are once again being strengthened.
I know there is a wide range of concern about medical experimentation and testing. Some would refuse to allow the caging of rats - let alone anything further. And, they may have a case. And, they would hold to that in the face of the unbelievably powerful results that save or improve people's lives every day.
However, let's not pretend that medical science doesn't give a crap about ethics.
So, back to my original question. Where do you draw the line?
