The story of the drug Copaxone - one of the most important drugs against multiple sclerosis - shows the problematic nature of setting limits for basic research, even when it comes to a sensitive subject such as animal experiments
The story of the drug Copaxone - one of the most important drugs against multiple sclerosis - shows the difficulty in setting limits for basic research.
Multiple sclerosis is a chronic disease of the central nervous system, which affects the normal functioning of nerve cells. When the nerve cells do not function properly, the brain and spinal cord are also unable to function and the whole body is damaged. Many patients live with the disease for many years, but it can seriously damage the quality of life and lead to disabilities, paralysis, impaired vision and even impaired thinking and emotions that make us human.
It is not external factors that cause the disease, but rather the body's own immune system. In MS patients, the immune system goes out of control and attacks the myelin layers, which surround and insulate the nerve cells and help them transmit electrical currents. Diseases in which the body attacks itself are called 'autoimmune diseases' and multiple sclerosis is one of the most common and severe of them.
The basic research in multiple sclerosis must be conducted on laboratory animals that themselves have the disease. In order to make the animals sick with multiple sclerosis, the researchers inject them with a protein that 'stimulates' their immune system and causes it to attack the myelin in a mechanism similar to that of multiple sclerosis in humans. The researchers can now try different drugs on these animals, with the aim of curing them and proving the effectiveness of the drug - and then put it on the market as a drug intended for humans as well.
The laboratory of Professor Ruth Arnon from the Weizmann Institute has been involved in the research of multiple sclerosis for many years. As part of the study, the researchers in the laboratory tried to produce a new protein that could stimulate the immune system with high efficiency. Such a protein was supposed to cause disease in animals, which would be useful as a research tool in multiple sclerosis. But things don't always work out as expected. When Professor Arnon (in research in collaboration with Prof. Michael Sela and Dr. Deborah Teitelbaum) tried to inject the protein into animals, they adamantly refused to get the disease. In this respect, the study failed miserably, but the researchers had another idea. Although the injected protein does not cause the model disease for multiple sclerosis, they knew that its physical properties are similar to those of myelin. Is it possible that injecting the protein into the sick animals will help to 'distract' the immune system and make it attack the injected protein, instead of the myelin sheath which is so important to the body?
In order to test the idea, the new polymer was injected into a group of guinea pigs (crutches), and then the disease was induced in the guinea pigs. The results were above and beyond what was expected. Out of all the guinea pigs that were supposed to develop the model disease for multiple sclerosis, only 20% got the disease. In contrast, in the control group that did not receive the new polymer, 80% of the guinea pigs developed the disease. The new protein also reduced the severity of the disease in the few animals that were infected.
At this point, the researchers realized that they had succeeded in discovering a new and successful drug for the multiple sclerosis model disease in guinea pigs. But from this point to proving that the drug is also good for use in humans, there is still a long way to go. The researchers had to show that the drug also works in animals that are more similar to humans. For this they conducted experiments on rhesus monkeys and beavers. Even in the monkeys, the results were extraordinary: out of nine monkeys that were paralyzed due to multiple sclerosis, seven recovered completely. It was only thanks to the presentation of these results, which were obtained from experiments on monkeys, that Professor Arnon, in collaboration with a neurologist in the USA, was able to receive a research grant from the NIH (National Institute of Health in the United States) in the amount of two million dollars, which allowed them to conduct clinical trials in human patients.
The clinical trials were extremely successful and the Teva company undertook the development of the substance as a drug, which was released on the market under the name Copaxone. Today, Copaxone is sold in 47 countries around the world, including the United States, Canada, Israel and European Union countries. Over 100,000 patients with multiple sclerosis, who if it were not for Copaxone would have paralysis and brain defects, can continue their lives and function as human beings. All of this would not have happened if it were not for the animal experiments, which were part of basic research that was not originally intended to find a cure for multiple sclerosis.
According to Professor Arnon, "in order to show the effectiveness of the material, it is impossible to avoid doing experiments on experimental animals. Even before you can start clinical trials on patients, you must do experiments on experimental animals that show the safety of the substance. It is impossible to avoid this when trying to develop drugs."
The dignity of the animals is in its place. A person who burns cats for pleasure has one place - in prison. But we must always remember that the animal experiments in the research laboratories advance human knowledge and health. The drugs created in research can cure hundreds of thousands of people. Is it still possible to argue that the price - in the lives of a limited number of animals - does not justify the result?
