• xxd@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Working on the bleeding edge of scientific research does not relieve someone of treating animals with ethical consideration. A “move fast and break things” approach might be good for a startup and maybe even for a rocket company, but that approach isn’t okay if “breaking things” includes living, feeling animals.

      • inspxtr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I believe experiments like these should move slower and with more scrutiny. As in more animal testing before moving on to humans, esp. due to the controversies surrounding Neuralink’s last animal experiments.

      • xxd@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The least they should do is make sure no animal suffers needlessly and no more animals than necessary are used for testing. I don’t have confidence in moral standards, when employees say the number of deaths is higher than needed because of demands of faster research.

        Also there is some research on non-invasive ways to get signals from the brain. Why not try that before testing implants on animals?

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Use a fucking EEG device, instead of opening their skulls and messing with their brains.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago
        1. You can in fact test many of these devices in mice and even zebrafish.

        2. You repeat testing in animals (with modifications) til it is actually safe or you at least understand what the risk is and how to mitigate it to tell the people who are going to trial it.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago
          1. You can in fact test many of these devices in mice and even zebrafish.

          So your solution to animal testing is other animal testing? Strange solution.

          Nothing will ever be risk free, and most of the subjects stayed alive until euthanized to see the results. How else would you get the results?

          • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes, but lower order animals. There are creatures with more or less intelligence and therefore more or less capacity of suffering.

            Euthanasia is fine for an end point but as an implanted device is lifelong such a short time with the implant before sacrifice is not as useful as longer timepoints.

            • schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              There are creatures with more or less intelligence and therefore more or less capacity of suffering.

              …. So it’s okay to make less intelligent creatures suffer…? Intelligence has literally nothing to do with something’s capacity to suffer. Where the hell did you get that from? Let’s see some citations on that asinine claim lmfao.

              You need data from every step of the way… so no…. Not at all.