Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Year in Ideas
jonbrewer writes "The New York Times is back again with their "Year in Ideas" and one that Slashdot missed this year was the RatBot. As featured in the BBC and Business 2.0 earlier this year, these critters are trained to navigate mazes based on remote stimuli. Ethical? Doubtful. Cool? Yes."
Discontinue requiring "free" registration.
Nope, no cruelty at all. Aside from drilling holes in the rat's skull, attaching wires into his brain, and mounting a control box permanently behind his head.
The brain has no pain receptors. Human patients have been drilled into and probed without any pain whatsoever.
that if somebody held you down and drilled holes in your skull without your consent, you would not consider this an act of cruelty? What time can we schedule your appointment? :P
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Time and again, a sizable portion of Slashdot posters seems to stick up for animal research, no matter how cruel and no matter how pointless.
I'm just happy my angioplasty was "cruelly and pointlessly" tested on dogs before it was tried on me.
But I suppose you forego most drugs and medical procedures so as not to benefit from animal testing.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
While you also ignore a few facts of your own...
Neurological experiments absolutely cannot be performed on anything other than a living biological organism. The idea here isn't just to create remote controlled rats, but to discover how we can advance new technologies related to the brain. Modern probes that can monitor the firing patterns of 4 individual neurons simultaneously? The idea that we can now partially enable the blind to see? Do you think that the experiments required to pull this off were performed on neurons in a petri dish? Of course not, and it wouldn't even be possible. Perhaps one day in the future if, heaven forbid!, you are ever tragically paralyzed in an accident, you will perhaps thank the researchers who come up with remote control technology. I know if it were to happen to me, I'd be very glad to have a way to communicate with my family, or take care of myself instead of being a complete burden.
Especially since there's no critical look at whether full-fledged robots could be developed to perform these functions.
Many researchers devote their time to developing small-scale robotics, but nothing is close to being anywhere near as agile as a biological organism. But again, the research isn't just about controlling rats; it's also a way to figure out how to interface with the brain. Given the paralysis scenario, what good would a robotic "supplemental" body be if you couldn't control the damn thing? When that kind of technology comes about for general use, you'll have researchers, rats, and monkeys to thank for it.
The sad thing is that I'm probably going to be modded down for raising these concerns.
Well, I've got one point left, but I chose to reply instead. Besides, I don't mod down. ;)
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
I'm sorry, but I disagree completely. Call me egomaniacal, but I do think that I, and all other human beings, are more important than mice. Period. End of argument.
If experimenting on animals can save the lives of humans then I'm all for it. Humans are more important.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
The question is not about being born in general. The question is whether the newborn had any influence in the decision that his or her genes be artifically altered.
Interestingly enough, in recent years parents have sued doctors for not diagnosing potential disabilities in their future children. They claimed that, had they known about them, they would probably have aborted. There's a number of stories about this, for example, French court extens.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
Why use Google to search Slashdot when you can use Slashdot's own search, which doesn't miss anything ?? (and has more useful search parameters)
Because Google finds stuff, and Slashdot's search engine doesn't.
Then you'll see how fun it is to be injected with cancer and grow tumors the size of a baseball. I wonder if the fact that the scientists aren't laughing at you will be some comfort to you then?
I'm not completely against animal testing, but your in the wrong here trying to brush off the topic of ethics when discussing animal testing. There are ethics involved and they are not "bullshit".
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Yes, please save the Humans, they are down to 6 Billion in number...
No kidding; I couldn't agree more.
I get frustrated when people suggest we need to halt some area of research until we can determine if it is `ethical'. How the hell do we do that, and we should we? Would someone please define precisely what `ethical' is and why it matters, because as far as I can tell, the term ethical is just used to denote a bunch of vague, spiritual, fuzzy feelings that vary from person to person.
As for all the people who are worried about reincarnating as rats or whether we ought to "employ other animals for our own purpose", I think these concerns only make sense in the context of some metaphysical world view. If you don't want to ruin your karma or go to hell, then don't experiment on rats. But please stay out of the way of the scientists; not everyone sees things the way you do.