Honestly, at this point I think I'd support a blanket ban on invasive animal testing. Find humans who you can pay to undergo your protocol. If you can't find willing subjects, maybe your research doesn't pass a cost-benefit analysis and your agenda should die.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hm. I don't have the same objection to near-painless killing for practical use, but modern agriculture welfare practices are pretty awful too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Even there, discounting plant welfare, opportunity costs abound for wild animals forced off land It's pretty bleak I'm not optimistic about human ability to live without causing suffering, but we probably have an obligation to minimize it proximately and/or marginally
-
My experiments consisted of removing bird skull tops, inserting circuits, and replacing skull with cement so the bird could be wired to a neural monitor Some birds also had tubes inserted into their lungs to measure air pressure Skull caps and tubes often became detached
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Think it was just what we had on hand near the aviary. In the main lab anaesthetic gas plus decapitation was the norm.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Heh fair point. I guess I discount that out of hand. I'm not sure the choice of utility weighting needs to be so start or arbitrary, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're telling me that you have less of a problem with creating humans specifically to do weird, lethal shit to them? You think that's the ethical high ground? You're a misanthrope.
-
W . . . hat? I don't think that falls out of their tweet (??!)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not in neuroscience. There's too much there that you simply cannot see without destroying the subject. Get human subjects to sign up? Are you high? A little tiny slice could permanently and profoundly alter a person if it doesn't kill them.
-
This is not a stance against animal testing, it's ultimately a stance against neuroscience. Any other field tends to get a much better ratio of suffering to data.
- Show 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.