Do you think it strange that Mary chose to look at the tumor-filled mice while she was having lunch? Do you think it strange that she had her lunch in a room full of caged animals squealing—presumably—in pain? Do you think any laws should limit the way animals should be used in research experiments? How should such a law differentiate between different kinds of animals involved, the different levels of discomfort they endure (and the ability to avoid or mitigate it), the different levels of potential benefit from the research? Why do you think such laws have grown more common over the years?
Mary was most likely used to seeing the mice with tumors every day at work and using them as part of her research, so it probably didn’t bother her to see them when she was eating lunch that day. I think when it comes to animal testing what is necessary for the research to be accomplished is what needs to be done. Yes there will be many mice and rabbits that will die but if it’s for the purpose of saving numerous human lives then I think that’s a good reason to allow it. The people testing still need to have some respect for the animals whose lives are dedicated towards their work and findings in research.
ReplyDeleteThe animals that should be used are some type of or similar to rodents due to the fact that if they were to live in the wild they would have had a short life span anyway due to nature. Another advantage is since they reproduce so quickly the odds of them having a tumor or some type of abnormity are very high, which is convenient for scientists. The reason behind animal laws could be because of the spread of awareness about animal cruelty. You can watch TV shows or see commercials about abused animals almost every day now.
Ashley Huhman
Today, people are more attached to animals and animal cruelty laws are on the rise. We must remember that animal testing is a big part in science and has saved many human lives. There is a line between animal cruelty and using what God gave man to work with. I think that if using an animal will save a human life, the scientists should take advantage of that. As for Mary, I believe she is simply comfortable with her job and it doesn't bother her to eat in the work area.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Hicks
I bet Mary had spent so much time in the lab while working that she became desensitized to the noise the animals were making. It probably bothered her when she first started working there, but after awhile I'm sure she just simply got used to it. I'm sure there are some kind of laws limiting the role of animals in research, but scientists have to use something. Like Ashley said, using rodents that have a short life expectancy in their natural environment would be a good idea. I think the rise of PETA is one reason animal cruelty awareness has raised over the past few years. Their aggresive strategy of boycotting companies linked to animal cruelty has given them a lot of attention.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Parham
There are severals laws that focus on the treatment of animals for research. They all start out very strongly worded towards mimicking the Golden Rule, however, they all end in something to the effect "unless their torture and death is meaningful to the experiment." I have never heard of laws on what species of animal you can experiment on. That is interesting. What makes the lives of the mice lesser than the lives of say a poodle? Would we be having a different conversation if she stared at tumor-filled 101 Dalmatians?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mary subconsciously sympathizes with the mice, she is the one who works with all the cells that come in. Maybe she contemplates the theory that like the people they have taken samples from, these mice are all different and like the people they cannot tell which mouse or person will produce the immortal cells they have been reaching for.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the animal involvement in experiments, I agree with Morgan that because more people own pets they become more sensitive toward their use in situation such as these. But animals were put on this earth to aid man in his survival, which I believe includes scientific experiments.
Eating lunch near these specimens most likely seems not bothersome to Mary because she is inured to the unpleasantness of everyday life in the lab. I agree with Ashley because I too think that the sacrifice of animals such as mice or rats, which many people do not mind exterminating with in their homes, is worth the medical advances which the sacrifice brings. Kelsea brought up the point that the conversation would be different if we were talking about these sorts of tests on cute Dalmatians as opposed to undesirable rodents. I agree because I think it is human nature to have compassion toward animals which explains rise to animal abuse awareness groups like PETA and the ASPCA whose iconic commercial features Sarah McLachlan and many mistreated animals. Ultimately though, I feel like if the use of these animals can cure diseases and save lives then the positive far out ways the negative.
ReplyDeleteAnna Talkington
Mary seemed to be used to the environment and therefore it did not bother her. The subject of animal testing and the laws for it is a tough discussion. The research is vital to advanced medical technology breakthroughs and it certainly contributes to the world of medicine. I do believe however that there should be laws that make sure that the animals do not suffer.
ReplyDeleteStormy Wigley
On a note somewhat unrelated to the question, I think the detail of Mary eating at the lab table was also used to create a tone for the reader. It's odd and slightly uncomfortable for us to think of Mary eating her lunch calmly at a lab table lined with tumorous rodents. I think this detail contributes to the overall theme of the shady side of the medical field at this time. The book is centralized on questions like "was she used?" "what do they owe her?". The detail of Mary here, to me at least, added to that feeling of the cold, business-like attitude shown by medical researchers at this time.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the laws today, I think the difference in lifestyles then and now play a big part in it. Today more people have pets in their homes, and the propaganda influences by such commercials as the ones Anna mentioned, all play a big part in public opinion.We live in a time now where public opinion whether right or wrong far out weighs common sense. I personally don't see a problem in animal testing within the confines of ethical treatment. Would you rather test on humans?
Taylor Jones
I have to agree with Taylor Jones that the detail creates a tone. It is used to give more of an insight on how the medical field was at the time. I think Mary has worked in the lab and around those specimens for so long that it no longer bothers her. I think at that time it was expected to work with animals like that. People weren’t so attached; they were still just considered rodents. I think as times have changed so has the general idea of a pet. Now not only are dogs considered family pets, but mice (research specimens) are as well.