Thanks to Professor Ruth Arnon from the Weizmann Institute, who gave a lecture on copaxone and animal experiments at the last Ilanit conference on experimental biology.
On the same subject:
38 תגובות
I just want to know what happened in the experiment
Several quotes:
Regan, who is not the first to criticize the consequences of utilitarianism, proposes (and is not the first), to recognize the fundamental rights of every individual, which cannot be eliminated by calculations: serious injuries in particular cannot be "converted" for any pleasure, because that would be Violation of his "fundamental victories". Regan's innovation is in challenging the assumption that only human beings deserve basic rights. Regan shows that this restriction is arbitrary, and states that anyone who has a certain range of mental qualities, which result in his/her well-being being harmed, has "intrinsic value", and therefore deserves basic rights, no less than any other individual with "intrinsic value".
It is not easy to exercise fundamental rights, because in reality they are not only weighed against the pleasures of others, but also against their own fundamental rights. When the exercise of the rights of one individual necessarily takes place at the expense of the rights of another - someone must be harmed. Regan acknowledges this, and emphasizes - against the utilitarian view - that the conflict should not be resolved by minimizing the general damage, but that the most basic rights should be given decisive weight throughout the process; Likewise, if the choice is between a certain harm to the many, versus a more serious harm to the few, one must choose to harm the many. Only in cases where the choice is between a particular injury to the many, versus an absolutely identical injury to the few, should one choose injury to the few.
But here an amusing twist occurs. The writer of the news about Reagan denies it, and says of his own opinion that:
He claims that according to utilitarianism, meat "production" may be considered justified, because all the pleasures of the people involved, directly and indirectly, must be taken into account; It is impossible to know in advance that the final calculation will lead to the disqualification of the "production" (therefore it is necessary to prohibit in advance the violation of fundamental rights). This criticism is exaggerated. The harm to animals in the food industries is so extreme that it cannot be "converted" into the pleasure of all the restaurant diners along with the salary of all the farmers and merchants together.
And therefore, I change my question in the previous post, and ask another question in its place:
If Mr. Goldstein believes in Reagan's moral theory with all his heart, then he should be ready to sacrifice the lives of five billion people, in order to save five billion mice... and one more. There is no difference between the rights of one creature versus those of another creature - even if it is a mouse versus a human.
Is this moral in his eyes?
Regarding your question, Michael, the answer is also amusing, and I quote:
It is impossible to finish the review on the argument for animal rights, without referring to Regan's somewhat embarrassing treatment of the most victims of the food industries - poultry and fish. Regan "gives" rights to complex beings, "autonomous" as he puts it: those capable of feeling, grasping in their consciousness, remembering, believing in simple facts, including facts about their own future, wanting things and initiating actions in order to satisfy those desires - all this with a psychological identity that lasts over time. Once the animals "meet" these requirements - they are "entitled" to full rights. But here Regan is surprising and states that the necessary features exist, apparently, only in mammals aged one year or older! This statement, not only is it questionable in terms of biological sorting (parrots and crows have a less developed consciousness than rodents?), but that here, without reason, all the animals that lack some of the required qualities have been abandoned. Is the ability to suffer morally meaningless, simply because the animal is not "autonomous" enough?! Regan does not answer this. He only claims, by the way, that his moral theory requires avoiding institutionalized exploitation of poultry, because it is difficult to mark boundaries, and poultry should benefit from the benefit of the doubt.
That is, according to the author of the news, even bacteria can deserve rights even though they are not sufficiently 'autonomous'.
Roy:
I haven't read it, but I'll try to take advantage of the fact that you did.
Does the argument there also mean that taking antibiotics (which kill millions of bacteria) is also wrong?
interesting.
The claim is that animals have rights just like humans. The right to life, freedom, etc.
Hypothetical situation:
I have a barn, with grains of wheat that will keep fifty men alive when winter comes.
There are mice that want to eat the wheat grains.
According to Regan's theory, spreading poison to kill the mice is an unethical idea. Dispersing the poison will keep fifty people alive, but kill... let's say... a hundred mice. According to Regan this is a clearly unethical action, because mice have the same rights as humans.
