Indirect support of animal research (kind of)

[wannalift]

I've been reading a lot lately and some of my favorite books are about neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and such. I guess I am just kind of looking past (unconsciously perhaps?!? ) all mention of the animal experimentation that led to a lot of the hypotheses in the books. Is it rational to boycott a whole branch of science? I obviously don't support a lot of their methods(I don't even buy the books, just borrow from the library), but it's impossible to page through without running across it. Some of the experiments are really rather cruel to boot

[JP]

reading some pinker?

same here, i read similar type of books sometimes. The way i see it its almost like reading a novel where people have a 9animal abused based) meal.

As it stands it is an accepted method of getting some data together, one among many, and i can see it being phased out slowly like some other outdated methods of the past. The books and articles will remain, and references to them for a long time still.

perhaps being optimistic. Dont think vivisection will disappear before the number of animals used in food production will drop dramatically...

[Konstantin]

This is an interesting area that to an extent sums up basic research areas of vivisection well. On a basic level, animal brains are helpful to study human ones. For example, if you cause bleeding, similar things happen. But this doesn't make it useful now for two reasons. One is that we're looking at things on a much more intricate levels where there are differences that scupper comparisons. The other is that we have technology which enables things people barely believe are possible.

I think a lot of brain illnesses have history that make interesting reading, especially Parkinsons with all the advances from one session of autopsies. And the animal tests reflect what I kjust wrote above.

You might want to read stuff at the bottom of this page:
http://speakcampaigns.org/sitepages.php?a=24

with stuff like this:

Dr Med. Bernhard Rambeck, Director of the Biochemistry Department of the Society for Epilepsy Research in Bielefield-Bethel, West Germany stated:
“As a scientist, I am of the opinion that animal experiments bring no progress in the diagnosis and therapy of epilepsies. I have a well-founded suspicion that similar facts apply in other areas of medicine.”

because a history that involves animal tests isn't an endorsement of it, and you reading about it doesn't mean you're contributing to it.

[Gelert]

because a history that involves animal tests isn't an endorsement of it, and you reading about it doesn't mean you're contributing to it.

Exactly. It would be different if you were citing the primary source in an article to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, as the citation would be adding to the "value" of the research from the perspective of an agency considering the authors' scientific merit in the form of a metrics-based assessment of contribution. Such agencies could include the organisations that fund further research...

But since that does not apply in this instance, then it is not a big issue. Arguably you are no more condoning animal experimentation than you would support slavery by buying a popular history book on the topic.

Which brings me on to a related dilemma - what happens if the above is the case and you are a scientist dealing with the primary literature? Scientists are supposed to be impartial and objective observers of natural phenomena. That would suggest that the ethical dimension should not interfere with how such work is viewed. But there is clear precedent that it does. Experiments on humans which have been viewed as unethical in retrospect are for the most part ignored on the grounds of repugnance. Yet a minority believe that the best thing to do is use what can sometimes be data that offers an unique insight into a problem so that the sacrifice is not totally in vain.

So, from that precedent what can be done for the analogous story of non-human animal experiments? Hard to say. But in both cases it is unusual (but not certain) that the data obtained is not in some way tainted (or sometimes totally compromised) by the methodology applied by the researchers, often as a direct consequence of their own peculiar world-view and the prejudices that stem from it. Which leads back to just critically evaluating the work and seeing if it stands. It seldom does.

[wannalift]

reading some pinker?

Those books are actually up soon on my que at the library. I guess if there is one thing we can get from those subjects it would be human predictability

[wannalift]

This is an interesting area that to an extent sums up basic research areas of vivisection well. On a basic level, animal brains are helpful to study human ones. For example, if you cause bleeding, similar things happen. But this doesn't make it useful now for two reasons. One is that we're looking at things on a much more intricate levels where there are differences that scupper comparisons. The other is that we have technology which enables things people barely believe are possible.

I think a lot of brain illnesses have history that make interesting reading, especially Parkinsons with all the advances from one session of autopsies. And the animal tests reflect what I kjust wrote above.

You might want to read stuff at the bottom of this page:
http://speakcampaigns.org/sitepages.php?a=24

with stuff like this:

Dr Med. Bernhard Rambeck, Director of the Biochemistry Department of the Society for Epilepsy Research in Bielefield-Bethel, West Germany stated:
“As a scientist, I am of the opinion that animal experiments bring no progress in the diagnosis and therapy of epilepsies. I have a well-founded suspicion that similar facts apply in other areas of medicine.”

because a history that involves animal tests isn't an endorsement of it, and you reading about it doesn't mean you're contributing to it.

Thanks for the info.

[wannalift]

because a history that involves animal tests isn't an endorsement of it, and you reading about it doesn't mean you're contributing to it.

Exactly. It would be different if you were citing the primary source in an article to be published in the peer-reviewed literature, as the citation would be adding to the "value" of the research from the perspective of an agency considering the authors' scientific merit in the form of a metrics-based assessment of contribution. Such agencies could include the organisations that fund further research...

But since that does not apply in this instance, then it is not a big issue. Arguably you are no more condoning animal experimentation than you would support slavery by buying a popular history book on the topic.

I feel a better analogy would be me buying something made through slavery. This is kind of how I feel about the books because they seem to owe much of their existence to the experiments that others had run.

