Print 69 comment(s) - last by Ictor.. on Oct 24 at 6:40 PM

A diagram shows how researchers first severed the nerve connection with the monkeys' arms and then reconnected their wrists via a rerouted connection to a single neuron. The monkeys were able to then move their wrists and play the game shown, which earned them treats.  (Source: Chet Moritz et al Nature)
Research are finding that rerouting nerve signals in primates may be surprisingly easy

DailyTech previously covered how monkeys had been wired with brain probes to a mechanical arm, which they learned to control.  Now another experiment has taken such concepts, much farther, reversing paralysis in monkeys through neuron implantation.

Eberhard Fetz, a professor of physiology and biophysics at the University of Washington, led the research.  The researchers began by paralyzing the nerves leading to the monkeys' arms.  They then placed a single wire on a neuron in the monkeys’ neural cortexes.  From there they routed the signal to a single neuron implanted in the monkeys' arm muscles.  The computer detected a specific firing pattern in the brain neuron and would then signal the neuron in the arm.

The electric "re-routing" working surprisingly well and the monkeys regained control of their wrists.  Their new capability was assessed by a simple video game.  The game was controlled by the monkeys' wrist motions.  By moving their wrists, they could move a cursor onscreen and by moving it to a box on the side, they could earn a reward.  With the incentive of the reward the monkeys soon learned to move their wrists, even though the motor cortex neuron was selected at random.

Chet Moritz, a senior research fellow at the University of Washington and coauthor of the researchers' paper states, "We found, remarkably, that nearly every neuron that we tested in the brain could be used to control this type of stimulation.  Even neurons which were unrelated to the movement of the wrist before the nerve block could be brought under control and co-opted."

The research is published in the latest online version of the journal Nature.

Most previous research had focused on complex firing patterns.  This is because typically even moving one arm muscle results from the firing of multiple neurons in a coordinated pattern.  The success of the single neuron approach raises new questions about how exactly the primate nervous system processes signals.

Regardless of the mechanics, the approach works, and Moritz says that it will be very useful as it requires less computing power.  In order to apply the new research to paralyzed patients, more work remains to be done.  Most importantly, the researchers will have to learn to make multiple rerouted muscles fire coordinately as they would in the body in a complex motion such as walking, or picking up an object.

For this reason, Andrew Schwartz, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh, remains a skeptic of the new efforts.  He states, "If your intention is to generate a movement, you have to somehow calculate the effect of all these forces across the arm.  It's not just, 'Activate a muscle and the arm goes where you want.' There's a lot of math involved."

Still, the University of Washington Researchers have moved forward to where one neuron controls two different wrists motions with different firing patterns mapped to each motion and another scenario in which two rerouted neurons each controlled a single muscle (direction of motion) and worked together.  Also they say one spinal cord cell, rerouted, can activate multiple arm muscles.  Moritz states, "Stimulating a single location in the spinal cord will often activate 10 to 15 different muscles in a precise balance."

The risks are also significant.  The electrodes wear down over time.  Also if they protrude out of the skin, there's major risk of infection and disruption in a normal daily environment.  The ultimate goal, the University of Washington researchers say, is miniaturization.  Says Moritz, "We think we may be one step closer to low-power, fully implantable systems."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

moral issues
By mattclary on 10/17/2008 2:05:53 PM , Rating: 4
First, let me say that the PETA I belong to is "People Eating Tasty Animals"

With that said... Wow... Doesn't it creep anyone out that they intentionally paralyze these monkeys? To me, paralysis is a pretty horrible fate, even if it is "just" one appendage. I am not against animal testing in general, but I'm just not sure how I feel about this.

RE: moral issues
By themengsk176 on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: moral issues
By InvertMe on 10/17/2008 2:43:43 PM , Rating: 5
You didn't even read the OP did you? You just wanted to lash out on the internet huh? Pretty safe world behind your keyboard.

