Plissken said:
The point was that this wasn't some egregious breach of protocol. Animal death is a natural part of research. It wasn't offered as justification of anything, and I wasn't commenting on whether or not it is right. The term "right" hardly applies, IMO. Who am I to say what is right? It's more just about what each person can live with. Do I like that animals have to die? No. But I can see the value in the research that takes place as a result of those few sacrificed animals.
Plissken said:
First of all, this thread is only on page two. Receiving a couple of responses from a couple of individuals known to work in scientific research hardly indicates rocking the boat.
Posts about names for new morphs and feeding corns cooked chicken get a bigger rise out of members than what you posted.Plissken said:
What else am I supposed to read into statements such as these...
Plissken said:
Plissken said:
How can animal research conducted by humans with no benefits to "man or beast" be considered useful?
I have to agree with Stephanie's statement about the logical soundness of your questioning. If you are a strict vegan, that's one thing. But, if not, then how do you decide where to draw the line on what is right and what is wrong?
Regardless of your diet, you obviously believe it isn't right to conduct this research that improves our understanding of animal physiology, could directly benefit populations of wild animals of many species, and at some point contribute to improving human welfare. HOWEVER, you are perfectly okay with keeping cornsnakes in capitivity when larger numbers (far more than the 62 in this study) die every year and the rest are subjected to living in confined quarters and by our terms? That's not natural. Oh, right...
Plissken said:
You know you usually hear people stating that we should mimic natural conditions at every possible chance, not the other way around. You said yourself that we force animals into captivity and they get no say in the matter. Regardless of the level of care you give to your pets, how is it "right" to force them to lead a captive life? The logic seems pretty fuzzy to me.
Another note about the usefulness, or apparent lack thereof, of scientific studies. As I mentioned previously, many people want answers now. They want to see the good that something does right now. If it isn't right now and if they can't touch it, taste it, smell it, etc. then it has no point. This isn't just in science. Society as a whole is awful when it comes to the concept of delayed gratification.
A fair amount of the work that is done in science isn't necessarily directed at problems that exist in the here and now. If we have the resources available and are capable of recognizing the potential benefit of having a greater understanding of some process or mechanim of survival, then why in the world should we wait until it's too late to start conducting research on it? The work done by the study in question could have direct applications to future conservation measures. I'm sure if the population of snakes that were studied were already in some sort of danger, then your definition of what is right and wrong might get a bit more fuzzy than it currently is. Would we wait until the human race was on the brink of extinction to start conducting research on the cause of our decline? Quite frankly, with the way in which we are destroying this planet and the plant and animal habitats on it, I can easily see the usefulness of having conservation strategies in place.
It doesn't matter to me how many times someone wants to state that they aren't looking for an argument or are just expressing their opinions. It also makes no difference how many times they try to say that they didn't say such and such a thing. It's not always about what you say, but often about how you say what you do say. I'm not suggesting that my intelligence was ever in question (at least not in this thread
) but I'm smart enough to read between the lines. And within your first couple of posts, I easily knew what it was that you were saying without having to see you actually put it in writing, and I would venture a guess that most people who read your posts could put 2 and 2 together, as well.I feel like I don't get too involved in a lot of the debates that go on around here and usually only when provoked, but science and related issues are an area where I will always defend my opinions and do my best to present the point of view of someone on the other side of the fence. It's only fair that people reading threads like these get both sides.
