Comment by swamp40 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by swamp40 | Hacker News Reader

The University of Wisconsin has a reputation for being unusually liberal for a Midwest campus.

I can assure you that the Madison Veterinary school is far removed from that liberal slant.

There are several intensive essays involved in the Vet school application process, and if they get a hint that you are applying because you've "always loved animals" and/or you "want to help ease their suffering", your application gets tossed fast.

That vet school is a serious business for serious professionals.

Maybe they are all like that - I don't know.

I have a feeling it's because the Midwest has such a strong farming background that the kids are already used to the animals getting slaughtered at the end of the season.

The corporations know the hardcore testing/experimentation is necessary, so they help make the school successful and also help mold the students' attitudes while they are young.

It's like being a soldier.

The rest of the world can argue about what's morally right or wrong, but you do your job, stay professional, push the boundaries, make discoveries and help mankind.

At the end of every experiment, the subjects get euthanized. SOP. Do it until it doesn't bother you anymore.

Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys.

It's hardcore, but somebody has to do it. (Or maybe not. But what do I know?)

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Madison in general is one of the most left of center, left leaning (more liberal than liberal), cities in the country, not just the midwest. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that the University is even more left than the city. I think the difference here is that this is an example of people seeing how their hot dogs and hamburgers are made and they are not used to it. Its messy and sometimes unpleasant. The people at the UW are highly ethical, talented, dedicated professional scientists who are doing their best give as much dignity to these test subjects as possible while at the same time trying to further science and the betterment of mankind.

> Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys.

Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical experiments as a means to an end, then why not perform them on humans for the maximum benefit? Unit 731's experiments provided agreeably valuable evidence, demonstrating the value in human experimentation; and it's hotly debated that many tests on animals are applicable to humans to begin with, demonstrating the overstated value of animal experimentation. So if it's true that knowledge trumps morality, we're not taking advantage of that fact.

Where in this article did it state that the experiment was unethical?

Only 2 people objected over what was essentially 2 different committees (with different people on those committees). Both committees approved two different, yet closely similar, plans. The person they quoted, who objected on the similar plan 2 years ago, seemed to object based on nothing but his feelings. In the article he stated, “We’re killing baby monkeys.” That is not anything near a reasoned, logical, scientifically backed statement on why their plan was unethical. Would it have been ethical if they proceeded with their plan, let it run its course for the year, then let the monkeys live until their natural deaths?

Sorry, I thought it was implied. Like an article about baby eating or something. If your argument is that you're a nihilist and don't value life (be it baby monkey or human) then that's something I can reason with, but if you're saying it's ethical to kill baby monkeys and not humans, re-read my post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com