In fact, even if it was one mouse versus a million humans, it would still be an unethical action, according to Regan.
Don't you see a problem with this idea?
There is no relevance to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the experiments.
From a moral point of view, animal experiments are wrong.
Why?
Type in Google: "The argument for animal rights". There you will find a video and an article translated into Hebrew by the philosopher Tom Regan. exciting.
I would like to clarify that my previous response was somewhat blunt, but it was not intended to express my opinion on how morality should affect our lives, but rather to clarify how our lives are affected by the free forces derived from natural selection that also operates within our civilized (or wild) society and has nothing to do with freedom provided by the authorities (anywhere in the world) to citizens.
Hanan:
For a very long time (a hundred thousand years or more) man has been developing in concepts that also include and perhaps mainly in non-physiological directions. Therefore, the evolution of man is mainly cultural, and also includes the innovations of technology and medicine. You will no longer be able to separate the development of man from his cultural development. Hence, both the serious harm that man inflicts on his gene pool by allowing genetically "damaged" people to continue to live and produce offspring, as well as the genetic correction that is upon us, are an integral part of human evolution. All of this also includes the wider possibilities for those whose hands reach and the moral/immoral attitude of the society to the weak within it. The forces of free evolution are also at work in human society.
Hanan:
Your claims are simply not true, especially when they are directed at us.
Do you know the opinion of any of us on the need for state funding for medical insurance?
Maybe you can be presented as an egoist who only cares about himself and not about those who suffer from diseases and yet (you'll be surprised!) want to live?
Of course, in an "advanced" environment, the genetic defects are less disturbing, but the dependence on those technologies is increasing and you ignore the fact that the approach
Technologies are a function of money. Already today, who can finance cutting-edge medicines for tens of thousands of shekels per month?
Our point of view is egoistic and narrow-minded, of course everyone takes care of themselves and their immediate surroundings, with all that entails, but the "price" will be paid by our descendants.
And now let's think for a moment, if our start is to survive let's say for another 100
A year (a point in time in historical terms), with the hand on the heart the feeling is heavy and the question marks are big.
If they had asked my grandfather it would have been much easier for him to answer.
Roy:
Lahnan's words were indeed aimed at Lahnan. He did not treat like you that it is always worthwhile to improve the situation but actually warned us even about the results of the improvement we have already achieved.
Regarding the matter of empathy, nevertheless you wrote "Such empathy is required of every semi-intelligent creature living in herds, and wolves and horses also feel it" and thus you basically said that reason is a necessary and sufficient condition for its existence - this is the point I commented on.
Michael,
I did not associate reason with empathy, but interpreted the development of empathy as leading to social morality.
Regarding the issue of genetic defects, I tend to consider certain hereditary diseases such as Huntington's as a clear genetic defect. Likewise with a tendency to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc.
You are right when you point out that the environment must be considered, of course. Huntington's has remained with the human race with such a high incidence because it begins to affect only from the age of 40, after the birth of the offspring. That is, in particularly backward environments Huntington's is not a serious defect. Most people will die by age 40 anyway. But I refer to the ideal situation, and therefore see the aforementioned diseases as genetic defects that a person is better off without.
borrowed:
I didn't think you said I was retarded and even if you did it wouldn't impress me.
Nothing of what I said will be lost even if you say it a thousand times because true things will never be lost (not even in light of your incorrect interpretations of the theory of evolution or its meanings).
An example of a correct thing that I did not mention in my previous response (because I was under the impression that others addressed all of your errors and did not notice that this one was not addressed) is the fact that your definition of the concept of "mandatory" simply lacks any logic or value because you define "mandatory" by "non-mandatory". Nothing obliges a person to take any moral action except his conscience that may bother him and in terms of this definition it does not matter at all whether morality was created by evolution or by religion (of course this is nonsense because within the framework of religion there are dictated laws and their enforcement - whether they are moral or not Not only the liberation from religion allows the use of conscience which is a product of evolution).
Roy:
You write "By the way, have you considered that evolution can also take care of a sense of morality? I don't want to hurt other people because I can put myself in their shoes and empathize with their pain. Such empathy is required of every semi-intelligent creature that lives in herds, and wolves and horses also feel her."
Note that even though your conclusion is correct, the consideration leading to it is incorrect.
