Is there though? The results of this are written up in a paper no one will ever read, "Transmisability of Sand Aids to Beagles" or some shit. It's make work for unethical eggheads.
FYI this story came out in August, and the scientists in the study said there was NO scientific reason to run this study.
It was conducted because he needed to use all the money in the budget, there was absolutely nothing learned of scientific importance from the study, in fact a previous study that was nearly identical already proved the hypothesis they were testing for.
why not just give the fucking money back instead of wasting it?
I see you've never been part of a budget meeting where an entire budget wasn't used.
In Government especially they are in a constant battle for more funding, whether they need it or not.
Because it is so competitive for money anyone who doesn't use their full budget has their next years budget cut to the amount used.
They can't just keep the money, they can't pay out bonuses, they have to use it 'as intended' which results in insane things done by the US military, the DEA / FBI / CIA etc. because they suddenly have their budgets increased and they just don't know how the hell to spend it all.
You wouldn't believe the amount of 'research' that gets approved that has little to no purpose simply because they need to max out their budget for the year and don't have any better way to spend it.
I'll see if I can find the article that quotes the scientists, it was from when the first story broke.
They could also argue that Gain of Function testing is necessary and yields useful information we can use to fight novel viruses.
But yes that does sound like the excuse they will come up with when they can no longer ignore the story. "This happens all the time, it's unfortunate but important work."
it becomes another tool and becomes too easy to use
This is exactly what has happened. People broadly but begrudging support animal testing in cases where it is truly necessary, usually for testing important life-saving medication. Most people do not support animal testing in cases where some sociopath scientist needs to test his absurdly stupid idea or some greedy corporation needs to make sure their unnecessary chemical additives wonāt kill you.
I think most people, like myself view it as a nessasary evil at best and something we really should be putting all that computing power we've been building up over the years towards supplanting it. I want animal testing to have clear goals and minimize the suffering of the participants. They spent more money ensuring the Mengele wannabes were comfortable than the dogs, that shouldn't sit right with anyone.
Yeah, I canāt see the āethical tradeoffā hereā¦
Itās just āscienceā for the sake of āscienceā, and for grant money, and because they can (and arguably for the sake of cruelty itself), as innumerate other people here have pointed outā¦
Thereās no value in this. And I say this as a literal scientist-in-training, who has had to do live invertebrate experiments beforeā¦
I would refuse to do something like this, though. Or rats. Or fucking tuna, which is more relevant, in my caseā¦
It justā¦ Doesnāt sit well with me, as a āscience personā.
For some of my classmates, though? I could TOTALLY see them participating in a āstudyā like this one, if they could somehow convince themselves it was āworthwhileā or āvalidā. Or even just to get praise heaped on them by ādaddy professorāā¦ š
Even my parents, who are LITERALLY MEDICAL DOCTORS, have no qualms about justifying this, and would happily have participated, if it was āofferedā when they were at med schoolā¦
Is there though? The results of this are written up in a paper no one will ever read, "Transmisability of Sand Aids to Beagles" or some shit. It's make work for unethical eggheads.
FYI this story came out in August, and the scientists in the study said there was NO scientific reason to run this study.
It was conducted because he needed to use all the money in the budget, there was absolutely nothing learned of scientific importance from the study, in fact a previous study that was nearly identical already proved the hypothesis they were testing for.
I'm hungry for some SAUCE on this. I need to know why they did this - why not just give the fucking money back instead of wasting it?
I know the answer though - because they can, because it's government but surely we have something better than just that.
This is a cardinal sin in government. If you don't use your budget, your budget will be adjusted DOWN next fiscal year.
I see you've never been part of a budget meeting where an entire budget wasn't used.
In Government especially they are in a constant battle for more funding, whether they need it or not.
Because it is so competitive for money anyone who doesn't use their full budget has their next years budget cut to the amount used.
They can't just keep the money, they can't pay out bonuses, they have to use it 'as intended' which results in insane things done by the US military, the DEA / FBI / CIA etc. because they suddenly have their budgets increased and they just don't know how the hell to spend it all.
You wouldn't believe the amount of 'research' that gets approved that has little to no purpose simply because they need to max out their budget for the year and don't have any better way to spend it.
I'll see if I can find the article that quotes the scientists, it was from when the first story broke.
Is there really?
They could also argue that Gain of Function testing is necessary and yields useful information we can use to fight novel viruses.
But yes that does sound like the excuse they will come up with when they can no longer ignore the story. "This happens all the time, it's unfortunate but important work."
This is exactly what has happened. People broadly but begrudging support animal testing in cases where it is truly necessary, usually for testing important life-saving medication. Most people do not support animal testing in cases where some sociopath scientist needs to test his absurdly stupid idea or some greedy corporation needs to make sure their unnecessary chemical additives wonāt kill you.
I think most people, like myself view it as a nessasary evil at best and something we really should be putting all that computing power we've been building up over the years towards supplanting it. I want animal testing to have clear goals and minimize the suffering of the participants. They spent more money ensuring the Mengele wannabes were comfortable than the dogs, that shouldn't sit right with anyone.
Yeah, I canāt see the āethical tradeoffā hereā¦
Itās just āscienceā for the sake of āscienceā, and for grant money, and because they can (and arguably for the sake of cruelty itself), as innumerate other people here have pointed outā¦
Thereās no value in this. And I say this as a literal scientist-in-training, who has had to do live invertebrate experiments beforeā¦
I would refuse to do something like this, though. Or rats. Or fucking tuna, which is more relevant, in my caseā¦
It justā¦ Doesnāt sit well with me, as a āscience personā.
For some of my classmates, though? I could TOTALLY see them participating in a āstudyā like this one, if they could somehow convince themselves it was āworthwhileā or āvalidā. Or even just to get praise heaped on them by ādaddy professorāā¦ š
Even my parents, who are LITERALLY MEDICAL DOCTORS, have no qualms about justifying this, and would happily have participated, if it was āofferedā when they were at med schoolā¦
Fucking makes me sick, man. š
What's the purpose of that particular experiment, though?