[mindcrime]

I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for humans, based on this mouse based research", and probably most people would agree with that. But perhaps not everyone would.

Also consider the number of really scary books/movies out there rooted in the idea of "medical utilitarianism." For one example, this issue is addressed in a show called Biohackers that I just started watching. And even in real life, people have tried to justify a lot of really sketchy stuff over the years, in the name of "the greater good".

[belorn]

We do have an alternative to animal testing. We can use humans who are desperate enough to volunteer to a medical experiment knowing that it might not work and could potentially make things worse. The purpose of animal testing in situations like this is to catch early problems before the final human testing. Computer simulation can do a lot to minimize the need for animal testing, but I don't think we are there yet where we can go directly from a simulation to human testing.

I do not however like to view it as medical utilitarianism. The testing will happen regardless if the test subject are human or mice, because people do still want the medical cures. People are however less sad if an experiment accidentally killed a bunch of mice than if a bunch of human test subjects died. Historically people tend to use military service men as test subjects, which is why much of medical knowledge is based on test subjects of a specific gender (male) and age group (20-35). Not that long ago (~1950) people also used people with mental disabilities and orphans. Going just a decade earlier and people used prisoners and war and people deemed unwanted. Hopefully computers will one day replace the need for testing.

[rlpb]

> We do have an alternative to animal testing. We can use humans who are desperate enough to volunteer...

This situation would presumably only arise because somebody else previously made the decision not to perform that experiment on an animal, but instead wait until a human suffers enough to become desperate enough to volunteer. That decision resulted in human suffering (albeit in the form of the trolley problem). Was that decision acceptable? How much human suffering, and/or how many humans suffering, is equivalent to one animal? Does sapience make a difference to this calculation?

I'm not saying this makes animal testing OK. My point is just that testing only on human volunteers isn't a magical solution to this ethical problem.

[belorn]

I agree, its not a magical solution. Some might even call it exploiting to use people when they are at their most desperate point in their lives, and for pediatric research it would basically involve a situation where its the parents that agrees to the medical experiment.

Its a difficult decision to make, experimenting on either animals or people.

[Evidlo]

At least with animal subjects, you can ensure that the health, age, and severity of the 'injury' is exactly the same with all subjects.

You'll never get that with humans even if you have plenty of volunteers.

[s1artibartfast]

The the answer in the science and medical communities is Almost Never "they're just mice, who cares"

It is rather that this is an important experiment that can't be done any other way and can have large benefit for humans

[mindcrime]

The the answer in the science and medical communities is Almost Never "they're just mice, who cares"

That's fair. My comment above was maybe overly glib in that sense. But I was just trying to capture the general spirit of the thing, not write an essay, due to limits of time, interest, and knowledge on my part.

[taylorius]

It's funny how this cost benefit calculation is considered valid when applied to research on mice, but any such calculation used to try to justify research on humans would give a "divide by 0" error. I think there's an inconsistency there somewhere.

[klipt]

But there absolutely are clinical trials on humans. It's just the humans generally have to volunteer.

[mental1896]

"it can't be done any other way" strikes me as pretty thin. Whereas we may not be able to conceive of another way at this point in time, it does no good to imagine that this condition will continue in perpetuity.

[s1artibartfast]

If you feel that the statement needs to be future proofed, feel free to add "at this time" when you read it.

I think the point still stands with this condition and will for the foreseeable future.

[comrh]

Like the bleeding of horseshoe crabs for LAL it's always reevaluated based on current technology.

[kevinsky]

Another good question is whether mice are a good analogue for humans as far as spinal injuries

[rhino369]

It's really only a good question after we stop slaughtering animals for essentially entertainment.

[archontes]

I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?".

What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?

[mindcrime]

I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?".

No, because I'm not saying that is a position I personally hold. I'm merely presenting it as a position that I know that (some) people do hold.

My position here is, roughly speaking, "this (intentionally injuring mice or other animals) is an issue where there is a legit discussion to be had around the ethics of same." Of course I have my own opinion, but I don't really care to get into it. I just didn't think that the parent poster needed to be downvoted for raising the question.

[dahart]

Perhaps “living creatures” is a bit broad if taken too literally, but in context here it seems like the implied topic is clearly animals. One reason the base assumption is caring is because we have laws against harming, torturing or being cruel to animals, and laws against killing some animals. Another reason to care is the growing scientific and public awareness that animals have intelligence, consciousness, and feelings. A third reason is that we have a base assumption about caring for humans, both socially and physiologically, and seeking a moral consistency might automatically lead to the reasonable question “shouldn’t we care about animals too?”.