The fact that you can empathize with their pain still does not oblige you to help them and in fact it can be argued that the identification with the pain is not the result of reason at all since the latter is supposed to allow you to identify the pain but the "identification" is not the result of reason but of....morality!
I have already talked before (I hope you read the long discussion I had with Peter - I think it was around the article about B12) about by-products of beneficial properties.
The identification is sometimes a by-product and sometimes utilitarian.
There is evolutionary logic in having a reciprocity relationship where when you are in need I help you and vice versa. There is also evolutionary logic in helping those who carry many of the genes you carry (your relatives) when they are in need. All the rest are by-products (like for example our tendency to pity animals).
Of course, if I thought that Saul was even capable of digesting the above, I would address this paragraph to him as well.
Hanan:
You have a basic mistake (which I'm surprised Roy didn't comment on).
What is a genetic "defect"?
If the environment is not taken into account, this expression is not defined at all!
A genetic "defect" is something that causes a mismatch to the environment resulting in decreased survival.
When the environment changes, the genetic "defects" also change.
When the environment includes measures to treat various health problems, the severity of these problems decreases and if, on the other hand, intelligence occupies a more and more important place in our lives (I wish!!) then perhaps a lack of it (which has not yet been found a way to treat it) is a more serious genetic defect than, for example , the inability to digest milk.
For me, I end this discussion here.
My congratulations to Abi Blizovsky on another upgrade to the site (it's just a shame that the upgrade went live on Holy Shabbat). Finally, the responses are numbered and the fonts are also more readable (if there is another improvement that I didn't notice, we'd be happy to hear about it).
rise and succeed!!!
borrowed,
You added the rater. I listed the creatures in an arbitrary order. And I really don't have any problem with your question, as it somewhat clarifies the absurdity of your claim. Why should we really expect from dolphins what we wouldn't expect from humans, mice or monkeys? Each of them is a different and separate species.
A small addition for Roy:
You decided to rank: dolphins, monkeys, humans.
I can equally state that the rank: dolphins, monkeys, naked monkeys (Homo sapiens as Desmond Morris calls it).
Why expect from naked monkeys what we wouldn't expect from hairy monkeys?
To Michael:
I didn't imply that you were retarded, God forbid. I said, and not by implication, that the concepts you use are concepts that have lost their power in light of the theory of evolution.
Bye
In the theory of criminal punishment, there are basically two approaches: the retributive approach that looks to the past (this is the case in the laws of religions, and also with Kant, in contrast), and the utilitarian approach that looks to the future (according to this method, criminal punishment is for deterrence, prevention, and maybe even rehabilitation of the offender).
I read the comments of all the commenters, and they all agree on the point I already alluded to: a true evolutionist can only justify morality if it is utilitarian - forward-looking, and not if it is rewarding, because extreme evolution denies God and abstract morality.
If we return to the point where we opened: experiments on animals should be examined - through the lens of an extreme evolutionist - only according to the extent of their benefit to the human species, and if the benefit is greater than the cost, there is no reason to avoid it. That's why I gave examples from animals: they do what is beneficial to their species (and thus survived throughout the years of evolution), and there is no reason for the human species to avoid what is beneficial to it.
Bye
Hanan,
The future you describe is far away to the point of actual non-existence. Let's not forget that as technology and science can currently cure the symptoms of many diseases, we are already approaching the ability of genetic engineering to cure hereditary diseases.
I tend to believe that in the not too distant future we will be able to find out better and better our genetic defects and reduce their number in our gene pool.
In any case, I am sure and convinced that you would not want your relative to be allowed to lose his sanity and die in agony (peace be upon him), just because of concern about a future that is still very far away, and most likely will never come.
Shaul -
Human evolution stopped physiologically a few tens (and maybe hundreds) of thousands of years ago. From there on, evolution continued in a predominantly cultural way. We learned how to live in society and we learned to obey the rules. We developed theories of morality and Halacha. Societies that did not pass the natural selection test of some basic morality (and I'm talking here about the most basic morality, like incest) simply died out and no longer exist.
By the way, have you considered that evolution can also take care of a sense of morality? I don't want to hurt other people because I can put myself in their shoes and identify with their pain. Such empathy is required of every semi-intelligent creature that lives in herds, and wolves and horses feel it too.
