(image via Ron Reznik)
Good Morning SuperForest!
To preface this post, I’d like to say that I see SuperForest as a document of a journey. This blog is the personal journey of we SuperForesters as we try out different aspect of sustainability and New Environmentalism.
For me, SuperForest is an excellent way to begin discussions about topics that I am internally conflicted about, in the interest of finding new answers and trying to lead a better and more enlightened life. When a group of people discusses a topic, it becomes easier for me to see where exactly I personally stand. That way, we can all communicate from a more centered place.
A few days ago, I posted about a team of scientists at JPL building a device powerful enough to levitate a mouse. A few comments came in saying that although the science was indeed cool, it is a shame to see animal testing featured on SuperForest.
My initial gut reaction was: This ain’t vivisection. Mousey gets to fly! Cheers for mousey and cheers for science.
But something gave me pause. I was basing how the mouse felt on how I would feel, were I given the opportunity to float weightless. I was applying my human predilections to a mouse.
Turns out that unsurprisingly, un-drugged mice weren’t all that into floating. Only the sedated ones seemed to be okay with it.
Which leads to me my question for you, oh wise SuperForesters:
When, if ever, is it alright to use animals to advance scientific understanding?
Is the answer never? Only for peaceful and medical studies? Only for weapons research? Only to find ways to help sick humans? Not for all humans but only for some? Is animal experimentation permitted in the name of curing sick children? Can the military do it? Can NASA do it? Can you break a mouse’s back to help a human walk again?
And if it is at times permissible, which animals are permissible exactly? Is experimentation on gorillas a no-no, but on eels it’s okay? Where do fish and insects weigh in, and do they even count? What about birds? Is it fair to divide the species into categories and say: These creatures are a “yes,” but these ones are a “no?”
Or, is even trying to weigh the pros and cons getting sucked into a debate for which there is no clear answer? Animal testing has saved a lot of human lives, but cost a lot of animals their lives. (And probably cost many researchers and scientists many a good nights sleep.) Animals are “innocent,” and the taking of innocent life is always a bummer. So when is it right?
Where do we collectively stand on this issue? I ask because I don’t know. I don’t know how I feel inside. I see many sides to this issue, and all as being valid.
In my head, the circuit goes like this: I love animals very much, but I love humans more. Humans need science to advance. Science depends on testing, and you can’t test on humans. If you can’t test on humans but you still need to test and you could use animals. But, I love animals! But, I do love humans more… Round and round and round I go.
I’m totally confused and I need your help.
Please leave your thoughts or answers in the comments and I’ll aggregate the responses for a new post.
Thank you very much to all the SuperForesters who commented on the original mouse post and prompted this interesting discussion!
-Jackson
Recent Comments