Research vs. personal ideological conflicts

[stell4]

I am currently an unfunded MS student about to be funded; last one in my group to receive full funding. I should be excited right? The problem is the research involves inflicting wounds on rather intelligent animals and keeping them alive for several months (drugged). I am one of those crazy animal people who would probably cut my arm if it meant saving my dogs. At the same time, I recognize that I do eat meat, which of course not only harms animals through killing them, but also the horrific conditions most experience in their short lives, and I am sure I benefit in more ways than I know from animal research. All this would lead me to justifying the research to myself... it being for the good of human kind, but, maybe it's not. The research is for the DOD and I'll be honest I am a bit of a hippie and the idea of doing research for potential weapons use makes this research prospect just look that much worse to me. Has anyone else gone through something like this, or have any suggestions for getting through it? Not taking this opportunity is not an option, or is it just that everyone has a price, and apparently mine is about 40K.

Edited October 20, 2012 by stell4

[Darth.Vegan]

Wow. I really hope you don't end up doing this.

[Eigen]

Just out of curiosity, since I don't know your project, why do you jump to "it's for the DoD, it must have potential weapons applications"?

I get the other concerns with your research, but not that. The DoD funds a ton of research that isn't related to weapons- including a lot of biomedical research on wound healing, tissue regeneration, anti-viral drug development, etc. that has much wider implications to medicine as a whole.

[stell4]

Just out of curiosity, since I don't know your project, why do you jump to "it's for the DoD, it must have potential weapons applications"?

I get the other concerns with your research, but not that. The DoD funds a ton of research that isn't related to weapons- including a lot of biomedical research on wound healing, tissue regeneration, anti-viral drug development, etc. that has much wider implications to medicine as a whole.

The project does have weapons applications, I guess I should have been more specific.

[ktel]

Yikes. I am a dog owner but a meat eater. I don't actively seek out products that avoid animal testing. Yet I don't think I could do the actual killing or animal testing. Completely hypocritical, I know, but I think a lot of people are the same.

[rising_star]

Honestly, I wouldn't be able to do that. In the work I do, I deal with sensitive topics that could have repercussions for various communities and, consequently, have not published a lot of the really interesting findings in my data. It's a choice but I'm sticking with what makes me comfortable and doesn't make me feel like a sleezebag. YMMV, obviously.

[intirb]

I don't want to sound preachy, so I'm really sorry if this post ends up that way, but I do want to stress the importance of having and following your own ethical code - for your own psychological health and for the good of society.

As a scientist and a compassionate human, I think you have an obligation to yourself and to everyone around you to use your powers for good. What exactly it means to do good in this world is up for debate, and every person has their own point where they draw the line. It sounds like you already know what you believe, and you're just having difficulty standing up for those beliefs. You're in a difficult, unenviable position, but these are the life choices that define who we are as human beings.

Muster up the courage to stand up for what you believe in, even in the face of negative consequences. Think about the kind of example you want to set for your fellow students and/or (if it helps) your future kids. Plus, think about what kinds of effects doing this work will have on you. If you're going to lab every day feeling ethically conflicted, you're not going to have passion and excitement for your research. Not only would that spoil the fun, if you're not passionate about what you do, you won't be doing your best work. And you'll lose confidence in your ability to do what's right.

If you decide you don't want to do this research, but you're having difficulty figuring out how to carry out this decision (dealing with your advisor, etc), we're all here to help as best as we can. There are also probably people at your university (try the ombuds office) that can help you navigate such a decision. If you think the research applications aren't actually against your ethical code but you're just not sure if you can carry out animal research yourself, you can send me a PM.

Best of luck!

[TakeruK]

I also don't want to sound preachy or like a immoral jerk, but this post might sound that way!

I do not believe there is an absolute right or wrong. I think everyone should make decisions based on their own interpretation of what is right and wrong. That is, just because you (or I, or anyone) believes that X is right, or X is wrong doesn't mean that X is actually right or wrong, it's just right or wrong to you or me. In your shoes, I would feel that the project you described would be against my personal code of ethics and I wouldn't pursue it. However, if you did not feel this way and if doing it makes you happy then that's great for you, go ahead!

As scientists and researchers, I don't think that we have the authority to decide what is right or wrong for the world. I don' think anyone has this authority. The scientist's job is to seek out knowledge. However, we do have the authority to personally decide what is right or wrong for ourselves. So, while I would definitely distance myself from a project as you described, it is because I am personally uncomfortable with it. I wish that kind of research would not happen. But I do not think that it is right for me to impose my ethical code on others, because it is part of my own ethical code to respect the autonomy of others to determine for themselves what is right or wrong (for themselves, but I don't think one's right to follow their own ethical code should be allowed to supercede other people's rights).

What I am saying is that you need to do what makes YOU happy. intrib makes very good points and their words should be used to consider both sides. It sounds like everyone here, including you, is against doing this kind of research, so stand up for what you believe in. But if you had actually felt that this kind of research was okay with you and you would be happier having a funded program than not doing any science at all, then stand up for what you believe in. "Everyone has a price" is a cynical way to view it, but I think it's true. I believe myself to be someone who have mostly made decisions according to my own ethical code, but I can see myself compromising my ethical code if the "price" is high enough (it would have to be something much more valuable than money though, e.g. my family).

