Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[-Demosthenes-]

We should test on humans who are the mental equivalent, or roughly so, of animals we do tests on. Perhaps the extremely mentally retarded infants, for example.

Dude, your freaking messed up.

[Commie_Pinko]

Why am I messed up? Is there something wrong with my position? I am open to criticism. I would like to inquire, however, as to what you think exactly makes Humans special and what establishes moral personhood?

 

We treat animals differently because they are not our equals. According to the ethical principle of equality, equality is given where equality is due. We don't see animals as equal to humans. Why? You cannot say it's because Humans are God's chosen or because Humans have souls. THere's no evidence of those concepts. IF we are to discriminate freely between creatures, we must make a legitimate argument as to why. This argument usually states that we use other animals because we have criteria that judge them to be inferior and fit for use. The only real, concrete characteristic separating most humans from many other animals is a basic level of intelligence and potential. Humans are more valuable than other animals because of what we can accomplish and do potentially---because we possess higher intelligence. It's arbitrary.

 

If one uses a slide-rule, or even a basic threshold system of intellect, there is nothing, other than our intellect, that makes humans so special that we can freely engage in speciesism when said species used has equal or roughly equal intelligence.

 

For example, we could never use a normal 5 year old for experiments, because that 5 year old is far different from a Chimpanzee, which might have the mental equivalent of a 5 year old. WHy? Eventually, the 5 year old will progress and actualize human potential. The Chimp never will. The Human will become more aware and progress as time goes on. The Chimp never will.

 

Now look at someone who is severely mentally handicapped insofar as he has little sapience or at most intelligence below that or equal to that Chimp. Should we treat that being as an equal to others? Does it possess the necessary valuable characteristics of Humans? No. Why? It's not equal. According to the Principle of Equality, again, you treat beings equally where equality is due.

 

If, however, you can find even less intelligent species, that's fantastic; use them. However, if they cannot provide as great a scientific result--as great knowledge as can be provided if you use animalistic humans, then you ought to use the humans who are better test subjects due to biology. However, one must then weigh the benefits against the costs. If that great mental dificiency, which morally allows testing, would cause the results to be skewed or wrong or bad, then the consequences are too bad and the ends do not justify the means.

 

 

Thought Experiment:

 

You have one Human and one Alien scientist. Compare this to a Human and Chimp. The alien is to the human as the human is to the chimp. We don't treat chimps equal to humans, so why should the alien treat us as equals when we are so vastly inferior? What makes the alien more/less valuable than the Human? Are we better simply because he's not human? Is he better simply because he's a member of his own race? I wouldn't agree. There must be some objective criterion, and if we use such a criterion, we must be consistant in its application. We cannot pick and choose.

 

 

Many people here believe that Ethics and morality are totally relative. If that be true, then really, my proposal is not unethical anyway.

[bascule]

For example, we could never use a normal 5 year old for experiments, because that 5 year old is far different from a Chimpanzee, which might have the mental equivalent of a 5 year old. WHy? Eventually, the 5 year old will progress and actualize human potential. The Chimp never will. The Human will become more aware and progress as time goes on. The Chimp never will.

 

Most 5 year olds' comprehension of the universe is leaps and bounds beyond the smartest chimpanzee...

 

You have one Human and one Alien scientist. Compare this to a Human and Chimp. The alien is to the human as the human is to the chimp. We don't treat chimps equal to humans, so why should the alien treat us as equals when we are so vastly inferior?

 

Why are we inferior? Nothing is beyond a sentient being's ability to comprehend so long as it's explained clearly enough, so the inferiority would be memetic/cultural, and there's enough plasticity in our species that we can be brought to the same level as whatever superbeings you want to compare us to. Not so with chimps... they lack a well developed cerebral cortex and the ability to think in complex abstract terms.

[insane_alien]

you got to remember that experimentation on animals develops an almost equal amount of vetenary drugs as well.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by Mokele

They're very similar to humans, but lack all higher brain functions, including the ability to feel pain. I kick them just to watch them cry.

They cry without feeling pain? There can't be any satisfaction in that for you. It's not essentially different from squeezing a tube of toothpaste in your scheme of things.

