Hacker News Reader

Comment by aarongough | Hacker News Reader

It's always amazing to hear about advances like this. Articles like this always upset me a little as well though.

I don't think I'm overly sensitive (I'm a fighter, I enjoy a good steak and I'm happy to go hunting) but reading things like this make you realize how many of our medical advances come at the cost of intense discomfort for the animals that help pave the way...

I look forward to more advances, like the new methods that help us culture realistic skin samples independent of a human, that allow further advances to come at a reduced cost to the animals/people involved.

View on HN

Lobby your government to allow more and earlier research on human volunteers. Not only will this spare animals, it will also tremendously speed up research.

As someone who has (or had if you are a strong optimist) a rare form of cancer, I strongly dislike the restrictions on medical research. I understand the desire to prevent horrific abuses (e.g. Tuskegee) but I think the argument against experimentation in fully-informed, rational patients is weak at best. When my cancer comes back and if it lies beyond contemporary treatment, I invite them to pump me full of whatever they can think of. At worst, my outcome would be largely in line with my expected outcome -- but at least I had a modicum of hope. Either way, they are likely to learn something.

I do think that this is indeed closer to the pointy end of the stick when it comes to the ethical concerns of medical research, both for the trials involved and the implications of the technology. The first I am more than willing to pay - I have no concern for the lives of laboratory test organisms and take a staunchly Utilitarian approach, justified by my privileged knowledge of the "greater good". The second, I am wary of becoming over invested in as humanities credit rating sucks in that department =S

I think that treating anything that can feel pain as a 'laboratory test organism' is the sort of thinking that leads to gross human rights abuses and de-humanization in general. There's not a huge gap between ignoring the screams of small animals/primates and ignoring the screams of another human.

I'm by no means totally against animal testing, but I have to disagree strongly with your callous attitude toward the process. Animal testing should be done as humanely as possible.

I don't disagree, it was a cold and calculated assessment of ethics, which, to be honest, I don't have a lot of time for in discussion. I find it much better for one to state outright what they abhor or condone and we can frame a discussion about something worthwhile from there. It's not a calous attitude but a sweeping attempt to discuss the finer points rather than the elephant in the room.

The first I am more than willing to pay

I'm more than willing to buy a small country on your credit -- when it's not yours to offer it means nothing to say you are willing to pay it.

privileged knowledge of the "greater good"

You don't know the greater good, you define a greater good.

Utilitarianism is a failed foundation for Ethics, as far as I am informed, as it relies on an infinite regress to find the initial act for instance (thus defining the "greater good"), or omniscience in order to be aware of all possible outcomes... thus knowing the greater good from some priveleged position

EDIT: yes this may seem like an egotistical way of looking at it, but I'm trying to shirk the details and keep the feeling - even if that is mostly that I'm an opinionated dick... you may disagree, but that's the thing with opinions

The device used on the rats seems similar to the weaponized air tank in the horror/drama film "No Country For Old Men".

The device used in "No Country for Old Men" is called a Bolt Gun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol

It is routinely used to stun/kill various livestock in slaughterhouses... In this case it was a pneumatic bolt gun and probably something that they made from scratch for the film...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com