Thursday, February 16, 2012

Some Thoughts on Animal Experimentation

A recent confluence of events motivated me to think more deeply about the use of animals in my research. The confluence:

The FT article reminded me how industrial farming, while commercially beneficial, has a dark side. I don't agree with PETA that all species are equal. I support it pushing this issue because, in an increasingly competitive economy, the pressure to use exploit anything will only mount. Finally, the lab boss's request recalls the similarity between the rationales both agribusiness and science use; namely, "the ends justify the means". Justifiable doesn't mean justified. There's always that twinge that gives me pause before the animal is fully anesthetized or when you are euthanizing it- the euphemism is "sacrificing". Unless we are willing to do more speculative experiments on humans, using animals for research, even when done properly, seems to be a necessary evil due to how little we know about disease.

Modern science is very much a business. Published papers are something like quarterly reports. Curing cancer, however, is different from making the next iPad. The creep of business vocabulary into science is just as disturbing as it was in medicine. Are grad students a waste of money because the cost of training them outweighs the data (widgets) they produce? Why not underspend on equipment for animal experimentation because the animals won't "complain"?

Unlike other blog entries, there's no promise of code. I'm also sure I'll edit the exposition. Even in the alpha version I hope I've conveyed that I'm not sure why appealing to "it's for science", especially as that becomes code more and more for "it's for the bottom line of my lab", is different from industry claiming cost-efficiency.

No comments:

Post a Comment