[Commie_Pinko]

Most 5 year olds' comprehension of the universe is leaps and bounds beyond the smartest chimpanzee...

 

Well, that's similiar to why why I said we could never use a normal five-year old. Although, I would be skeptical that a 5 year old is that much smarter than a Chimpanzee, since most texts I have read state they have roughly equal intelligence. Equal intelligence implies one would be vastly more knowledgable than the other. Bonobo Chimpanzee's are extremely intelligent. I think you don't give them much credit.

 

In fact, according to this source:

 

The chimpanzees are actually quite close to us [...] [in] their brain fysionomy [and] are actually very close to the one of Homo sapiens. [...] And the chimpanzee is one of the few species, besides from the human race, that has shown abilities of using tools to help solving problems in certain situations. But this is not the only thing that makes it closer related to human beings; the chimpanzee has shown signs of being able to, in some degree, think in abstract terms.

 

http://www.temporaryart.org/96/stoc/Chimpanzees.html

 

A 4-5 year old also does not think in complex abstract thought. The actual IQ of a chimp is not much less than that of a 4 year old human (or so I read).

Humans have a hemispheric specialization, but this does not mean that on certain levels, humans aren't roughly the same. If they are, they deserve equal treatment.

 

Even if what you say were true, which seems doubtful, a severely retarded 5 year old most certainly would be worse than a normal 5 year old, thus the per-unit value would decrease significantly.

 

Why are we inferior? Nothing is beyond a sentient being's ability to comprehend so long as it's explained clearly enough, so the inferiority would be memetic/cultural, and there's enough plasticity in our species that we can be brought to the same level as whatever superbeings you want to compare us to. Not so with chimps... they lack a well developed cerebral cortex and the ability to think in complex abstract terms.

 

Technically, (at least according to my biology books), sentience is different from sapience. Sapience is the ability to be aware of being aware, whereas sentience is merely being aware. I hear several animal species are sentient, but not sapient. Not every animal can reach human potential though, regardless of their sentience. Humans are supposedly sapient. Perhaps that's a better criterion to use. Can a 3-4 year old be aware of being aware? Are there any other animals that are at a stage in which humans aren't sapient? I haven't seen studies on that; I don't know.

 

Point considered on the thought experiment. However, this does not negate scenarios in which they are roughly equivalent. If they are on the same intelligence level and the human can not advance, or advance much, beyond that point, there's no reason to claim the human is more valuable morally.

[bascule]

A 4-5 year old also does not think in complex abstract thought. The actual IQ of a chimp is not much less than that of a 4 year old human (or so I read).

 

That is absolutely not the case. The abstract concepts a 5 year old human can comprehend vastly outweigh what it will ever be possible for a chimpanzee to comprehend in their lifetime. A 5 year old is tied into the memetic structure of humanity, and is thus exposed to a wealth of abstract information which you can never teach a chimpanzee. For example...

 

A 5 year old can tell you that the sun is a star, just like all the other stars in the sky, that the earth orbits the sun in the period of a year, and that the rising and setting of the sun is due to the fact that we are living on a sphere which is rotating in space.

 

The sheer amount of abstract knowledge of time, geometry, astronomy, etc. required to impart these concepts is vastly complex, but it isn't beyond the comprehension of a 5 year old. Would it ever be possible to teach this much abstract information to a chimpanzee in its lifetime?

 

Could you even teach a chimpanzee that the world is round?

 

Oh, did I mention that a 5 year old can speak in natural language? That's a pretty damn impressive feat...

 

Humans have a hemispheric specialization, but this does not mean that on certain levels, humans aren't roughly the same. If they are, they deserve equal treatment.

 

We have a massive cerebral cortex which contains innumerable microcenters for the processing of complex abstract thought. This is where memes live, and human memes are evolving at an exponential rate, whereas chimpanzee memes are at a virtual standstill. This is what sets us apart from chimps.

 

Even if what you say were true, which seems doubtful, a severely retarded 5 year old most certainly would be worse than a normal 5 year old, thus the per-unit value would decrease significantly.

