Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Would a uni's animal testing record affect your decision to apply? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Would you avoid applying to a uni that carries out a lot of lab tests on animals?
    I would not apply there
    260
    30.20%
    I would still apply there
    601
    69.80%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I don't know what that phrase means. Humans aren't the centre of the universe.



    They're disasters for the animals.



    It would, overall, save many more human lives, though.
    I'll take my first point back, it was overly harsh and I was trying to exaggerate a point, it was not an attack on your character.

    To your 2nd point, yes that is absolutely true.

    To your 3rd point, the difference between testing on humans and testing on animals is that more human lives would be saved at the cost of animal lives.

    Also, you can't completely eliminate animal testing. A lot of discoveries of new hormones like (GLP-1, GLP-2) or testing the effects of different hormones on the body are done in animals. Sure they test in vitro, but they need to try in vivo to see if there are any differences. Lab testing is controlled, compound A reacts with B. In vivo, compound A reacts with B and also potentially is affected by a million other unknowns. Rats and other animals are very similar to humans in many ways, which makes testing on them possible. If you wanted to stop testing on animals you would need an entire underclass of humans to essentially be testing dummies. Poked and prodded whenever they need results. What happened with all the GLP-1 and GLP-2 testing in the 80s? We know now that GLP-1 increases insulin sensitivity and production. Now there is a new generation of DPP-4 blockers which block GLP-1 breakdown and the drug is called sitagliptin, now used in diabetics with metformin. GLP-2 promotes growth of the gut, in people with short bowel syndrome, GLP-2 analogs are now being given to increase gut proliferation and improve intestinal absorption.

    So there are direct positives that come out of testing. If you wanted to do testing on humans it would be possible for sure but you would essentially being poking and prodding humans and potentially with lethal consequences.

    Essentially your options are not good either way. I don't think anyone in this world except sadists enjoy seeing animals die for "science".
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I will be bothered if their testing affects the quantity of meat in their campus restaurants.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If we remove animal testing it just puts humans more at risk from drugs, a necessary evil.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I don't know what that phrase means. Humans aren't the centre of the universe.
    They certainly should be, at least to other humans.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    that would be about #197 on my list of criteria for yoony selection
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why isnt there a poll option for 'it would make me more likely to apply?' push poll.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    They certainly should be, at least to other humans.
    They shouldn't be. There is no justification for discounting the comparable interests of members of one species.

    I see no reason why membership of the species Homo sapiens magically makes your suffering more important than any other sentient being's.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by viddy9)
    They shouldn't be. There is no justification for discounting the comparable interests of members of one species.

    I see no reason why membership of the species Homo sapiens magically makes your suffering more important than any other sentient being's.
    Because, in this Universe, where all species are competing against each other in the evolutionary sense, all humans should strive to ensure humanity survives.

    Would you argue to give human rights to the Ebola virus, bacteria, or worms?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Because, in this Universe, where all species are competing against each other in the evolutionary sense, all humans should strive to ensure humanity survives.
    Appealing to evolution, or nature, is logically fallacious. Also, individuals compete against each other, not species.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Would you argue to give human rights to the Ebola virus, bacteria, or worms?
    Bacteria and worms are not sentient, ergo they have no interests to take into consideration. Non-human vertebrates are sentient, and thus do have interests to take into consideration.

    The key word is comparable, however. I'm not arguing that we should give mice the right to vote, because they have no interest in voting. Similarly, I would not argue in favour of giving a human infant or toddler the right to vote, because they have no interest in voting. However, when it comes to pain and suffering, for one, we ought to equally consider the suffering of all sentient beings.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Appealing to evolution, or nature, is logically fallacious.
    How so?

    Also, individuals compete against each other, not species.
    Species don't compete against each other?

    Red and grey squirrels in the UK, introduction of species by European explorers to Pacific islands, etc. say otherwise

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Bacteria and worms are not sentient, ergo they have no interests to take into consideration. Non-human vertebrates are sentient, and thus do have interests to take into consideration.
    Are you sure? How would you even define sentience, let alone detect it? We don't even understand human consciousness, let alone whether or not to detect conscious thought in non-humans.

    However, when it comes to pain and suffering, for one, we ought to equally consider the suffering of all sentient beings.
    So torturing a mouse is as bad as torturing a human?

    That suggests getting a cat would be morally wrong...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    How so?
    Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right. There are plenty of ways to ensure that your genes are passed onto the next generation (thereby ensuring the survival of your genes, as well as increasing the chances of survival of Homo sapiens), but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate using some of those methods, because they would be immoral.

    You describe species all competing against each other, yet you can't derive an ought-statement from that is-statement.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Are you sure? How would you even define sentience, let alone detect it? We don't even understand human consciousness, let alone whether or not to detect conscious thought in non-humans.
    We don't need to understand consciousness to know that it exists. Sentience is the ability to have conscious experiences. Almost all of the evidence we have in favour of the notion that humans can feel pain and suffer also exists for animal suffering. Non-human animals have the same responses to sources of pain; they have the same long-term behavioural responses; injured non-human animals will eat food containing analgesics instead of their normal food; and they have the same neurophysiological structures responsible for pain that humans do.

