Regan suggests that we find some alternative method for experimentation. While I agree with him on the overall point, I'm not sure what viable alternatives there are.
The only thought I had was using clones. But, are they counted the same as the original creature? I.e., I've a clone of a sheep. Does this sheep have the same rights as the original sheep, even though it was grown in a laboratory?
What other alternatives could we use? Would it be inhumane to use prisoners on death row? (Would such an act be more or less humane than employing the death penalty?)
Is there a way around the 'necessity' of experimentation in general? Maybe I'm focusing on the wrong aspect -- instead of finding alternatives so that the experimentation can continue, maybe we should be asking if the experimentation is even necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Alternatives famously include in-vitro research, clinical studies, and computer-generated models (as well as the more thorough review of older research results).
My guess is that most contemporary animal research, in addition to being morally suspect in principle, is a waste of scientific resources and expertise.
I've heard of the computer-generated models, mostly that there's so expensive and require sooo much information that they're only in the beginning stages right now...
That seems like it'd be the best bet, but I wonder what the error ratio would be.
In-vitro -- how would that work? Instead of poking a pig, we poke pig cells in a petree dish?
Post a Comment