 

True enough, this is due more to a cultural sense as to the sanctity of human life than a pure intelligence metric. Look at all the fuss raised over Terri Schiavo... it seems like people really have a time grasping that consciousness is the most important quality of a human.

[-Demosthenes-]

You have one Human and one Alien scientist. Compare this to a Human and Chimp. The alien is to the human as the human is to the chimp.

Aliens? Dude, go outside and say hello to the sun for a bit, it'll make you fill better. Just stay away from children.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh dear, not this thread again.

[Commie_Pinko]

That is absolutely not the case. The abstract concepts a 5 year old human can comprehend vastly outweigh what it will ever be possible for a chimpanzee to comprehend in their lifetime. A 5 year old is tied into the memetic structure of humanity' date=' and is thus exposed to a wealth of abstract information which you can never teach a chimpanzee. For example...

 

A 5 year old can tell you that the sun is a star, just like all the other stars in the sky, that the earth orbits the sun in the period of a year, and that the rising and setting of the sun is due to the fact that we are living on a sphere which is rotating in space.

 

The sheer amount of abstract knowledge of time, geometry, astronomy, etc. required to impart these concepts is vastly complex, but it isn't beyond the comprehension of a 5 year old. Would it ever be possible to teach this much abstract information to a chimpanzee in its lifetime?

 

Could you even teach a chimpanzee that the world is round?

 

Oh, did I mention that a 5 year old can speak in natural language? That's a pretty damn impressive feat...

[/quote']

 

I think I mentioned below,but I was wrong about the age. Sorry. A Chimpanzee is about the intelligence of a 3-4 year old. In terms of language, however, the Bonobo usually does not progress beyond a 2-3 year ability. However, the average intelligence is different. The net intelligence of a Bonobo and a comparable age-child is 90, whereas the Human average is 100. So, Bonobo's are a lot like strong, retarded 3-4 year olds. There is more information on this lower.

 

According to the article, Grammar is something that emerges in human children between the ages of two and four

 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s306358.htm

 

You did not mention that they can speak in natural language, but that's a characteristic of Humans, yes. Humans can pick up languges through socialization. W/out socialization, humans are considerably dysfunctional. The chimpanzee, however, also has a remarkable ability for language and communication. It can learn considerable aspects of human language, but it really has no need to do so in nature. According to this source:

 

Their brains and nervous systems are comparable to those of humans [...] and, though many people have been reluctant to believe it, the chimpanzee’s social behaviour, intellectual ability, and emotions are all undeniably similar to our own.

 

Now, if one were to analyse the paragraph, they are essentially pointing out that the traditional view of the Chimpanzee is much off-base. The Chimpanzee is extremely similiar to humans in terms of cultural adaptations, creativity, intelligence, as well as emotions and language. However, one problem with Chimpanzees is they don't have the necessary vocal ability to speak as we can, according to my text. It's not that they cannot understand langauge. In fact, many test-chimps can easily learn both numbers as well as sign-language. People can converse with them. For example, let's look at how complex they really are:

 

Chimpanzees learn to count easily and can recognize written symbols. They don’t have a verbal language like ours, but some researchers have found a way to converse with our ape cousins. [...] a few chimps have successfully been taught American Sign Language and have communicated their thoughts and feelings to humans, even expressing emotions like sympathy.

 

Here we see chimps being able to easily pick up langauge (a 5 or less human age level), count, express and convey emotions, as well as desires and feelings.

 

As well:

 

They have shown a remarkable capacity to communicate, manipulate their surroundings, and even create. It seems simple to us humans, but using a tool is actually quite a complex act that few animals engage in.

 

Moreover, Chimpanzees can also be artistically abstract:

 

Some chimpanzees have displayed a creative side, too. When provided with the materials some chimpanzees have made abstract drawings and paintings. In July 2005, three colourful works painted by a chimpanzee named Congo were even sold at an auction for £12,000

 

I rarely see abstract paintings conveying emotion and thought from small children. It's mainly scribble.

