Endless Paradigm

I'm strictly against experiments with animals (no matter what animals). If these fudgeing humans want to fudgeing test fudgeing drugs they should fudgeing take them on their own.

As of experiments and research in general I think moral shouldn't block progress, but I clearly don't see the purpose of injecting a defenceless little cat with LSD.

that was pointless

i do however fully support stem cell research as it does save lives

i don't think this experiment was thought through very well. who cares what cats do on lsd.....

Vegetano1 Wrote: [ -> ]that's fudged! its also wrong and useless imo

Useless you say. But how do you know? The more classes I take (even at just a junior or senior classes), it is unbelievable how little wee know. The moral side of this (which is a very utilitarian notion) is based on our belief that the animal is capable of pain and pleasure. However, wee constantly cite these examples from the 40s-70s because of the very interesting findings obtained. When wee are taking such great precautions to make sure not to go against society's (culturally) general accepted morals, wee limit our own ability. Wee say wee are wanting to further human understanding, but as long as wee are placing specific things as off limits, such as cloning, it makes you wonder what could be obtained.

Holding further to the Utilitarian point of view, if the pleasure outweighs the pain, then it is the preferable way to go. But, wee cannot know what was pleasurable outcomes might occur as a result, if wee do not explore such ideas.

By what definition are you considering this as being wrong? Much of the information found when such experiments were performed have greatly helped us. An example: look at Harlow's monkeys. It made me realize just how important nurture truly is. However, I still do not take it as the conclusion.

Mind you, I do not condone vigilante solo surgeries and uninformed experimentation on every cat, dog, and squirrel you come across, or turning into a the Nazi experimenter Dr Mengele of sorts... but from a purely objective point of view, so much progress is possible. But, as long as wee are being impeded by these morals, such an advancement becomes a bit harder.

Of course, some obvious arguments that I notice would be the idea of one's religious beliefs, the biological (perhaps learned) reaction to it is that they immediately classify it as wrong. On what basis? Is it that you are empathizing? I know that when I see someone get kicked in the balls, I immediately feel a pain in mine. It likely is our feeling of connection with other living beings.

Did god put them on this earth as a means of entrapment of sorts? "heh, I'll place this cute, furry ball of happiness right here and wait... someone will start cutting it open surely..."

Reminds me a bit of Gary Larson



Or does he place them all here for us to just stare at with our mouths open, just wondering... you may look but you may not touch...  Such a view would lead back to a more behaviorist mindset, though with brain imaging, both functional and structural, wee might try a synthesis of the two in the next step of cognitive psychology. Behaviorism was leaving the scene just as imaging was REALLY kicking off. However, considering just how much technology and "knowledge" wee've developed over the these last few decades, I still lament that wee did not take even more liberties at that moment. However, I also consider it fortunate that right as science was approaching this point, technology started giving us more abilities to observe. Of course, ethics committees and overseers of said committees, and grant committees that are overseen by other committees resulted, in order to keep us in check. Mind you, ethics in and of itself is sensible. People need a set of rules.

Of course, the government still does its own classified studies, the properties of which the public is not informed. That said, what good is scientific endeavors that are not shared? There must be a limit of my capabilities, as well as others. It is through collaboration that wee are capable of forming more novel ideas.

Of course, these thoughts are flawed in the infinite number of experiments that are possible. My thoughts would require an innate ability to always know whether an experiment warrants its own undertaking. Such is not within our capabilities. Ethics committees try to apply this concept (is it worth the risks for the chance of knowledge?). Even this is flawed, as it does not matter what wee calculate as being worth the expense (another impediment in ways... similar to falsifying research in order to continue one's grants); nor is it possible to see the overall picture from this stance. Wee cannot know whether such an experiment would only let us know "ok... cutting then supergluing the hippocampus wasn't a good idea. Now wee know", or if it would give us something small that would begin a snowball effect, such as with general paresis, which was what led us to show that physical changes can cause mental disorders.

Regardless, I am not trying to rally a movement for the mindless slaughtering off all things, but I can't help but wonder what wee are not allowing ourselves to learn.



By the way, for those of you who are saying it is "useless", it is only useless if you do not look for meaning at all. Many unbelievably cool findings were found by accident.. such as Hubel and Wiesel's cat experiments (lotsa cat stuff done. Even my dad did a lot of experiments with cats... and don't worry, they were all dead OR terminal).





My point is that regardless of having a particular point for any specific field, if it is something conceivably could lead to other thoughts, and generate 20 COMPLETELY ethical studies. However, refusing to jump said hurdle seems to turn it more into a wall. And you'll never know what is behind that wall...

Don't take any of this as my means of inciting an uproar. Just my thoughts on the subject. (my current thoughts are on the use of human subjects, though such an "ideal" scientific society would not likely ever be viable due to the unknown. In other words, wee are afraid to understand the unknown as it has risk involved, but at the same time it would only reveal the next set of unknowns. It really just comes down to where one draws the line. Having a completely absolute law for all of a specific genre of experiments is quite limiting. Obvious lack of evidence of this particular area of science also is pretty evident (an ironically phrased sentence...). Therefore, it is not even possible to decide properly where to make a line. Thus, this line is arbitrary to many,  but to others, it is everything.