http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/scien ... .html?_r=2

Chimps’ similarity to humans makes them valuable for research, and at the same time inspires intense sympathy. To research scientists, they may look like the best chance to cure terrible diseases. But to many other people, they look like relatives behind bars.

Biomedical research on chimps helped produce a vaccine for hepatitis B, and is aimed at one for hepatitis C, which infects 170 million people worldwide, but there has long been an outcry against the research as cruel and unnecessary. Now, because of a major push by advocacy organizations, a decision to stop such research in the United States could come within a year. As it is, the United States is one of only two countries that conduct invasive research on chimpanzees. The other is the central African nation of Gabon.

... continued at the link

I have quite mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think we are yet to come up with a good substitute for apes in research. But then again, videos like this make me go all softy-softy...

It will happen only when we have the technology to be able to do otherwise, else economically and if in morality we give prominence to humans than other species, it is not viable. Like slavery, it ended only when industrial revolution was possible.

cavarka9 wrote: Like slavery, it ended only when industrial revolution was possible.

Some people (including me) think it actually was the other way round...

natselrox wrote:
I have quite mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think we are yet to come up with a good substitute for apes in research.

There seems to be a preponderance of humans.

Animavore wrote:We should use Canadians.

The level of maple syrup and hockey puck residue in our blood makes us poor research candidates.

People take movies nowadays way to literally.

natselrox wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: Like slavery, it ended only when industrial revolution was possible.

Some people (including me) think it actually was the other way round...

Well, I would say that mine is the more economical stand than yours nat, consider the fact that we are considering the perils of pollution because of global warming and the kind of disadvantages it might bring. Had it been considered prior?.


In order for that claim to be established, you should be able to show that such moral consideration was not shown any time before at any place ever before. Followed by showing that economy of Britain at the point in time was comparable to economies of other empires.In other words, other empires/elites at least had a comparable economy. Followed by showing that when ever a moral consideration had been shown, it lead to industrial revolution or at least to such inventiveness .

It simply is not right because there are instances of people questioning slavery before. But they didnt have the technology.
But more importantly, do you expect that industrial revolution would have happened had slavery been outlawed in britain in 14th century A.D.? Or slavery would have returned.

You are right, I guess, carvarka. Mine seems more like an appeal to optimism and that "can-do spirit" kind of things you get to hear in politicians' speeches...

natselrox wrote:You are right, I guess, carvarka. Mine seems more like an appeal to optimism and that "can-do spirit" kind of things you get to hear in politicians' speeches...

well yes and not just that, we are in general moral hence toe the line of moral reasoning except it is not rational reasoning. Unfortunately, what is moral might infact in the long term become immoral. Marxism for example, the revolutionary call to fight for the proletariat.