 

Source: http://www.gan.ca/animals/chimpanzees.en.html

 

Further. If we look at the Bonobo, we would need to apply the Heinlein Test. According to researchers, the Bonobo Chimpanzee passes the Speech test due to ability to comprehend syntax as well as manipulate sign language to a great degree. These are inherent abilities. The Bonobo Chimpanzee also passes the Manipulative Organs Test. The only one it has some trouble with is the record keeping test--however, according to many Primate-focused biologists, primates are nearly as smart as humans.

 

If one injects moral philosophy into the equation, there are 4 basic elements required for the presence of moral rights (including life). The Chimp passes at least three. According to moral philosophers, Such a result weighs in favor of assigning legal rights to the Bonobo chimpanzee. At the very least, such a result invites further study to determine whether the Bonobo chimpanzee could pass all the xenological tests if the tests were modified to accommodate modern scientific and behavioral study methodology.

 

In this case, if they pass most of the tests and are seen nearly as smart as humans, and thus have moral rights very similiar to that of humans, then it could very well be possible that a normal bonobo chimp is equal to a normal, very young child. I was also wrong about the age. It isn't five, rather 3-4. I am sorry for the mistake. In any case, most biologists I have read at least see them as smart as a retarded small child or infant. If this is so, we must ask what this means morally.

 

Source: http://www.usfca.edu/pj/legalrights_miller.htm

 

In terms of IQ, many are on the relative level of 3-4 year olds. However, some Chimpanzees, when compared to humans of relative age, range from 70-95. If 100 is average, than some chimps (KOKO) are like retarded versions of small children.

 

Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031109/spectrum/main2.htm

 

 

 

 

This shows further they, like we, (although not perfect equals throughout life) are extremely similiar in terms of spacial-sense, awareness, and manipulation of tools. There are many children who can't do this---or adults for that matter. I think we are underestimating the ability of the Chimp. I have rarely, if ever seen small children display significant ingenuity to built complex tools to gather, eat, and utilize food. These animals brush their teeth, clean their food, and fabricate eating utensiles when taught how to do so--this is remarkably similar to children--however, I rarely see children doing the former.

 

Bonobo can also use tools and their brains to solve complex problems (when taught how to through socialization).

 

Just like Humans, the Bonobo Chimpanzees learn through role-taking, role playing.

 

 

 

I do have one question. Why do I, from biologists, hear claims like, X animal is the functional and intellectual equivalent of X age child? Isn't that just meaningless then? Wouldn't saying that imply that they are roughly on the same level at the same time?

 

Their brains and nervous systems are comparable to those of humans and, though many people have been reluctant to believe it, the chimpanzee’s social behaviour, intellectual ability, and emotions are all undeniably similar to our own. They have shown a remarkable capacity to communicate, manipulate their surroundings, and even create.

 

We have a massive cerebral cortex which contains innumerable microcenters for the processing of complex abstract thought. This is where memes live, and human memes are evolving at an exponential rate, whereas chimpanzee memes are at a virtual standstill. This is what sets us apart from chimps.

 

Oh. I am not doubting there are differences between a chimp and a human, but I think you are vastly underestimating the Bonobo Chimpanzee. It's extremly similar to humans in most regards, according to myriad biological studies and sources. I am not trying to say they are identical, but they do, in fact, act identically in passing many of the critical cognition tests.

 

You are essentially saying their ability to use and store cultural information is very limited and inflexible, but that seems the antipode to what most researchers are saying. They are passing the Bonobo off as very culturally flexible, highly intelligent near-humans who are on the same level as very small children in the ability to think.

 

I might be misuderstanding something, but isn't a meme a cultural unit of information? How can a unit of information evolve? Perhaps I am knowing the incorrect definition used. Unless, of course, you are talking about the "evolution" of a cultural practice. Chimpanzees also have what Zoologists call "complex cultures."

 

Dictionary.com states: Meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

 

True enough, this is due more to a cultural sense as to the sanctity of human life than a pure intelligence metric. Look at all the fuss raised over Terri Schiavo... it seems like people really have a time grasping that consciousness is the most important quality of a human.