At the end of your words, you ask me a truly strange question:
"I once read an article that, among other things, stated that among dolphins it is customary to rape the females; why should we be different?"
And I ask - why do we have to be similar?
Dolphins are dolphins.
Monkeys are monkeys.
We are human beings.
Do we have to act like monkeys because our ancient origin is from the monkey? To explain this wild logical leap you will have to really try hard.
To Roy
I see humanity in the future as a bunch of creatures full of genetic defects
that uses a variety of technologies to survive, in my estimation only the "creatures" with money will be able to survive because these technologies will be terribly expensive.
All the buds are already here, just open your eyes.
An instructive example is the quality of our two, thanks to the processed food we won
To inherit damaged genes in the subject and not to be harmed. But thanks to medical science and its achievements
The road is paved and it is certain that we will go "far".
What I am trying to say is that we are playing with fire and we may not have a future at all because our games encompass all fields, but that is another topic.
borrowed:
I was busy until now but I see that Roy Vigal answered you correctly.
The condescension you show when you try to send me every time to study just because you don't understand what I'm saying is just ridiculous.
I am not afraid of you classifying my words as thoughts of the 18th century. FYI - in my breathing I use an even older mechanism and I have no intention of replacing it.
The one who does not direct the conclusions arising from his sense of morality is precisely you.
The source of your sense of morality is evolutionary (as I have already explained many times) and therefore it is often in conflict with religion. This is the fact that makes you come up with interpretations to write instead of taking it literally.
Unfortunately the written text influences you so strongly that in some cases you prefer its immoral dictates to what you know within yourself to be. This is the origin of the definition of some of the laws as laws between a person and a place because it is clear that the person who violates these laws does not harm his friend and therefore does not actually deserve any punishment.
I'll be content with these things because your claims (wrong from start to finish) have already been addressed by others, just as I have already addressed endless comments on this site to you and the other emissaries of the flying spaghetti monster.
The theory of evolution explains how organisms develop from simple to more complex, thus it also includes human development. Evolution encompasses physiological development as well as development in the areas of thought, memory, sensations and emotions. There is no doubt that the peaks of the latter were embodied in man, but if they exist in man, there is no doubt that they appeared and exist in lesser levels in inferior animals, since not a single inherited trait appeared in the other. For example, it cannot be denied that animals engaged in hunting sometimes plan their steps - hence there is some level of thought in them. However, all of the above does not mean that man should behave like a cat or a worm.
Man (and also some animals) are a product of their reaction in the way of learning to environmental influences. This reaction is derived from the whole that constitutes their being at the moment of the reaction, which, among other things, is also derived from their genetic traits. That is, the said entity is a kind of combination of the genetic traits with the acquired traits.
The benefit inherent in adopting moral principles is not direct and not necessarily visible to the eye. Society educates (environmental influence) the person for moral behavior that depends on geographical location. Each person reacts in his own way to this influence (refer to the previous paragraph) and hence the great variety of types of morality in humans. The benefit to society from moral education is clear - a society that is easier to manage with less enforcement. The benefit of the individual is also clear: he fulfills what is required of him in the way of education and feels more complete with himself (he has less "kidney morality").
You will not find a direct connection between evolution and morality, but the evolution of man (which for a long time no longer depends so much on physiological changes) led him to the development of moral standards (at one level or another) since this has a developmental benefit.
I did not say that evolutionists have a tendency to deny morality.
I'm just saying (and not just me as I mentioned) that in a real examination of things a true evolutionist should come to the conclusion that there really is no morality (but only utilitarian morality).
In other words, if you have morals, it's only because you haven't yet internalized all the consequences of what you believe in (or because the process of political socialization ("socialization" in standard Hebrew) you went through in your infancy was successful as required).
And again I ask: explain to me why you should avoid what is absolutely acceptable among animals (referring to rape; in one of the nature magazines - one of those printed on chrome paper and full of advertisements for field trips abroad - I once read an article that, among other things, stated that among dolphins it is acceptable to rape the females (Why should we be different?)
Bye
borrowed,
There is no connection between evolution and moral teachings - neither positively nor negatively.
From the moment that during evolution man acquired the ability to live in a society that accepts its own laws, moral teachings of various kinds began to develop. I believe, as an 'evolutionist' according to your definition, that the fact that our ancient ancestors were of monkey origin, has nothing to do with the decisions that the human race needs to make these days.