RE: moral issues
By JonnyDough on 10/18/2008 3:33:50 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about his keyboard, but I suspect my keyboard of hiding WOMDs. If I don't shoot Osama Bin Laden on this banner ad soon, I'm likely to be blown to shreds. Gosh this is hard.

RE: moral issues
By ShaolinSoccer on 10/17/2008 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
Kinda makes you wonder whether or not these people who toture animals in the name of science ever feel bad about it? Or do they just feel nothing at all? If they take pleasure in it then that's really disturbing...

RE: moral issues
By PharmD on 10/18/2008 11:54:12 AM , Rating: 5
The researchers injected drugs into arm muscles of monkeys to induce temporary paralysis, then asked them to play a familiar video game.

Read this article on a website not titled "Daily Tech" and you might find out the researchers DID NOT take a baseball bat to the monkey's spine. They just used drugs very similar to a pregnant women getting nerve block to deliver a child.

"temporary" = "reversable"


- PharmD

RE: moral issues
By Justin Case on 10/18/2008 1:16:36 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, but is...

"reversable" = "reversible"

...? ;-)

RE: moral issues
By robinthakur on 10/23/2008 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
Or perhaps they don't see it as torture, they see it potentially curing human beings in the future who cannot walk. Long shot here...You seem to have an unfairly low opinion of scientists when practically everything in your world has been invented by them including the anti-biotics that stop you from dying from serious bacterial infections, and the innoculations which have wiped out measles, mumps, rubella, polio etc. like without scientists would be a scarily luddite and dangerous place.

RE: moral issues
By cscpianoman on 10/17/2008 3:59:28 PM , Rating: 5
We do a lot of things to animals that you may not be aware of. We actually have specially bred rats that are homozygous on all alleles (white lab rats) and we do all sorts of things to them. We give them cancer, we test drugs, we paralyze them, we feed them select foods, we hook up probes and all in the name of science.

We do this so we don't have to on humans and it is the choice of which is better ethically. I may have a drug with the potential to cure HIV, but I can't give it to a human without knowing the potential side-effects or if it will even work. If I test it in rats, actually in this case it would probably be dogs, first and there are no side effects and the disease is removed from the animal, then I can take it humans.

There are tons of laws in place to protect these animals. It boils down to whether or not there is a scientific purpose behind the treatment. IF there is a valid reason for it then you can perform the experiment, if not then it is animal cruelty.

RE: moral issues
By JonnyDough on 10/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: moral issues
By Spivonious on 10/18/2008 10:11:22 AM , Rating: 5
Actually it was the fleas on the rats that spread the plague.

RE: moral issues
By MrPoletski on 10/19/2008 7:26:02 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't care about rats, then you should read this daily mail article about....



RE: moral issues
By ImSpartacus on 10/18/2008 10:05:11 AM , Rating: 5
I think it all boils down to what you value. Do you value humans or animals more?

There's no right or wrong answer, it is an opinion. That said, I think it is pretty unanimous with most cultures of the world that humans are valued more than animals. Does that make it right? No, but that's how it is.

Ethics are relative.

RE: moral issues
By jkresh on 10/17/2008 4:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
not having read the article I can't be sure, but I would assume that the arm paralyses for the monkeys was temporary (if it were rats or something similar paralyzing them for research would not be uncommon, but monkeys are generally better protected).

RE: moral issues
By snownpaint on 10/17/2008 6:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely for a control factor. You sever the nerve coming out of the spinal cord or near the joint.. You don't want any false positives..

RE: moral issues
By TSS on 10/17/2008 7:15:56 PM , Rating: 4
meh. morals are double standards.

if in 20 years we hold a memorial service for these monkey's, where flowers are laid down by people who used to be paralyzed but now, thanks to the technology, are able to be there to do that, nobody will care for the monkeys. everybody will be happy for the people that can walk again.

don't get me wrong, if there's an alternative to animal testing i'm all for it. but to study and interact with something as complex as the brain, the only alternative is human testing which people dislike even more.

is it fair to those paticular monkey's? no. but it's about as fair as you and me being born in wealthy nations having more then enough wealth to even consider debating about moral issues, while <insert your large number here> africans die of starvation every day.

just the way the world works. if we'd set those monkey's free in the rainforest they'd die in fires soon thereafter as the wood is cleared for more farmland for our biofuels.

there's a time and place for everything. even utopia. it just isn't now.