 

I agree with you that consciousness is important--awareness is important. Terry was a vegetable, therfore she had zero value. I am not saying things don't have any value. I am merely sliding the bar across the rule. The Bonobo Chimpanzee certainly passes the prerequisit tests for awareness, as well as the Heinline moral rights test. There are several sentient/sapient animals--Humans aren't the only one. I am not comparing a Human to a goat or a cockroach.

 

I don't see why Human life is sacred, when there are many creatures that, according to Biologists, can pass the same tests small children can pass to determine mental functionality and cognition. That's where I am comming from, but I don't only think that pure awareness is the only important factor in moral decision-making, but level of intelligence. I see things as a general slide-rule, but there is a certain threshold for value.

 

Interesting Side Note: On a side note, there are a stunning number of Parrots that can also do things (all though not at the level of the bonobo chimps). I just thought the article was interesting. Dr. Pepperberg and her assistants have been working with Alex for more than 20 years studying his cognitive capabilities in areas such as referential labeling, categorization, abstract categories like same-different and relative size, number, object permanence, intentional action, and the contribution of sound/word play to learning. As a result, Alex can produce and appropriately apply well over 100 English labels, he can recognize numbers, he can answer questions and make requests, and he appears able to predict his own behavior.

 

I really think we are underestimating the intelligence of other animals, especially the bonobo, who, from what I have researched, are more akin to little children than you would admit.

 

Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~bsl/Timberlake_rev_Pepperberg.htm

[Commie_Pinko]

I see nothing wrong with doing tests on extremely retarded, small infants or at least fetuses. There's not much there to consider. Perhaps they could be mass produced for use or something and used along side other animals. What is the big deal, really?

[bascule]

You are essentially saying their ability to use and store cultural information is very limited and inflexible, but that seems the antipode to what most researchers are saying.

 

No, I was saying their ability to use and store cultural information is very limited and inflexible compared to humans, which it obviously is.

 

Furthermore, I was saying their ability to understand complex abstract concepts is limited by the above as well.

 

Fundamentally, it's the human ability to exchange and process complex/abstract memes which gives rise to consciousness as we know it, and in my mind that's something chimpanzees simply do not possess. The marshalling power of speech combined with the abstract processing power of the cerebral cortex is what gives rise to consciousness as we experience it, as we take information garnered for speech and process it further through autostimulation of our own speaking/speech processing centers.

 

I might be misuderstanding something, but isn't a meme a cultural unit of information? How can a unit of information evolve?

 

See Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, in which he details how memes obey the laws of natural selection.

[Commie_Pinko]

I did make some additions to the above post, because I fogot some links and information. Just wanted to tell you so you don't think I changed something.

 

 

No, I was saying their ability to use and store cultural information is very limited and inflexible compared to humans, which it obviously is.

 

Furthermore, I was saying their ability to understand complex abstract concepts is limited by the above as well.

 

I don't disagree with you then, but I am not merely comparing a human and a chimp. I am comparing very specific scenarios using them. I I understand you said it's limited. I agree, but I don't think it really is relevant if we are talking about age levels that are low and the relative inability to progress passed a low-age child mental ability. In that case, there's not much differencem, according to the above. In the early stages, around 2-3, the abilities of the Chimp. At 2, the lingustic abilities are identical.

 

 

I was under the impression from Psychology that consciousness is synonomous with sapience, and that can be tested in various animals.

[bascule]

I understand you said it's limited. I agree, but I don't think it really is relevant if we are talking about age levels that are low and the relative inability to progress passed a low-age child mental ability. In that case, there's not much differencem, according to the above.

 

I think the most fundamental opposition you're going to find to using young infants in lieu of animal testing is that we currently do not possess the technology to bring a human child to term without a human mother, and what human mother would wish to bring a child to term only to donate it to medical testing instead of putting it up for adoption?

 

A human baby is a valuable commodity, both economically and culturally, compared to a chimpanzee. Even if you found a mother willing to sell her baby to those who wished to use it for medical testing, what company would shell out sufficient money to buy it when they could use chimpanzees for a fraction of the price?

