Do I want to know how they get mice with severe spinal cord injuries to test on? I'm guessing it's exactly what I think it is, but I'm wondering if there's another way that it happens.
Edit: that isn’t to say that this result isn’t exciting for human welfare. We’ll see if it translates…
Limpets don't even have brains, just cerebral ganglia, so it's likely it isn't really a sentient creature that has any conscious awareness of what is happening to it, but man, that scarred me. It felt like I was torturing something horribly and I knew that was not the career for me. There is no way I'd have ever been able to do that to a mouse.
I had a family member involved in a cancer research that used mice and although he admitted it was sad, he did call them heroes. Understandably, I don't think that satisfies anyone strongly aligned with animal rights. In many other sciences we've been able to use simulation as a first step, but that is still out of our reach for biological systems.
Also consider the number of really scary books/movies out there rooted in the idea of "medical utilitarianism." For one example, this issue is addressed in a show called Biohackers that I just started watching. And even in real life, people have tried to justify a lot of really sketchy stuff over the years, in the name of "the greater good".
I do not however like to view it as medical utilitarianism. The testing will happen regardless if the test subject are human or mice, because people do still want the medical cures. People are however less sad if an experiment accidentally killed a bunch of mice than if a bunch of human test subjects died. Historically people tend to use military service men as test subjects, which is why much of medical knowledge is based on test subjects of a specific gender (male) and age group (20-35). Not that long ago (~1950) people also used people with mental disabilities and orphans. Going just a decade earlier and people used prisoners and war and people deemed unwanted. Hopefully computers will one day replace the need for testing.
This situation would presumably only arise because somebody else previously made the decision not to perform that experiment on an animal, but instead wait until a human suffers enough to become desperate enough to volunteer. That decision resulted in human suffering (albeit in the form of the trolley problem). Was that decision acceptable? How much human suffering, and/or how many humans suffering, is equivalent to one animal? Does sapience make a difference to this calculation?
I'm not saying this makes animal testing OK. My point is just that testing only on human volunteers isn't a magical solution to this ethical problem.
Its a difficult decision to make, experimenting on either animals or people.
You'll never get that with humans even if you have plenty of volunteers.
It is rather that this is an important experiment that can't be done any other way and can have large benefit for humans
That's fair. My comment above was maybe overly glib in that sense. But I was just trying to capture the general spirit of the thing, not write an essay, due to limits of time, interest, and knowledge on my part.
I think the point still stands with this condition and will for the foreseeable future.
What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
No, because I'm not saying that is a position I personally hold. I'm merely presenting it as a position that I know that (some) people do hold.
My position here is, roughly speaking, "this (intentionally injuring mice or other animals) is an issue where there is a legit discussion to be had around the ethics of same." Of course I have my own opinion, but I don't really care to get into it. I just didn't think that the parent poster needed to be downvoted for raising the question.
Since your question implies some, are there reasons that we shouldn’t care about animals or other living creatures?
Obviously the phrase "they're living creatures" is a bit vague on this; bacteria and molds (and arguably viruses) are also living creatures but I don't think anyone considers it genocide to disinfect your counter with alcohol or something. I think we generally start drawing lines with animals.
Even within the scope of animals, I think we can still make reasonable concessions on things that are of sufficiently low intelligence to where we're not even 100% sure they feel pain in the same way that we do. Do I care if a mosquito suffers? No, not really, they're annoying dangerous little critters who aren't really having a lot of intelligent thought.
However, when we start getting into mammals (and possibly birds), I think it starts getting into more questionable territory. Most mammals (as far as I know) do have enough neural development to feel pain, to feel fear, and actually suffer in ways not completely dissimilar to humans. Since mice are mammals, there is an argument to be made that if we're hurting them, it's adding a lot of pain to the world.
-------
To be clear, I'm somewhat in the camp of "they're just mice, I care about helping humans more". I just wanted to play devil's advocate for a bit.
It doesn't automatically follow. I can entirely correctly, subjectively decide which living things I want to care about and which I do not. I can separate living things by a hierarchy of importance. Which is exactly what we do all the time with other people and our relationships to them (example: hey HN, let me know how much you love Donald Trump and where he ranks on your hierarchy of importance).
I don't care about mice. I care about puppies (insert reasons here). That is not an irrational position. It's entirely subjective either direction. Any attempt to apply logic or science to the premise is inherently absurd. What we each value and why is subjective, it's personal; it inherently can't be objective. Rat and mice fans might likely pick those over puppies or kittens for example, due to their personal experiences and their hierarchy of values.
No, I wouldn't kill or injure the mice myself for a living. I think it's grotesque.
I wouldn't perform abortions for a living, it's sometimes a very grotesque process. I'm entirely pro-choice.
I wouldn't butcher animals for a living, it's often quite a disgusting process as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with other people doing so. And I have no problem with eating a steak. That's not contradictory or hypocritical.
I also would never want to be a nurse. I fully understand what nurses do. The human body can be quite disgusting at times. I'm glad nurses exist.
Such things are not contradictory. You can find an action and outcome acceptable, while not enjoying (or glorifying) all aspects of the process in question.
Once you cross the line of: all living things matter without exception and should never be killed, on to: some living things do not matter as much as others (eg plants for consumption) - then you're down to subjectivism as your argument across the board.
The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (what should the protections be, should there be any protections, how many should there be, who decides, for which living things, and on and on). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective. What it comes down to is majority politics ultimately: how many people can you get to agree with you, such that you can pass legislation in your preferred direction.
The subjective aspects of a difficult question doesn’t mean all takes are equally valid. That’s the same as giving up and saying that nothing means anything.