It seems that in your eyes 'evolutionists' have a tendency to negate morality, and this is not the case. The theory of evolution analyzes the development processes of organisms. It does not determine what must be done in this regard in order to bring about the development in one direction or another of the person. The scientists leave that to the philosophers and politicians.
You have already had many arguments on this point, and I really don't understand why. Is it so difficult to accept the position that I believe in the science of evolution, but refuse to rely on it for moral assertions? After all, I don't rely on the laws of gravity or quantum theory to determine my personal morality either!
Just a small clarification: according to the utilitarians, theft should be avoided because my profit from the theft is less than the total loss (which, of course, also includes the damages I expect from this in the future).
The site owners believe in evolution; There is no debate about that, and only in this detail did I intend to speak on your behalf, of course.
The sentence you quoted from me is the deduction I make from this theory. As I mentioned, not only I do it, but also several philosophy lecturers with whom I spoke about an issue (the existence of a moral theory is mandatory in a society that believes in evolution).
The wrong that you see in the rape of women by an ancient father is only because you have already adopted a moral theory. But if, as a true evolutionist, you clarify with yourself the question of why, really, you should not rape or why avoid anything else wrong, and you come to the conclusion that your ancient ancestor did not avoid it, I really do not know why you should avoid it.
The sentence that ends your words is exactly the million dollar question: if we really originated from apes, why, really, adopt moral teachings that surpass them.
do you know the answer Several philosophers I spoke to told me no (the only reason not to steal is the desire not to be stolen from me - this is not a 'moral' moral theory; it is utilitarianism from the school of Bentham and Mill; they themselves were also embarrassed in dealing with the questions that their growth theory raised: Is it justified in the name of utilitarianism to take out Kill for all her crimes? Because it is clear that the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people (exhaustive definition of utilitarianism) will be a minority of criminals, and their suffering is null in a million compared to the benefit to society).
Harunat: So many times commenters on this site quote Judaism with a glaring lack of understanding of Judaism in particular and philosophy in general, and no one asked them not to speak on behalf of what they do not understand...
Bye.
Dear Saul,
I quote you –
"And therefore there is no reason to expect from us as descendants of monkeys what we would not expect from our ancestors"
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't tell the site owners what they believe. I'm sure they can do it well enough on their own.
Your comparison is invalid for a very simple reason. If, God forbid, your father raped women, you certainly won't tell me that, "You have no reason to expect me, as a descendant of my rapist father, not to rape women myself."
Makes sense? No. Both in your opinion, and in my opinion.
We may have originated from an ancient ancestor belonging to the apes, but there is no doubt that we can surpass our ancestors, as we have already proven many times.
A small addition: according to Kant, enforcement comes only because the criminal inevitably feels guilty (since the feeling of consistency and lack of contradiction are universal); That is, moral theory precedes enforcement and causes it and not the other way around.
Really, people who are incapable of being rational, according to Kant, have no responsibility for their actions; In the modern language - unlawful.
Therefore, the example you brought from Iran does not belong because in Iran they punish people for things they had no idea they would be guilty of (in Saudi Arabia they wanted to punish a girl who raped her!!!).
I again recommended studying the material.
To Michael,
Again you repeat the same philosophical error: using philosophical concepts of the 18th century (man is the 'treasure of creation' and has a special obligation), when we live in the 21st century with all its concepts, including your pious belief in evolution.
Those who believe in evolution know that man is nothing more than an accidental descendant of the apes or in the words of Desmond Morris: man is a 'naked ape', therefore there is no reason to expect from us as descendants of apes what we would not expect from our ancestors (my personal view, as you know, is different, but I wrote my response to fit the world view of the website owners; and if things really annoy you, then, probably, this world view is really flawed...).
Those philosophers I quoted are philosophy lecturers at the university and have a religious worldview that is difficult to describe in conventional terms (they are not secular but neither are they religious), partly because of the absurdity I was just standing on.
Moral theory, by definition, is binding!!!; Kant strove to find a moral theory, and the enforcement for him is to retaliate against the guilt that the person who violated the 'duty' should feel - the feeling of respect towards the obligation that should grow from the exercise of rationality which for Kant is the eternal and universal feeling inherent in man for consistency and the absence of contradiction (these are all Kantian concepts).