Which brings me on to a related dilemma - what happens if the above is the case and you are a scientist dealing with the primary literature? Scientists are supposed to be impartial and objective observers of natural phenomena. That would suggest that the ethical dimension should not interfere with how such work is viewed. But there is clear precedent that it does. Experiments on humans which have been viewed as unethical in retrospect are for the most part ignored on the grounds of repugnance. Yet a minority believe that the best thing to do is use what can sometimes be data that offers an unique insight into a problem so that the sacrifice is not totally in vain.

So, from that precedent what can be done for the analogous story of non-human animal experiments? Hard to say. But in both cases it is unusual (but not certain) that the data obtained is not in some way tainted (or sometimes totally compromised) by the methodology applied by the researchers, often as a direct consequence of their own peculiar world-view and the prejudices that stem from it. Which leads back to just critically evaluating the work and seeing if it stands. It seldom does.

I actually do have to deal with this as I work as an air quality engineer. One of the projects I work on deals with Air Toxics and what is considered to be acceptable risk levels for our local population. Many (pretty much all) of the standards have come about from at least some degree of animal testing to determine what the lethal and or cancer-causing concentrations are in both short and long-term exposure lengths for humans. Sigh.

[Gelert]

I feel a better analogy would be me buying something made through slavery. This is kind of how I feel about the books because they seem to owe much of their existence to the experiments that others had run.

But likewise the history book would owe its existence to the slave trade.

Tertiary literature (such as your book) is not the product of these studies. Primary literature such as the papers or technical reports derived from the experiments and other primary and secondary literature citing them in the non-grey literature would be akin to the produce of slavery.

I actually do have to deal with this as I work as an air quality engineer. One of the projects I work on deals with Air Toxics and what is considered to be acceptable risk levels for our local population. Many (pretty much all) of the standards have come about from at least some degree of animal testing to determine what the lethal and or cancer-causing concentrations are in both short and long-term exposure lengths for humans. Sigh.

Yes - sigh indeed.

[muchluv]

I want to buy a book for someone for Christmas: The Art of Concentration.

I already have the book, and it unfortunately references animal testing.

Can anyone tell me if the author would have just cited the journal etc, or would have actually had to pay money to use it, in this way my money actually supporting the testing if I buy it again?

[Konstantin]

I want to buy a book for someone for Christmas: The Art of Concentration.

I already have the book, and it unfortunately references animal testing.

Can anyone tell me if the author would have just cited the journal etc, or would have actually had to pay money to use it, in this way my money actually supporting the testing if I buy it again?

I believe not, as it would be in the public domain and anyone can use it. If I quote The Sun, I can do so as it's freely available and I may not have even bought it. Same for journals - although they may have subscribed to it to actually get hold of the article.

Maybe someone (Gelert) can expand/confirm?

[Konstantin]

I want to buy a book for someone for Christmas: The Art of Concentration.

I already have the book, and it unfortunately references animal testing.

Can anyone tell me if the author would have just cited the journal etc, or would have actually had to pay money to use it, in this way my money actually supporting the testing if I buy it again?

I believe not, as it would be in the public domain and anyone can use it. If I quote The Sun, I can do so as it's freely available and I may not have even bought it. Same for journals - although they may have subscribed to it to actually get hold of the article.

Maybe someone (Gelert) can expand/confirm?

Experiments on humans which have been viewed as unethical in retrospect are for the most part ignored on the grounds of repugnance. Yet a minority believe that the best thing to do is use what can sometimes be data that offers an unique insight into a problem so that the sacrifice is not totally in vain.

I would agree with the second. There has been so much learned from war, industrial accidents, stupidity, error, deliberate cruelty, attempted murders etc. that we would have done well to avoid, but lets benefit from them now they've happened.

[muchluv]

Gelert? Any idea on the book thingy?

[Gelert]

Can anyone tell me if the author would have just cited the journal etc, or would have actually had to pay money to use it, in this way my money actually supporting the testing if I buy it again?

Hard to say. The author have cited research published in a open access journal, or had access via an institutional subscription or a personal one to the journal. S/he may have spent something like £30 on buying 24h's worth of access to the article, or e-mailed the corresponding author asking kindly for a reprint.

Either way, money does not flow from the journal to the original research paper's authors. If it's open access, it may indeed flow the other way.

However, what does happen is that the more often that original article is cited in another peer-reviewed journal article, its importance increases. These days many countries assess the quality of the science done by its scientists by some kind of impact assessment, usually assisted by some bibliometric methods - e.g. Prof Jo Bloggs at the Uni of Blankshire published four papers in a journal of impact factor 5.5 or more, and each one was cited 9.4 times on average, whereas Dr. Jim Jones at Sandford College published four papers in journals of IF 3.4-3.8 and each one was cited 2.9 times on average. Blankshire gets more cash, Bloggs gets herself a payrise, Sandford gets less cash and decides to close its chemistry department. Jones finds it harder to get funding and eventually sacks it to go and work as a high class male escort. Etc.

Another part of such an exercise often involves measuring "indicators of esteem" - these are often memberships of expert panels or invitations to talk at international conferences, but thinking creatively could also be inclusion of your work in the broader media - things such as pop sci books.

So to answer your question more directly, no your purchase of the book is not funding animal work, unless the author decides to give a chunk of the royalties away to the institute of chimp molestation.

It may have some marginal role in boosting the esteem indicators or bringing the work to the attention of someone who may cite it (if both the original research and the citing article sit within the time period of the assessment). So it's fairly negligible and the guilt is only of the God-kills-a-kitten-every-time-you-masturbate kind...

[muchluv]

Thankyou Gelert! Felt a bit weird butI trust in your advice and indeed bought the book.