ReplyDeleteKristen Howard
As it has been said, Mary was probably desensitized to the environment that she was working and eating in. In today' s time, people have become desensitized to the element of death. For example, television programming is full of gruesome deaths. Though it is often fictional, people can still watch such programming, unaffected, while eating.
ReplyDeleteSecond, testing is typically done on animals with short lifespans that are already in abundance? However, all animal testing should contain a number of measures that ensure animals are not suffering excruciating pain. In addition, before any testing is done, the levels of potential scientific benefit should always be considered.
Allon Gillispie
As Allon said she was probably desensitized. She had been working there for so long that it didn't bother her or interrupt her eating habits. As far as laws limiting the ways animals are used in experiments it doesn't bother me at all. If there are laws limiting such activities I suppose that's great for the mouse but in the end it's just a mouse. What else would it be doing aside from being a pest? I think animal research is a great improvement over testing on humans, but this happens from time to time as well. Should laws be made to further ensure that animals don't experience pain? No. It's "sacrifice" is well worth it.
ReplyDeleteTell Jordan
I agree with what most of the people before me have said. If she saw that all day every day, she was completely used to it. Therefore having her lunch while staring at these animals would not have phased her at all any more.
ReplyDeleteI believe that measures should be taken to limit the amount of pain the animals are forced to endure. However, if their suffering can help humans and significantly advance the medical field, it is worth it. The animals that are typically used for testing are small rodents. This way, they have a short lifespan as is, and would most likely die quickly in the wild anyway, as they are the prey of many other animals. Also, the reproduce quickly which means that we can use them in the lab for experimentation without worrying about endangering them. In which case, they do not have to experience too much pain for the sake of our advancement.
I agree that is was extremely likely that Mary was just used to seeing all those mice everyday so it was no big deal for her to eat her lunch in the same room.
ReplyDeleteThere are rumors circulating that some law suits against animal abuse have cost the convicted person more than it would for a child abuse law suit. I agree with Morgan that using animal testing has saved many human lives and that there is a very fine line between abuse and just using God-given supplies.
Karli Plunkett
Although I personally find it strange that she eats there, I agree with the possibility that she was just used to being around the mice everyday. I think people have stronger relationships with animals these days, but I also have the same view as people before me has said. I do not like the idea of inflicting pain on helpless animals, but if it benefits our research to save human lives then I, too, believe it is worth it.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Jackson
DeleteDoes Mary's example suggest that people can become desensitized to anything? Are there no limits to what people can become desensitized to? This may be seen as a good thing in some circumstances (medical experiments on human beings, battle), but it may be seen as a bad thing in other circumstances (medical experiments on human beings, battle). Do you think our society should be taking great measures to decrease desensitization to violence? To sex? To something else?
ReplyDeleteI do think people can be desensitized to anything. Take for example the Holocaust. Yes, the men, women, and children placed in the concentration camps were viewed as lower than others, but those in charge of the camps knew they were people. Regardless of their "status" they were people and they put them through horrible things and chose to become desensitized to the things that went on at the camps. As for the question of whether or not it is a good or bad thing that people can become desensitized to anything is complicated. On one hand, it could be a good thing because it allows scientists to complete their research. Which could ultimately benefit thousands of people. On the other hand, what if a scientist were to take it too far? If the research being done was meant only for good it would not be as difficult or as frowned upon to become desensitized to people or anything in general. I do believe that greater measures should be taken to decrease desensitization to violence, sex, and other things similar to those. Many people turn their heads and choose to look the other way when something bad happens that they could stop. Our society is becoming more selfish. People want what they want and don't want to do anything that could possibly ruin what they already have. Stopping something such as a robbery, or even something a little less severe could have more greater consequences than satisfaction.
DeleteIt is easy to say that we should condone medical experiments on rodents if those experiments have the potential to save human lives. But what about experiments that contribute to "pure research" as opposed to "practical research"? Pure research often contributes in the long run to practical results, but a scientist who is involved in pure research can't always say whether or not (or how or whether) their research may contribute to saving human lives. What if the research being done is research into the pain tolerance? Should there be any limits on the conduct of that research (which might involve something that looks a lot like torture) ? What if it involved vertebrate animals larger than a rodent? A rabbit? A monkey? A horse? Whom do we trust to make judgments about whether such research is valuable and humane?
ReplyDeleteI have found this section interesting since this summer. I believe the treatment of animals is one of those things we chalk up to the individual. I believe the laws that are currently in place say a lot about us. The only pain that should be inflicted is “necessary to the experiment”. I imagine if the experiment is to discover an animal’s pain tolerance (that does not correlate with human pain receptors in the first place) it would be considered necessary to straight up torture the animal. People become more sensitive to animals we see as pets like dogs and bunnies. I’m not sure why we as a culture value certain lives over others. Since we value human life over all, as humans, we are usually okay with any type of research that betters our own survival. I believe, with that as the consensus, animal research will not be closely monitored in the near future.
ReplyDelete