Comments for Speaking of Research

Comment on Pop Quiz! by darioringach

darioringach — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:45:45 +0000

Yes, I meant to imply that the animals were killed.

Comment on The Human or the Mouse? Would You Flip a Coin? by darioringach

darioringach — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:40:18 +0000

Jeff,

Too much to respond here… Very briefly…

First, higher cognitive abilities allow humans to suffer in ways other animals cannot. Our ability to do math is morally irrelevant. So is the falcon’s higher visual acuity or the dolphin’s ability to do echolocation.

It is only our cognitive abilities that allow humans to suffer in ways that other animals cannot that are morally relevant.

So, if you learn that a member of your family has terminal cancer, you will suffer in ways that a mouse cannot comprehend. If you are exposed to the sights of millions of children with AIDS in Africa, you will suffer in ways monkeys cannot understand. This is real suffering and it should matter to you.

Second, I reject the notion that intrinsic properties is all that matters. Here we disagree deeply. I was intellectually honest when I said this position entails problems. However, this does not mean that I have to accept a simpler theory that is obviously wrong such as that offered by Francione.

Third, we disagree on the notion of “basic rights” and “moral status”. I do not think animals have rights, but that we have obligations towards them. It is not the same thing at all.

Fourth, I think Sabin was as much of a medical hero then as he is today by virtue that he continues saving millions of lives, which probably includes yours and that of your children if you have them. As I am sure you know, your position demands that you refrain to use any medications and therapies developed by means of animal research.

http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/01/12/a-proposal-for-the-labeling-of-medicines/

Francione is our debate said as much — saying even that he was against the medications that kept some of his friends with HIV/AIDS alive.

Where is the compassion in that?

Comment on The Human or the Mouse? Would You Flip a Coin? by darioringach

darioringach — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:14:34 +0000

” If a being has interests, then this is the only thing that matters for the purpose of recognizing personhood, or full moral standing.”

You will have to explain what do you mean by interests and how do you determine if a living being has interests or not.

Does bacteria have interest? A worm? A mouse? A dolphin? A human?

And are these interests a binary property to you? Either you have them or not? This seems to be the case, and much of my problems with so-called animal rights theories like Francione’s. I believe in graded moral status, which is obviously not what you subscribe to and thus the source of our differences.

I have Francione’s books. I think his intentions are good, but philosophically he is as wrong as anyone can be.

Comment on PeTA is morally blind by polovni automobili

polovni automobili — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:05:19 +0000

Great job here. I really enjoyed what you had to say!.

Comment on Do your Share – Animal Research Education by joeerwin

joeerwin — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:10:09 +0000

I wonder if connections or partnerships have been (or could be) formed with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) or the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).

Comment on A New Low at NIO: extremists threaten students by agencja ochrony

agencja ochrony — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:29:42 +0000

I’m now not positive where you are getting your info, but great topic. I must spend a while studying more or working out more. Thanks for excellent info I used to be on the lookout for this info for my mission.

Comment on Pop Quiz! by glenn

glenn — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:04:38 +0000

Oops. Misread the date on that article: from 2007, actually.

Comment on Pop Quiz! by glenn

glenn — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:49:02 +0000

Nature recently ran an interesting article on the ethics of animal research:

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400993.html

Comment on AR Profile: Nicoal Sheen by Fran Levy

Fran Levy — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:26:34 +0000

You forgot to mention on Camille Hankin’s resume, “convicted animal hoarder and abuser”. But WAR still goes crazy and strong, they have a subgroup called Carriage Horse Cruelty, with an FB page. They have been relentlessly harrassing the NYC carriage drivers, disseminating complete lies and slander, and recently one of the barns had it’s locks vandalized and disabled. Plus the usual screaming at the potential customers to firectly interfere with their livelihood.
The terrorizing of children is becoming a very accepted tactic, unfortunately. I feel for Tara, above, she is not the first nor will she be the last. There needs to be a bigger push to enforce the anti-terrorist act as it pertains to these crazies, what happened on the Miller Ranch, as in any number of cases, and vandalism on my own farm. Nicoal Renee is certainly a mentally ill fascist, surrounded by an ever growing and dangerous crowd just like her. I used to get enraged at these Animal Rights extremists, now I am both enraged and very, very afraid. These are not rational people.

Comment on Pop Quiz! by joeerwin

joeerwin — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:11:09 +0000

Why are we not given information on what happened to the mice? They were “used,” but were they “used up” (i.e., killed), harmed, hurt, or damaged in any way? Much research involving nonhuman animals does not damage the animals involved. We can and do learn much from animals without causing damage, pain, or even distress. And, in most cases, scientists seriously consider, and are required to consider, minimizing pain and distress. An idealogy that claims that keeping animals in captivity is immoral and that nothing of value can be learned from captive animals is not going to approve of laboratory animal research, maintaining animals in zoological gardens, agricultural use of animals, and probably not even the keeping of companion animals. Sadly, too much of the sane animal welfare movement has been co-opted by people and organizations for whom there is no acceptable level of care or housing for animals. Except, of course, removing animals from regulated and accredited biomedical settings to “sanctuaries” that are largely unregulated and are not subject to the standards of the federal Animal Welfare Regulations. There are some good sanctuaries out there, but there are also many that are not so good and are not fiscally sustainable–and do not have adequate health care.