James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu
Fri Jul 16 14:03:26 EST 1993
In article <1993Jul16.102207.24896 at gserv1.dl.ac.uk>
suter at VAX.MPIZ-KOELN.mpg.d400.de writes:
> 1. animals are not humans
Not all, but some of them are. You and I are.
> 2. we need animals for experiments, because you cannot get the same
> answers with other model systems
The question, then, is "Are these answers worth the sacrifice of the
animals?" I think there are some answers that are worth it, and others
not worth it. If I wanted to answer the question, "How much physical
torture can humans withstand before they die?", I don't think the
sacrifice would be justified. (Other people throughout history have
had differing opinions on this, however. Certain cold water survival
experiments come to mind.)
> 3. we are allowed to use animals because in the long term, they help
> to linger human suffering.
I don't think you meant to use "linger" here. In response to what I
think you meant, you are assuming that any relief of human suffering is
worth any sacrifice of animals. This is questionable.
> and please let us not pretend to be academix who are always reasonable about
> everything, and take every argument into account: the audience is listening,
> and they want a clear answer.
Oh, definitely. We wouldn't want anyone to think we were reasonable.
More information about the Bioforum