Stem Cell Experiment on Alzheimer's Proves Need to Use Animals in Research
A side note on the post below: The only reason we know that bone marrow stem cells might one day be able to be used as a treatment for Alzheimer's is due to animal experimentation. In this particular case, mice were genetically altered, they were caused to have Alzheimer's disease, they were then treated with the stem cells, and finally, they were euthanized and dissected to see how and whether the experiment worked. Without using living organisms, this research simply could not have progressed. In other words, cell lines and computer models would have been inadequate. Indeed, if this research continues to progress, it may have to be used in monkeys or primates that have a closer genome to humans before use in human subjects. (Either that, or use disabled humans as some animal rights fanatics like Peter Singer have espoused.)
This is the real world: Animal experimentation is essential to scientific progress. It is as simple as that.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:50 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
Sorry. Scully skirted this issue in his book, and never really tackled it head on. He was too busy repeatedly castigating elephant hunters. It was one of the books major failures.
There is research that cannot be done without using animals, as this experiment demonstrates. Another example: We identified the virus that caused SARS, which required infecting a living being. It was either monkeys or people. The ethical approach was monkeys, which were then euthanized and their tissues analyzed. Positively identifying SARS was crucial to preventing an epidemic. The same thing is now happening with bird flu.
I am all in favor of not using animals when it is not necessary. But it is simply wrong to conclude that animal experimentation can end anytime soon--unless we decide to hold back vital potentially life-saving research.
One can argue that it is unethical to use animals and thus the cost of stopping research in its tracks must be paid. But to say we don't need the research itself is wrong.
If you don't think people have moral superiority to animals, you are welcome to the view. But it is human exceptionalism itself that contradicts your false assertion that believing we are special leads us to look at animals as "puny" or "small," and their suffering as "meanimgless." This is just hysterical emotionalism.
Our important duties to animals come precisely from our place on the "pedestal,
(however we arrived at this point). Special rights and value bring with them unique responsibilities. A cat has no duty not to torture the mouse. We do have that obligation precisely because we are at the pinaccle.
Thanks for writing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home