If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   This just in: scientists are assholes   (io9.com) divider line 69
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

12662 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Oct 2013 at 1:06 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-10 03:47:02 PM

BenJAM'n: Why doesn't scientists do study and tests on themselves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine
 
2013-10-10 03:49:32 PM

J. Frank Parnell: As long as you are a robot with zero empathy for living things that makes perfect sense.


It's better just to euthanize the whole lot?

You realize that cats don't have feelings, right?
 
2013-10-10 03:50:05 PM

Russ1642: Yogimus: It's a cat. 15 bucks gets you one on any corner in breeding season.

I once visited the lab of a guy doing robotics research for spinal chord victims. They would cut cats open and implant chips in their spinal columns and wouldn't fully close them up but used binder clips instead. He built the robotic arms that would move the cat's legs while they measured the nervous feedback. He said that they lost a few cats simply because they weren't exactly surgeons and were kind of just winging that portion of their research. But they were on the leading edge of their field and are helping many people have a way better quality of life.


And they got IACUC approval how?
 
2013-10-10 03:53:06 PM
WERNSTROM!
 
2013-10-10 03:55:49 PM

Fubini: J. Frank Parnell: As long as you are a robot with zero empathy for living things that makes perfect sense.

It's better just to euthanize the whole lot?

You realize that cats don't have feelings, right?


Now you are going to have to define what you mean by feelings.

Pain, hunger, etc -- cats certainly do.
 
2013-10-10 04:01:36 PM

Archae hippy: hstein3: That university's IRB is not doing their job.

IRB is strictly for human subjects.   The IACUC (Institutional animal care and use committee) covers animal experimentation.


Noted. One hearty facepalm (for myself) coming up.

/Really don't miss grad school
 
2013-10-10 04:08:46 PM

Two16: [i41.tinypic.com image 850x647]


Disclaimer: Not an actual quote from Bill Nye.
 
2013-10-10 04:36:12 PM

real_headhoncho: What if they were Evil Kittens?


What are you trying to say?
 
2013-10-10 04:49:05 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Jclark666: The entire apparatus was then vibrated up and down.

Nice Ministry reference.
Assuming that's what you were going for.


Nothing is obscure on Fark.
 
2013-10-10 04:52:23 PM

Evil Mackerel: real_headhoncho: What if they were Evil Kittens?

What are you trying to say?



www.jimusnr.com
 
2013-10-10 05:19:53 PM
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-10 05:22:29 PM
The experiment has a somewhat happy ending. The Immobile Kittens were placed in lighted rooms for about forty-eight hours and allowed to explore freely. They were retested and had learned to understand visual cliffs. So even if deprived of stimulus, the brain can still learn. Still, the Immobile Kittens never became visually normal. Their time in the dark, and without the ability to work with the world around them, left a permanent mark on them.

Not that it probably matters. Nearly all animal research ends with euthanasia and (usually) dissection. Hard to justify not doing it in this case, since you'd want to see if there were any morphological differences in the visual areas of the brain. However, in any case, most ethics boards will require euthanasia at the end of an experiment. Some of my friends do research with mice, and I asked once if they were ever tempted to take one home as a pet. Apparently, doing that would get you in pretty serious trouble, including potentially having your lab's permission to work with live animals pulled. You aren't allowed to find them homes even if the animals pose no threat (no special disease potential, etc).
 
2013-10-10 06:35:34 PM

IC Stars: Fubini: J. Frank Parnell: As long as you are a robot with zero empathy for living things that makes perfect sense.

It's better just to euthanize the whole lot?

You realize that cats don't have feelings, right?

Now you are going to have to define what you mean by feelings.

Pain, hunger, etc -- cats certainly do.


Cats are not sentient beings.
Cats are soulless husks, covered with fur.
 
2013-10-10 09:17:17 PM
If people only knew how medical breakthroughs are developed for the sake of our health and well-being...

There are things that we have to do to survive and discover things about the world. We ear other living creatures, both the cute ones and the scary ones, in order to live. We use other living creatures to experiment on so that we don't end up hurting other humans with ineffective medication and treatments. Experimenting on animals before humans is currently a necessity, unless some genius figures out a way where no risk to another creature's life is involved.
 
2013-10-10 10:17:24 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In terms of horrific animal experiments, this is about a 1 of 10.


Don't get me started on that Schrodinger bastard...
 
2013-10-11 12:21:52 AM
*cough cough* Harry Harlow *cough cough*

Amazingly, people didn't assume before Harlow's tests on monkeys that kids who didn't get physical contact with parental figures would turn out emotionally maladjusted.
 
2013-10-11 12:39:42 AM

Mitrovarr: The experiment has a somewhat happy ending. The Immobile Kittens were placed in lighted rooms for about forty-eight hours and allowed to explore freely. They were retested and had learned to understand visual cliffs. So even if deprived of stimulus, the brain can still learn. Still, the Immobile Kittens never became visually normal. Their time in the dark, and without the ability to work with the world around them, left a permanent mark on them.

Not that it probably matters. Nearly all animal research ends with euthanasia and (usually) dissection. Hard to justify not doing it in this case, since you'd want to see if there were any morphological differences in the visual areas of the brain. However, in any case, most ethics boards will require euthanasia at the end of an experiment. Some of my friends do research with mice, and I asked once if they were ever tempted to take one home as a pet. Apparently, doing that would get you in pretty serious trouble, including potentially having your lab's permission to work with live animals pulled. You aren't allowed to find them homes even if the animals pose no threat (no special disease potential, etc).


Not always. Knew a couple of girls that adopted some genetically altered mice post experiment. Also have heard of them pawning off mice for snake food, which I probably counts as euthanasia. Course my university liked pigeons, which kinda explained the abundance chicken nuggets they had for lunch
 
2013-10-11 05:23:27 AM

Ambitwistor: talkertopc: The kitten even fully recovered at the end.

"Still, the Immobile Kittens never became visually normal. Their time in the dark, and without the ability to work with the world around them, left a permanent mark on them."


...er... that was a bit vague. It sounds like a totally subjective comment by someone who thinks "well if that happened to me I'd be psychologically damage permanently, so I bet these cats are". It's not like they went on to describe exactly how this supposed "permanent mark" that was left on them actually manifested itself.
 
2013-10-11 05:35:03 AM

Russ1642: Yogimus: It's a cat. 15 bucks gets you one on any corner in breeding season.

I once visited the lab of a guy doing robotics research for spinal chord victims. They would cut cats open and implant chips in their spinal columns and wouldn't fully close them up but used binder clips instead. He built the robotic arms that would move the cat's legs while they measured the nervous feedback. He said that they lost a few cats simply because they weren't exactly surgeons and were kind of just winging that portion of their research. But they were on the leading edge of their field and are helping many people have a way better quality of life.


That is some real sick bastard stuff.

Unnecessary cruelty is just that, unnecessary. They could get the results they were after without being cruel about it.

If you aren't able to do surgery in a professional manner, including with proper wound closing and pain relief, then leave it for some other team of researchers who can. They are just torturing animals when the option is there to not torture them, and then trying to claim it's fine because it might make some people's quality of life better. Fark that. I really do hope these guys need surgery on themselves one day and find that the anaesthesia doesn't work halfway through the operation, but they are immobilised and so can't let anyone know.
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report