Comments on: Testing the limits of animal lab experiments

By: brian

brian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:28:49 +0000

More importantly I don’t think people trust scientists morals in light of how easily the bright ones that should be working on renewable energy and curing diseases will sell out to the defense departments for more money.

By: brian

brian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:25:53 +0000

Humans cruelty to animals and nature is profound.. If everything else is acceptable why not this??

The only real way to make progress on the morality of this debate is at it’s roots.
If it’s legal to kill, eat and enslave animals then where’s the debate going to go in terms of drawing the line between what’s ‘moral’ and what ‘immoral’.
Where do you even start??

But we all love eating them even though we’ve already proved meat is not necessary for survival..

By: baglady

baglady — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:50:26 +0000

NO, NO, NO……..this is immoral, inhumane, unethical and against God Almighty. The Dr. Frankenstein’s of the world are real and will stop at nothing to achieve their agendas……….There is nothing new under the sun, but this must be stopped as the outcome will be horrific.

By: Evan Hunsley

Evan Hunsley — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:45:10 +0000

This article is simply alarmist. As long as genetic research funding continues to be contingent on the approval of ethical review boards, this will not be a problem. Even apart from the procedures already in place to prevent unethical research, the idea of engineering a mouse that can speak or think is absolutely absurd, an obvious fact to anyone who possesses a modicum of anatomical knowledge.
As for the animal rights zealots, there is a reason that that particular political phenomenon is limited to the economically privileged Western world. The realities of the immensity of global human suffering are lost on those raised in a culture in which they are not forced to encounter death and disease on a daily basis. Animals obviously should not be abused and experimented on for aesthetic or consumerist concerns, but in my opinion, there is simply no ethical weight to the idea that an animal’s “rights” outweigh the importance of medical research that can save human lives. Show me an animal species with a capacity for symbolic thought anywhere approaching humanity and I will gladly recant this position.

By: kolla

kolla — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:38:16 +0000

It is interesting if you read the “Tags” to this article; animal rights, catholic, ethics, laboratory, religion, science, testing, vivisection….
Gene-ses 1.26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
vivisection?…

By: John Scott Ridgway

John Scott Ridgway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:55:43 +0000

I have always thought that sooner or later, someone would start making animals that could talk. Wrote a short story about even carrots getting consciousness at some distant point in the future. If the Polar Bears could talk right now, do you think they would be able to protect the arctic, or their own species? I believe that God does not reveal science because he wants us to ignore it; at the same time, humans have a history of not exactly being ‘humane’ to animals — we need to take these steps with a renewed emphasis on the ethical treatment of animals. Certainly, genetic manipulation is nothing next to any slaughter house on the planet — I mean can you imagine when the cows can talk, those cows are going to be plenty mad…

By: braveheart

braveheart — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:40:58 +0000

it is not good to change what the lord has made, it will come back to bite you in the end.

By: braveheart

braveheart — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:37:32 +0000

most likely how swine flu got started.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:09:08 +0000

“The ends justifies the means”.

Many people say that this concept is incorrect. Other people believe this concept is always correct. Both groups are wrong.

The reality is that whether the ends justifies the means depends on two things. The ends, and the means. Once you look at the result, you can see whether the means was justified.

Would you torture a rat to discover a new gene for your business?

What about to save a child? What about to save YOUR child? Save a hundred people? Discover a cure for cancer? Save the human race from extinction?

On the other hand, how many people would you condemn to death rather then allow an animal to die? What is the measure of a rat in human lives? Is a chimp worth more then a rat? Is a rat worth more then bacteria?

Is a vegan any less evil then a meat eater, just because they decided that the suffering of a plant is somehow less then an animal?

If a pacifist group brings an end to the Afganistan war, will that group be responsible for the deaths which result after that point?

Morality is never as cut and dry as people think. The rules of society have always represented what we are willing to accept, as a community. And sometimes, this doesn’t conform to extreme views.

So I suppose the saying should really be: “Depending on the ends, the means may or may not be justified”.

Which pretty much sums up humanity as a whole.

By: sanjin

sanjin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:32 +0000

In the interest of science, do it dr. Mengele…it is cruel using animals.they dont have intelect that can suppose bad intentions and develop countermeasure.animals are just a reflections of life on planet,like us.we have to respect a life in general,life is not a mankind property.a proper response to nature will solve most of our problems and deseases.this experiments with animals dont offer apropriate results or are positive just few percent.experiment on animals which improves cure for most desease is mith.they are useful only for adding weight on researches which finally results in company profit.its inhumane killing for money.i dont see anything good in that.it is a shame.