What's your ethical view on it? I didn't become one because of ethics but logically I think they're sound. Animals are pretty universally considered sentient, and it does seem a *little* messed up to kill them when there are alternatives.
-
-
I don't agree with this because I don't weight animal suffering and human suffering the same.
-
I don't either but I don't weight it zero and what's done in labs is (i) utterly ghastly, Mengele-level shit, and (ii) frequently gratuitous and also (iii) a complete waste of time and money I can talk about what I did if you have a strong stomach
-
Tweet unavailable
-
ok sure! I'm drinking now, so no problem going to untag everyone else after this, feel free to read on if you like folks
-
ok so my first lab was a corvid lab, strictly behavioral we trained em to hop on perches following lights, and to make choices about when to have food delivered this was cool and good, I had no problem with this
-
the next animal lab I worked in was birdsong neuroscience and this is what I had a problem with there were two main classes of protocols: in vivo neural monitoring, and cytology the cytology was . . . okay. ish. birds had to be killed to collect their brains . . .
-
so that we could slice them finely, for staining. The particular method of sacrifice, which was the working euphemism for killing, was a really gruesome approach called perfusion, where the chest was sliced across laterally at the aorta so the heart could exsanguinate the animal
-
The animals had to be alive for this, but they were deeply deeply and irreversibly anaesthetized, so while it was horrible to watch they didn't feel it. The in vivo monitoring was much worse I think.
- 28 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.