Which Side Would you Take?
December 13th 2009 21:00
Photo by Diliff. Used in accordance with the terms of Wikimedia Commons’ GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
One morning, a colleague was telling me about a book he was reading about brain experiments being performed on animals. I think he knew he picked the wrong person to talk to about this book when he chose me:
Colleague: There was this scientist who experimented on primates by cutting their sensory nerve so they would lose the use of one arm. PETA found out and took him to court. He had to defend himself against 117 charges. In the end, he won but he was shunned by the scientific community.
Me: So he should be. He should have tested humans instead.
C: I think he would have a hard time trying to find someone to participate in his study.
M: So bribe people by giving them money. There are some people who will do anything for money.
C: I think you have missed the point.
M: No, I haven’t. Humans can give consent. An animal can’t. Who gives humans the right to experiment on animals? And some of these experiments on animals seem pointless. For example, I read in another book that some scientists experimented on kittens by sewing their eyes shut. What purpose does that serve?
C: My book mentions that as well. They had to use kittens because they wanted to see if the sudden loss of vision causes learning problems.
C: The blind person is already blind. What they need is something that is not blind.
M: Then do it to a human.
My colleague sighed before saying anyone in their right mind would not want to be experimented on. I then said, “Your arguments suggest humans are more important than animals. What ever happened to all creatures great and small?”
My colleague gave up. He is well aware of my misanthropy.
| 42 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