    I'm sure you wouldn't advocate randomly torturing kittens.

    As for being sure, I'm not 100% certain about anything, aside from the fact that I'm not 100% certain about anything. It's about probability and the weight of the evidence, and it's overwhelmingly in favour of other humans and non-human animals being able to feel pain and suffer. There's also no reason to believe that the intensity of such suffering differs between species.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    So torturing a mouse is as bad as torturing a human?
    All things being equal, yes. Of course, a human being tortured might distress other humans, particularly their family members, if they were to hear of it.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    That suggests getting a cat would be morally wrong...
    I would suggest that that is the case, yes. Cats are responsible for a fair bit of suffering. I can't see how it would be right to preserve and maintain disembowelment, asphyxiation and being eaten alive.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right. There are plenty of ways to ensure that your genes are passed onto the next generation (thereby ensuring the survival of your genes, as well as increasing the chances of survival of Homo sapiens), but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate using some of those methods, because they would be immoral.
    What methods are you talking about? You might be interested to note (but I'm not trying to make any points here) that actually, limiting the number of children you have is sometimes the best method to ensure their survival - and sometimes the best way to spread your genes is not to have children at all (but rather, to increase the odds of survival of the children of people related to you - e.g. you might have a crippling genetic condition, so having children would ultimately harm humanity, and therefore reduces the odds of genes of people sharing your genes surviving). Also, the best way of ensuring the survival of our genes may well be to evolve beyond Homo Sapiens. That is, we reduce the number of genes we pass on, to maximise the statistically expected number of genes that survive.

    You describe species all competing against each other, yet you can't derive an ought-statement from that is-statement.
    I don't know what you mean...


    We don't need to understand consciousness to know that it exists. Sentience is the ability to have conscious experiences. Almost all of the evidence we have in favour of the notion that humans can feel pain and suffer also exists for animal suffering. Non-human animals have the same responses to sources of pain; they have the same long-term behavioural responses; injured non-human animals will eat food containing analgesics instead of their normal food; and they have the same neurophysiological structures responsible for pain that humans do.
    So you define pain/suffering as a neurological reaction to some stimulus?

    I'm sure you wouldn't advocate randomly torturing kittens.
    Not if it doesn't serve a purpose, of course.

    All things being equal, yes.
    That assumes that the value of all sentient beings' neurological health are equal
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    What methods are you talking about? You might be interested to note (but I'm not trying to make any points here) that actually, limiting the number of children you have is sometimes the best method to ensure their survival - and sometimes the best way to spread your genes is not to have children at all (but rather, to increase the odds of survival of the children of people related to you - e.g. you might have a crippling genetic condition, so having children would ultimately harm humanity, and therefore reduces the odds of genes of people sharing your genes surviving). Also, the best way of ensuring the survival of our genes may well be to evolve beyond Homo Sapiens. That is, we reduce the number of genes we pass on, to maximise the statistically expected number of genes that survive.
    My point is simply that you can't derive a moral statement from "all species are competing with each other". The conclusion that "we ought to ensure that long term survival of the species" does not follow from the premise "all species compete with each other".

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    So you define pain/suffering as a neurological reaction to some stimulus?
    Suffering is a conscious experience that is implicitly regarded by the being as being unpleasant or undesirable.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Not if it doesn't serve a purpose, of course.
    So, the sentience of non-human vertebrates is not actually in question.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    That assumes that the value of all sentient beings' neurological health are equal
    There's no reason to believe that they aren't. Again, the neurophysiological structures that allow a being to experience pain are evolutionarily ancient. The notion that humans can somehow feel more pain or suffering due to the same stimulus is just as bizarre as me claiming that myself and everyone born after me can experience more pain and suffering than everyone born before me, therefore our neurological health matters more.

    It was Darwin's birthday a couple of days ago, and what he demonstrated is that there's no dividing line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

    As he wrote: "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties.… The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldnt want to study neuroscience at a uni that didnt do active, current high impact research in the area...
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by viddy9)
    My point is simply that you can't derive a moral statement from "all species are competing with each other". The conclusion that "we ought to ensure that long term survival of the species" does not follow from the premise "all species compete with each other".
    Long term survival of genes =/= long term survival of the species

    "All species compete with one another" implies "the most competitive species will come to dominate" (the 'end goal' of evolution)

    If each species does its best to survive long term, then we will reach this 'end goal' sooner

    (Original post by viddy9)
    So, the sentience of non-human vertebrates is not actually in question.
    If you can't define sentience, then of course it is in question. You can't derive that statement from mine.

    There's no reason to believe that they aren't
    There is indeed, but only of course if you are interested in the long term survival of human genes.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.