It wouldn't hurt you to study this subject called Torah 'Morality' (there is a nice series of books by the Open University: a course called Torah Moser; available at any student store)
I wrote that we would be happy to hear what the experts have for Kant, to say because he himself did not attach importance to non-rational people (lacking the instinct of consistency and the absence of contradiction), but perhaps he did refer to the prohibition of being cruel to them or to animals.
Bye
borrowed:
Although, as you know, I am actually in favor of conducting experiments on animals (only after a series of experiments on the structure, including on living tissues, where there is a chance that the drug will be disqualified even before it has been tried on the animals) but I think that the logic you use in your response is flawed.
The first argument - the one that offers us to take an example from the animals (to hear such a thing from you?!) is equivalent to the argument that if a retard is allowed to talk nonsense then an intelligent person should not comment on nonsense either.
The second part of your response refers to the possibility of a binding moral theory and is simply mixing gender with non-gender.
A moral theory cannot oblige by definition. The only thing that can oblige is an enforcement system. In this sense, if religion were moral and we lived in Iran, religion could be considered a binding moral doctrine (still narrowly because what was binding, even in this case, was the enforcement system)
That's why the real philosophers you talked to may be real but not so understanding.
As a humorous side note, I will add that the expression "experimenting on animals is perhaps inappropriate, but in the circumstances of saving human beings it is permissible" does not mean in other words what the sentence says "if there is an expert on Kant who is willing to address this important question, we would be happy to learn"
A small addition: it is possible that the new studies on the rationality of monkeys could have caused Kent some embarrassment; In any case, most experiments are not conducted in higher primates.
Ants are 'allowed' to kidnap captive ants and also to raise captive aphids to suck 'honey' from them.
The cuckoo is 'allowed' to raise her children in foreign nests (not only because it says so in the 'apartment for rent'), when many times her chick is bigger than the chicks of the adoptive mother, and at the first opportunity she rolls them out of the nest, and thus all the mercy of the adoptive mother is 'wasted' on the chicks that are not hers.
Why would Homo sapiens be forbidden from using weaker animals?
By the way, those who try to build a binding moral theory despite their absolute belief in evolution, will know and understand that even if this is possible (and in the conversations I had with some real philosophers they told me they don't know how this is possible), Kant himself (who believed in God but said that the source of morality He is human: man is autonomous: literal translation 'laws for himself') did not attach importance to those beings who do not have the ability to be rational (even humans, if they are retarded, for example); That is, there is no moral objection to conducting experiments on animals.
If there is an expert on Kant willing to address this important question, we would be happy to learn. In other words: animal experiments may be inappropriate, but in the circumstances of saving humans it is allowed.
By the way, I am more horrified by the things that are done to human beings, as Alterman said in one of his poems (from the period of the Second World War), that there is a lot of concern for art treasures if they are bombed, but no one cares about children's heads that won't run.
Bye.
Dan,
1. The problem with thilodiimide lay with the researchers and the pharmaceutical company, not with the experiments. The drug was not properly tested on pregnant animals, so its effects on fetuses were not detected either. Today we know better, and that's why drugs are passed through a wide variety of tests, which requires experiments in different patients at different times in their lives.
2. It is possible that aspirin is indeed toxic to rats (I don't have enough knowledge on the subject), but this is exactly the point of conducting the experiments on a variety of rats. I did not mention this in the article, but the researchers tried the drug on mice, rabbits, hamsters and ferrets, and then went on to monkeys Resus and beavers.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
2 other examples of animal experiments (and there are many others):
1. Thalidomide was tested on animals with no evidence of the horrific side effects it caused to humans.
2. Aspirin, which has been in use for decades, is toxic to rats.
Hanan,
Can you tell us what we paid here in return, and what is to come?
To myself, I have already run the thought exercise and come to my own decision about the feasibility of the topic. It would be interesting to hear what conclusions you came to.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
Finally, a suitable answer to the "let them live" rabble-rousers.
An interesting article. It is interesting for me to approach this issue from a legal point of view
What innocence!!
We found a new medicine, killed several animals and saved tens of thousands of people.
And what about the future? What did we pay in return?
After all, everyone understands that there are no free meals.
I propose a thought exercise, for the innocent to try to find
What is the price humanity will pay for the dangerous games
these.
Well done!