Call in. Question everything.
#111 Animal Testing
May 8, 2011 · 10 Comments
We’ll look at the practical advantages, and the ethical pitfalls, of using animals in scientific and medical research. We’re joined by Janet Stemwedel, Associate Professor of Philosophy at San Jose State University, and author of the blog Adventures in Ethics and Science. And we’ll talk to Bill Barry, Chief Historian at NASA, about the history of animals and spaceflight.
Listen or Download This Episode
The study mentioned in tonight’s episode is available here: Differences between chimpanzees and bonobos in neural systems supporting social cognition.
For more information about the Skeptics Mixtape 2011, check out Skepticblog.org.
« #110 A History of Childbirth | Desiree Schell to Head Up Skeptics Mixtape 2011 »
Records live Sunday at 6pm MT
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
Dr. Stemwedel,there is a debate between researchers who believe their research benefits the animals they study and those who believe that benefit comes at too great a cost to the animal’s welfare and freedom. On one side the argument is made that keeping any animal captive for the purpose of research is detrimental. On the other, there is an argument to be made, the benefit of the research for the species outweighs the restrictions the individual animals endure.
Is there not, however, a third position? Is it not the case that some animals thrive in captivity, experience less stress, and live longer, healthier lives? In the case of captive dolphins, is it not the case that they can choose to escape their pens, swimming into the open ocean, but choose captivity? If so, how are we to interpret this behaviour?
by Al Morrison · on May 3, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Thanks for the question, Al!
by K.O. Myers · on May 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm
[...] May 8th, I'll be on the Skeptically Speaking radio program, as part of an episode looking at "the practical advantages, and the ethical pitfalls, of using animals in scientific and [...]
by Tomorrow on Skeptically Speaking: animal research. | Adventures in Ethics and Science · on May 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Recently on DrugMonkey blog the developers of some new educational tools that use live insects were lauded, and those expressing concern about the inverts were ridiculed. Can you speak to this divide – are invertebrates just robots? I thought it was interesting that it was the insects’ nervous systems that were being studied, presumably because of relevance to that of “higher” animals.
Since I am on the insects’ side I didn’t dare comment on that thread; but it inspired me to do a little research on the subject (well, read a few wikipedia articles anyway) and I was struck by something else, that I have wondered my entire life; it seems silly, even unscientific when people worry about things like if animals are aware of their pain, or even if they even feel pain, etc. 1. of course they do-we have these experiences BECAUSE we are animals!!
and 2. why on earth does it matter? If the animal senses the insult and shows a desire to remove itself from the source…why this obsession if the animal is aware, on some higher plane, of the experience?
Thanks!
by Isabel · on May 8, 2011 at 12:15 pm
One other thing- I just remembered that the cockroach tool mentioned (but not further discussed in DM’s post) did not necessarily inflict pain, but was described as something that strapped on to a cockroach so that its movements could be controlled. Somehow the idea of giving a group of middle schoolers a tool that allowed them to control the movements of another living being was disturbing to me.
One note from my “research” regarding these new tools: they do seem to violate the general rule that the animal use be unnecessarily repetitive (these are not needed experiments for science) and that no alternatives exist.
by Isabel · on May 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Cephalopods are given what amounts to “honorable vertebrate status” in experiments, allegedly because their complex behavior is more akin to rats (say) than to scallops. To what extent is our policy based on how “warm & fuzzy” a creature is? Is behavior our proxy for consciousness? Or is behavior the actual concern, with consciousness irrelevant? How do we make the decisions?
by Cuttlefish · on May 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Isabel and Cuttlefish, thanks very much for your comments/questions.
by K.O. Myers · on May 8, 2011 at 6:25 pm
It appears obvious to me that those concerned about animal suffering in scientific testing should address the by-orders-of-magnitude-greater suffering (at least in terms of animal numbers)produced by industrial meat production.
I think it was disingenuous to dance around this much bigger issue, even if it could not be properly addressed in this particular podcast episode. I really feel that it was inadequately recognized as a much larger issue.
Love you, love the podcast.
by Caleb Phillips · on May 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Caleb, thank you so much for the show idea. Good call.
And thanks for listening. :)
Desiree
by Desiree Schell · on May 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm
[...] Janet Stemwedel, Associate Professor of Philosophy at San Jose State University, and author of the blog Adventures in Ethics and Science identified the following in a Skeptically Speaking interview: [...]
by Chemical industries deliberately(!!!) conclude insignificant health effects of BPA | One Less Plastic Bag · on May 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm