Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: Animals of Research Message-ID: <7767@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: 25 Apr 88 23:37:24 GMT References: Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 14 In article jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: >I think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals >and do the same on them. There wasn't enough information in the original posting to determine whether the cited animal research was for its own sake (in which case I agree that it should not have been done) or in pursuit of some other problem (in which case it might have been justified). Consider: Suppose that you could reduce human suffering and prolong human life as the probable result of performing experiments that would require inflicting pain and death on several (non-human) animals, and that no other approach would succeed. Would the experiments be justified? I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about what the appropriate criteria are.