[runaway]

I'm a vegetarian, I use mostly vegan health care products, and when I was in tenth grade I wrote a 20-page research paper instead of dissecting a pig. So I realize I have a very specific viewpoint, and I'm sure you can guess what my decision would be.

But I wanted to add something nobody else has mentioned: that this research would be the foundation for the rest of your career. Maybe within your professional circle this kind of work doesn't carry stigma (I'm a humanities person so I don't know much about your field), but I know I would be uncomfortable putting this research on my CV. I'd also definitely feel uncomfortable at cocktail parities if someone asked me what I did for a living.

It sounds like you wouldn't have posted here if you didn't have deep qualms about accepting the money, so maybe you should listen to those instincts.

[EquationForLife]

I assumed that you knew the group worked with animals prior to joining, so something must have convinced you that the research progress is worth it. To me, it sounds like a lot of pros (funding, research you like..etc.) vs one con (ethical principles), especially if you were already able to justify it to yourself.

I don't think the weapons aspect is such a big deal. Of course, I'm assuming that the research have applications outside of military use. Think about all the military implications of the Haber process, and yet it revolutionized the world when it was developed.

[lewin]

Animal research is critical to the success of modern medicine, among other things, and not intrinsically bad. National defence is also important and--without knowing the specifics of the project--knowledge that contributes to the country's security could be construed as a positive thing. Certainly it's not an easy decision... in the end it's up to you whether you can reconcile the potential benefits with the significant cost (to you and to the animal subjects).

[Darth.Vegan]

Oh boy, interesting propaganda here. Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry and frankly is intrinsically bad. If you have no empathy for the suffering of sentient beings than maybe it's fine.

[lewin]

Oh boy, interesting propaganda here. Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry and frankly is intrinsically bad. If you have no empathy for the suffering of sentient beings than maybe it's fine.

I didn't say I had no empathy, I said it was a necessary step in medical research (somewhere in between biochemistry and human trials). All research needs to balance harm versus benefit.

But I should have worded that more carefully because--you're right--it's often bad for the research subjects. I meant "On balance, when considering the potential gains, it's not always a bad thing."

[Darth.Vegan]

I wonder do you draw the line anywhere? I am guessing that you wouldn't do this research on humans? Would you do this research on chimps? What about dogs? Rats?

[Eigen]

I wonder do you draw the line anywhere? I am guessing that you wouldn't do this research on humans? Would you do this research on chimps? What about dogs? Rats?

Just out of curiosity, what is your point in posting in this thread? You don't know what the research is, and you have yet to post anything that I would consider constructive, rather resorting to offhand comments.

If we want to study, say, the effects of a new compound on wound healing, or said compounds ability to drive off infection, it will become necessary to study it in an environment that involves actual wounds.

In an academic setting IRB approval will be necessary for any research to take place, and one of the primary things the IRB looks at is necessity of the research, and all possible methods of minimizing the trauma to the animals. Case in point, the research here takes place with the animals under heavy sedation.

Maybe instead of just questioning other points, you could follow the example of Interb and TakeruK and post your opinions on the matter?

Oh boy, interesting propaganda here. Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry and frankly is intrinsically bad. If you have no empathy for the suffering of sentient beings than maybe it's fine.

Also, I'd love to see some explanation behind what makes vivisection a multi-billion dollar industry.

[Darth.Vegan]

Right. Because IRB approval has done so much to help these animals: http://www.peta.org/...on-cruelty.aspx

My position is that vivisection is absolutely abhorrent. I don't see the ethical justification in taking otherwise healthy animals and either infecting them with diseases or putting them through any myriad of crazy experiments under the guise of "research."

I say that vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry because it is, you can literally order lab animals out of a catalog like they are microscopes or pens.

I asked the question because I am curious if any supporters of animal research, draw an ethical line or if all research is essentially justified. If it is not okay to conduct this research on humans, why is it ok to do so on other primates who may be very similar to humans? If you don't think that research on primates is ethically acceptable, than I wonder where a person draws that line? With cats or dogs or rats? At what point of intelligence, sentience, and capability to suffer does vivisection become ethical or unethical?

Edited October 25, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[Eigen]

I don't think you know what vivisection means.

Or rather, I think you're using the popularized and sensationalized definition, rather than the proper one.

Even what is described in your link isn't really vivisection, as its not really for pathological or physiological purposes.

And I'd have to see what the IRB approved relative to what they did to know how IRB approval impacted their work. But since all we have is a highly sensationalized editorial on the issue rather than facts of what happened, it's hard to comment.

Do you have any first hand experience with animal experimentation? Know people that do it? Or are you using such wonderful sources as PETA for the basis of your opinion...