[Commie_Pinko]

I think the most fundamental opposition you're going to find to using young infants in lieu of animal testing is that we currently do not possess the technology to bring a human child to term without a human mother' date=' and what human mother would wish to bring a child to term only to donate it to medical testing instead of putting it up for adoption?

 

A human baby is a valuable commodity, both economically and culturally, compared to a chimpanzee.[/quote']

 

 

True. Perhaps one day society will be more easily able to mass-produce them for use (perhaps chimps as well). I am not saying we shouldn't use animal testing. I think we should. I just think we ought to also use human testing where it would prove better.

 

Perhaps if you pay the mother enough. I don't know. It could be like a job or something. Ahh. I just read your addition. Yes. Paying someone to do it might be expensive unless we find a cheap way of breeding babies. That would be an objective strike.

[Tilda]

Well... Why complicate things so much...

Ofcourse we don't want to test onourself... ofcourse we feel more affectionate for our own kind.

 

I'm doing experiments on rats right now...

 

I mean how do you really define "Pain"... a needle in your leg... I get vaccinations. Weather I want it or not. Surgery... humans get that too. Barely ANY experiments are acctually painful for the animals..

 

Besides.... there is not better alternative! Till there is, keep it.

 

//Matilda

[Tilda]

I see nothing wrong with doing tests on extremely retarded, small infants or at least fetuses. There's not much there to consider. Perhaps they could be mass produced for use or something and used along side other animals. What is the big deal, really?

 

 

For an experiment you need at the least like 200-500 SPF (specifically pathogen free) rats/year.

Lets say you want them to be males that weigh about 300g, you would have to breed about 500-800 rats just to get the right gender and probably even more to get everything else right.

 

Do you suggest that they breed 500-800 mentally retarded humans to get them right? Don't even think that's doable.

 

Don't get me wrong though... I see your point, but as I said earlier it's not odd that we don't want to use our own kind.... as intelligent as we are

 

//Matilda!

[badchad]

Thats not entirely correct. The number of animals needed depends upon the experiment and varies tremendously.

[tomgwyther]

I propose we test drugs on creationists. They're very similar to humans' date=' but lack all higher brain functions, including the ability to feel pain. I kick them just to watch them cry.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

 

LOL

[tomgwyther]

With 25,000 humans being killed every day from starvation and curable diseases; who’s going to miss a few hundred rats?

[Bio-Hazard]

I have no doubt that it was written by a 12 year old boy. What the...did he seriously mean that we should fetch actual humans to test potentially deadly drugs instead of mice that were BRED in a LABORATORY? 1 human life for 1 bred mouse's life. seem like a fair trade?

 

Heck yeah man. Who is more entertaining: Human or mouse?

 

Mouse.

 

Which costs more to feed? Human.

So what should we do? Kill the humans.

 

I think that mice are actually becoming more intelligent than humans. I have has this one mouse in my kitchen for the past few month and I swear that sucker has gymnastic skills. Do humans have gymnastic skills? No.

 

I mean mice have more potential to pull off skillful moves, they are more cunning. They have more sense.

 

Unlike people who can't figure out that their girlfriend is goona cheat on them, mice are pimp.

 

Don't kill mice. Kill humans.

[Tilda]

Well ofcourse I realize that the amount of rats used in experiments vary tremendously, but I'm just telling you guys the majority of experiments...most cases. (as I've seen them)

 

And I'm not even gonna answer the input about mice haveing more sense or intelligence than man. seriously...

 

A person not figuring out that a girlfriend's cheating lies not in the intelligence of a human but in the heart and belief to trust them.

[Tilda]

Anyone?

 

the funny part is...

the final product is acctually not tested on animals. BUT all the substances (not mixed together) are.

[TayJamie]

Polio is a prime example. As well for the Insulin discovery. We know information is there, we just need to research it.

 

Also, animals benefit from experiments sometimes. Like the Feline-Vaccinations, etc.

In addition, can anybody clear up the deal with the Animal Welfare Act in present day?

[TayJamie]

What are people's feelings on Alternatives to animal testing?

 

On the pro side, what would you respond to that?