Of course and also I did not generalise on this!

But re to this issue, I thought that the arguments was about the necessity of animals in research. You posted some information supporting the notion that research in animals is not necessary and that there are alternatives. Then I posted counter-arguments arguing that there are many research questions that cannot be accurately be answered by non-animal studies. But instead of reading a reply from you on my points, I get this:


This is pure emotion since you speak about ethics, suffering, sensitivity, pain, trauma, and feelings. This means that you morally object to animal research and I am not here to argue morality. But do not worry; there are many scientists who morally object to their using animals for experiments. This is totally OK and respected. These scientists choose therefore not to answer questions and get into projects which require the use of animals. It is very simple and it is simple because not everyone needs to use animals for research. As you said and as I already know, most of the research is non-animal based. But some questions in biology you cannot just answer without using animals.


Very good point! In practise we use both. Governmental regulation of animals research (at least for UK) is based on the the "conflict" between two ends, reason and feelings. Antivivisectionists arguments are based on feelings (and rightfully in many cases) and they enquired against animal research thus stopping a good deal of it. The idea is good and very well respected. But due to reason not all animal research stopped. So now only absolutely essential animal research is carried out (the one that cannot be substituted by in vitro studies) and regulations exist to minimise both number of animals used, to ensure the best possible and humane treatment of animals and to protect their well-being as much as possible.

Ethics really isn't about emotions alone..it might seem that way but they are not solely based on emotion..I studied a bit of ethics and philosophy at college and logic comes into play when having a any real detailed discussion surrounding ethics..its about weighing the situation.

I think to argue with reason alone is just as dead a side to take as to argue with emotion alone..the only good arguement you can make has to have a healthy balance of both..

Fractal Enchantment

So beautifully said...


Much Peace and Sunshine

A project SWIM is working on professionally has been directly impacted by the protests against animal research. SWIM is searching for drugs from natural sources and the funding agency refused to fund any animal tests with the substances. Now we basically have to go about some convoluted way of contracting a group of researchers in another country to do the tests for us.

So thanks a lot for your whining and complaining. Now you've made it exponentially more difficult for me and my collegeus to find a cure for cancers, parasites, and potentially some neurological disorders. Don't get me wrong I am all for being as minimally cruel as possible and only do such tests when its necessary. But all this rubbish about animal research being completely ethically wrong that it shouldn't be used ever is an extreme and naive point of view.

Next time you see a child dieing of malaria or leukemia you can thank yourself for impeding research to find cures for these conditions.

Absolutely.

But this balance means that you have to admit that rationality is more or less a tool of our emotional mind.
This does mean though, that if used in the right way, sometimes reason must inhibit emotions because it enables us to realize what an emotion means and that what we actualy want, can only be realized if we're no mindless slaves to our passions.

But reason cannot dictate what we ought to feel, while on the other hand feelings CAN dictate what we ought to think.

Done. Thanks for posting this. It is a subject I am particularly concerned with.


I can't often help but feel that it's time for a significant culling of the talking monkeys. That, or humankind undergoes a significant shift in consciousness.