Since your question implies some, are there reasons that we shouldn’t care about animals or other living creatures?

[i_haz_rabies]

I'll try: we have absolutely no idea to what degree any given living thing can feel pain, in the subjective sense. We know that mice, for example, react in a way that looks like pain to painful stimulus, but we don't know if there is anything that it feels like to be a mouse in pain. We care when humans feel pain, in a large part because we know, almost for certain (although not quite), that they are feeling pain... why should the same not extend to a creature that may be having a similar experience?

[tombert]

Not the poster obviously, but I'm going to give my two cents on this.

Obviously the phrase "they're living creatures" is a bit vague on this; bacteria and molds (and arguably viruses) are also living creatures but I don't think anyone considers it genocide to disinfect your counter with alcohol or something. I think we generally start drawing lines with animals.

Even within the scope of animals, I think we can still make reasonable concessions on things that are of sufficiently low intelligence to where we're not even 100% sure they feel pain in the same way that we do. Do I care if a mosquito suffers? No, not really, they're annoying dangerous little critters who aren't really having a lot of intelligent thought.

However, when we start getting into mammals (and possibly birds), I think it starts getting into more questionable territory. Most mammals (as far as I know) do have enough neural development to feel pain, to feel fear, and actually suffer in ways not completely dissimilar to humans. Since mice are mammals, there is an argument to be made that if we're hurting them, it's adding a lot of pain to the world.

-------

To be clear, I'm somewhat in the camp of "they're just mice, I care about helping humans more". I just wanted to play devil's advocate for a bit.

[ajuc]

Living creatures might be too much (see bacteria), but if you think we should care about other people - it follows that we should also care about other creatures that can feel and think. Mammals certainly qualify.

[adventured]

> but if you think we should care about other people - it follows that we should also care about other creatures that can feel and think

It doesn't automatically follow. I can entirely correctly, subjectively decide which living things I want to care about and which I do not. I can separate living things by a hierarchy of importance. Which is exactly what we do all the time with other people and our relationships to them (example: hey HN, let me know how much you love Donald Trump and where he ranks on your hierarchy of importance).

I don't care about mice. I care about puppies (insert reasons here). That is not an irrational position. It's entirely subjective either direction. Any attempt to apply logic or science to the premise is inherently absurd. What we each value and why is subjective, it's personal; it inherently can't be objective. Rat and mice fans might likely pick those over puppies or kittens for example, due to their personal experiences and their hierarchy of values.

No, I wouldn't kill or injure the mice myself for a living. I think it's grotesque.

I wouldn't perform abortions for a living, it's sometimes a very grotesque process. I'm entirely pro-choice.

I wouldn't butcher animals for a living, it's often quite a disgusting process as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with other people doing so. And I have no problem with eating a steak. That's not contradictory or hypocritical.

I also would never want to be a nurse. I fully understand what nurses do. The human body can be quite disgusting at times. I'm glad nurses exist.

Such things are not contradictory. You can find an action and outcome acceptable, while not enjoying (or glorifying) all aspects of the process in question.

Once you cross the line of: all living things matter without exception and should never be killed, on to: some living things do not matter as much as others (eg plants for consumption) - then you're down to subjectivism as your argument across the board.

The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (what should the protections be, should there be any protections, how many should there be, who decides, for which living things, and on and on). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective. What it comes down to is majority politics ultimately: how many people can you get to agree with you, such that you can pass legislation in your preferred direction.

[ajuc]

There's clearly a spectrum of consciousness between us and insects, there is no one clear-cut threshold, and some people are lower on it than some animals (see some neurological problems). Therefore arbitrarily deciding to put a strict care/don't care threshold on a species border is irrational. It makes much more sense to have a care/don't care spectrum, and not to limit it to one species.

[nicoburns]

I’m not so sure its clear that there’s a spectrum of consciousness. We have no way to observe consciousness (other than our own). For all we know, ants (or even trees or rocks) might well be just as conscious as us. We don’t have any evidence that they are, but that’s largely true of mammals and even other humans too.

[ajuc]

It's the same for other people and other animals, if you care about other people you should care about other mammals at least a little bit.

[dwaltrip]

> The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (…). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective.

The subjective aspects of a difficult question doesn’t mean all takes are equally valid. That’s the same as giving up and saying that nothing means anything.