And you can't, literally, order animals from catalogs like microscopes or pens. You don't have to have prove adequate facilities for other lab equipment, nor receive external approval for each experiment you run.

[TropicalCharlie]

darthvegan - here is an article that favors animal research and justifications. It is not going to impact your philosophy on animal rights but hopefully provides you with background info and scientist perspectives.

http://www.ringachla...ingach_ajms.pdf

Edited October 26, 2012 by Charlie808

[sareth]

I love animals (I'm actually playing fetch with my kitten as I type this). I also believe animal research is necessary. It's likely that at some point my collaborators will be testing the (potentially life-saving) compounds I'm developing in animals.

It's a long, LONG and involved process to get a study approved. There's a detailed review to make sure there's NO WAY the research can be performed without the use of animal subjects. The review board will ask why you can't do it in vitro or in flatworms; if you make it past that stage they move to zebrafish, mice... primates are used for research when nothing else will do (and in fact there is no primate research at many universities). Once it's been established that an animal study is necessary, there's a detailed process they go through to plan harm reduction.

As Eigen mentioned, there's also no way you could order a lab mouse "just because." Sure, you could call up the Jackson Laboratory, but they'd refuse to sell to you. They deal directly with the university's animal welfare officer; he's the only one who can place the order, and he must be there when the animals arrive. He's also the one who supervises the implementation of the detailed plan for their welfare, including enrichment activities (yes, even for mice).

When you say "this research," you're talking about something vague and amorphous. This is not scientists hurting animals for giggles. I'm talking about concrete, discrete research projects, investigating compounds or procedures that we have good reason to believe may treat cancer, reduce permanent damage from traumatic brain injury, or otherwise improve quality of life for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people (and animals, for that matter - animal research has led to many advances in veterinary medicine). I'm not saying that the process is ideal, or even always done properly. Obviously (as with everything else in life) there are deviations and times when things aren't done as they should be, but a blanket ban on animal testing/random acts of sabotage aren't the answers.

I wish there was another way. I really do. But sometimes, animal testing is all we've got.

[intirb]

Maybe instead of just questioning other points, you could follow the example of Interb and TakeruK and post your opinions on the matter?

I just wanted to clarify - I'm not necessarily personally opposed to animal research. I based my advice on how it seemed stell4 felt about the matter based on his/her post, but if s/he came back and clarified, my advice might change.

I understand the arguments on both sides here, but if a person has one particular viewpoint, I don't think they should let monetary considerations compromise their personal ethics. In the long run, that's a decision I think you'd regret for a bunch of different reasons that I listed.

[Eigen]

I guess I should clarify as well- I was just point to your post as a well thought out and thorough discussion- I wasn't trying to attribute it to one "side" of the issue or another.

[Gary in CA]

OP, Congratulations on your funding.

[Nausicaa]

Right. Because IRB approval has done so much to help these animals: http://www.peta.org/...on-cruelty.aspx

My position is that vivisection is absolutely abhorrent. I don't see the ethical justification in taking otherwise healthy animals and either infecting them with diseases or putting them through any myriad of crazy experiments under the guise of "research."

I say that vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry because it is, you can literally order lab animals out of a catalog like they are microscopes or pens.

I asked the question because I am curious if any supporters of animal research, draw an ethical line or if all research is essentially justified. If it is not okay to conduct this research on humans, why is it ok to do so on other primates who may be very similar to humans? If you don't think that research on primates is ethically acceptable, than I wonder where a person draws that line? With cats or dogs or rats? At what point of intelligence, sentience, and capability to suffer does vivisection become ethical or unethical?

 

Okay, the fact that you're mentioning an IRB and not an IACUC board suggests to me that you haven't done your research thoroughly enough.

[Usmivka]

I'm sorry if I missed this, but are you required to sacrifice the animals at the end of the study? This seems implied, but I'm not sure if it is the case. As someone who encourages the adoption of lab animals post-study (and you cannot sacrifice a lab animal without crazy review and justification, and mostly for situations involving fairly deadly pathologies), I often surprise people when I mention that most lab animals are not killed, and are often pampered relative to how pet owners typically treat their animals. I'll also clarify, I hate animal studies. But I know that they are done with far more protections and safeguards for animal wellbeing than provided by a pet store or animal shelter. Hell, films showing animals being stomped or decapitated with no anesthesia are legal in some states (including my home state, much to my chagrin). Not that anything on the spectrum makes me feel really good, but I feel much worse for such critters, and furry friends like bunnies in antibody cloning facilities and livestock.

 

As for working with these animals, (a question for the OPer) will you be helping care for the critters? I'd assume this research is moving forward with or without you since it has gone through however many years of approval process to get this far, but if you are there, you can make sure that the animals are cared for to the greatest extent possible and are treated with respect and compassion. This is a hugely stressful job, but your empathy and effort could make a big difference to their quality of life.

 

PS: I am DOD funded and study the carbon cycle. Pretty sure they aren't trying to weaponize that, so I appreciate Eigen's point for others (not the OPer) that DOD research isn't necessarily intrinsically evil.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Usmivka