Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!rebel!didsgn!till From: till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: Animals of Research Message-ID: <242@didsgn.UUCP> Date: 26 Apr 88 09:03:49 GMT References: <7767@brl-smoke.ARPA> Organization: Digital Design Inc., Norcross GA Lines: 30 In article <7767@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > 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. Consider... What if the answer was "No" ?? There was a profound utterance in A C Clarke's "Deep Range" about how we might be judged by whoever rises to do so depending on the way we have treated our fellow creatures... A frightening thought, is it not? ------------------------------------------------------------ Till Noever Path: till@didsgn.UUCP or gatech!rebel!didsgn!till ------------------------------------------------------------