Veggie Regular
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
I'm curious about your views of two possible exceptions:
A) Research that involves merely observing animals in their natural habitats without altering their experience or environment in any way;
B) Research with pet dogs that doesn't cause suffering. For example, because of many years of research findings indicating that positive (non-punitive) training is more effective than harsh punitive techniques, most dog trainers now do the latter.
A) Research that involves merely observing animals in their natural habitats without altering their experience or environment in any way;
B) Research with pet dogs that doesn't cause suffering. For example, because of many years of research findings indicating that positive (non-punitive) training is more effective than harsh punitive techniques, most dog trainers now do the latter.
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 240
Well surely A would just be observing them in the wild? I mean that's a bit difference to putting them in cages and torturing them.
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 
I'm curious about your views of two possible exceptions:
A) Research that involves merely observing animals in their natural habitats without altering their experience or environment in any way;
B) Research with pet dogs that doesn't cause suffering. For example, because of many years of research findings indicating that positive (non-punitive) training is more effective than harsh punitive techniques, most dog trainers now do the latter.
I'm curious about your views of two possible exceptions:
A) Research that involves merely observing animals in their natural habitats without altering their experience or environment in any way;
B) Research with pet dogs that doesn't cause suffering. For example, because of many years of research findings indicating that positive (non-punitive) training is more effective than harsh punitive techniques, most dog trainers now do the latter.
A) depends on what the ethologist is trying to get out of the study. For example I was researching capybaras and I read some studies that assessed how useful they would be to domesticate and use for meat. I am against that research. If an observational study was done that looked at, I don't know, predator-prey relationships with capybaras and anacondas to see how human activity was affecting them, with the aim to see what we could do to reduce our influence on their lives, I don't have a problem with it.
B) That research would have involved using harmful punishment techniques on the dogs and comparing it against positive reinforcement techniques. A woman from uni (I can't really call her a friend any more) is doing her dissertation on methods of castration in newborn male lambs. She's going to be using a method she thinks, and the scientific community already knows, is cruel and painful and comparing it against a less cruel and painful method. I can't support that.
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Herbivorous Urchin
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,721
A) If your talking about observing them in the wild, and not damaging or even really letting them know you're there, then that's cool.
B) Why do we really to "Research" On dogs anymore, haven't we done enough damage to them?
B) Why do we really to "Research" On dogs anymore, haven't we done enough damage to them?
Quote:
|
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
|
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Things I would be in support of:
Observing wildlife a la Jane Goodall.
Population studies through noninvasive methods (ie scat collection).
Clinical trials designed to help pets who are already ill.
Observing wildlife a la Jane Goodall.
Population studies through noninvasive methods (ie scat collection).
Clinical trials designed to help pets who are already ill.
slops, gloops, and gruels.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthling
A) depends on what the ethologist is trying to get out of the study. For example I was researching capybaras and I read some studies that assessed how useful they would be to domesticate and use for meat. I am against that research. If an observational study was done that looked at, I don't know, predator-prey relationships with capybaras and anacondas to see how human activity was affecting them, with the aim to see what we could do to reduce our influence on their lives, I don't have a problem with it.
B) That research would have involved using harmful punishment techniques on the dogs and comparing it against positive reinforcement techniques. A woman from uni (I can't really call her a friend any more) is doing her dissertation on methods of castration in newborn male lambs. She's going to be using a method she thinks, and the scientific community already knows, is cruel and painful and comparing it against a less cruel and painful method. I can't support that.
A) depends on what the ethologist is trying to get out of the study. For example I was researching capybaras and I read some studies that assessed how useful they would be to domesticate and use for meat. I am against that research. If an observational study was done that looked at, I don't know, predator-prey relationships with capybaras and anacondas to see how human activity was affecting them, with the aim to see what we could do to reduce our influence on their lives, I don't have a problem with it.
B) That research would have involved using harmful punishment techniques on the dogs and comparing it against positive reinforcement techniques. A woman from uni (I can't really call her a friend any more) is doing her dissertation on methods of castration in newborn male lambs. She's going to be using a method she thinks, and the scientific community already knows, is cruel and painful and comparing it against a less cruel and painful method. I can't support that.
So for part "A" it sounds like you're not against the methodology but merely against that particular goal.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by peace
Things I would be in support of:
Observing wildlife a la Jane Goodall.
Population studies through noninvasive methods (ie scat collection).
Clinical trials designed to help pets who are already ill.
Things I would be in support of:
Observing wildlife a la Jane Goodall.
Population studies through noninvasive methods (ie scat collection).
Clinical trials designed to help pets who are already ill.
Hmmm. The animal still can't give consent for such a trial and if it's a previously untested drug or procedure there's always the possibility it will do harm and worsen whatever illness the pet already has.
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthling
A woman from uni (I can't really call her a friend any more) is doing her dissertation on methods of castration in newborn male lambs. She's going to be using a method she thinks, and the scientific community already knows, is cruel and painful and comparing it against a less cruel and painful method. I can't support that.
A woman from uni (I can't really call her a friend any more) is doing her dissertation on methods of castration in newborn male lambs. She's going to be using a method she thinks, and the scientific community already knows, is cruel and painful and comparing it against a less cruel and painful method. I can't support that.
Grr, that is disgusting.
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997
So for part "A" it sounds like you're not against the methodology but merely against that particular goal.
So for part "A" it sounds like you're not against the methodology but merely against that particular goal.
Yes, that's what I said.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
That's true...it's a dilemma. You're assuming though, that the animal wishes to live and if the trial works the animal might be able to enjoy life again. I'm sure this is a terrible decision for those who must face this.
slops, gloops, and gruels.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by peace
That's true...it's a dilemma. You're assuming though, that the animal wishes to live.
That's true...it's a dilemma. You're assuming though, that the animal wishes to live.
Doesn't seem so unreasonable to me! We cannot know for sure what any animal thinks but we can make inferences based on observations. If an animal searches for food and water and attempts to escape danger, it is more reasonable to assume that the animal does than that it does not wish to live. There is nothing specific to nonhuman animals in this reasoning. You can know with certainty your own thoughts and whether you want to live but you cannot know with certainty that any other human does.
Herbivorous Urchin
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,721
People got along with animals for thousands of years before modern animal testing.
Quote:
|
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
|
| Posting Rules | |