RE: moral issues
By Noya on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: moral issues
By Justin Case on 10/18/2008 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather have it done to people like you, who think prisoners are somehow less human than them.

That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

Wanna save the poor little rat / guinea pig / monkey / whatever? Why don't you volunteer for testing?

RE: moral issues
By wvh on 10/17/2008 11:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
That was the first thing on my mind too... And I'm not squeamish either. I understand you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, but this does unsettle me slightly – not just because it's an animal, but especially since it's not that far away from our physique and capabilities. If I could do this to a monkey, I could probably do it to a human being.

RE: moral issues
By feraltoad on 10/18/2008 1:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone is just one sick relative away from agreeing with tests of these sorts.

RE: moral issues
By JonnyDough on 10/18/2008 3:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, there are worse things happening we should probably be putting our attention towards. For instance, global cooling! =P ZOMG, we're all gonna diiiiiiie!

RE: moral issues
By MrPoletski on 10/19/2008 7:28:31 AM , Rating: 2
"If I could do this to a monkey, I could probably do it to a human being."

?? that's the whole idea dude, they are trying to learn how to rewire paralysed peoples nerves so they can walk etc again.

RE: moral issues
By Hardin on 10/21/2008 11:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would hate to be a test monkey. I still remember those poor monkeys from System Shock 2.

Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By quiksilvr on 10/17/2008 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 1
It won't be long before you can just have artificial organs and neuron systems. Now the question remains: stem cells or synthetic cells? The morality issues with both are essentially gone (you can extract stem cells from living tissue and not from fertilized eggs) so it'll be interesting to see which way we go.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 11:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you are not killing one life to create/obtain the stem cell... then it should just be a question of which gives better results.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By bigboxes on 10/17/2008 12:47:05 PM , Rating: 1
As long as you understand that a zygot is not a life.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By GaryJohnson on 10/17/2008 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 3
Arg! Another moral/ethical debate on DT. Just stop it. It never goes anywhere productive.

Mick knew this would happen. Don't feed the Mick.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By JasonMick on 10/17/2008 1:08:25 PM , Rating: 3
Mwahaha I not only knew this would happen, I knew you would say that. It's true-- I'm secretly Sylar. You found me out. Its nice to get so much credit, you know. :)

Oh and I'd say the real ethical questions in not whether zygot(e) are alive, but whether zeitgeists are alive. I mean that's a very confusing assessment to make... but without it, how can the future of zeitgeist research proceed??

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By masher2 on 10/17/2008 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 3
> "but whether zeitgeists are alive..."

Either you're making a joke that's above my head, or that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

By JasonMick on 10/17/2008 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but if you believed in a collective unconscious, zeitgeists of each era could indeed be alive (or at least the direct action of a living entity), in the sense that they would be the manifestation of some massive entity composed of living matter. ;)

I thought we were getting a little bit too serious debating whether there's consciousness/a spirit in zygotes, something that's impossible to prove or disprove. We can't even prove such things in adult humans, so to argue about zygotes is an exercise in futility.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
zygote zy·gote (zi'got')
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.

Zeit·geist (tsit'gist', zit'-) Pronunciation Key
n. The spirit of the time; the taste and outlook characteristic of a period or generation: "It's easy to see how a student . . . in the 1940's could imbibe such notions. The Zeitgeist encouraged Philosopher-Kings" (James Atlas).

(new things I learned today.... thanks)

Now with that in mind... Doctors, paramedics, Nurses, and such determine someone is dead when their heart stops beating (let us not talk about the berlin heart or things like this device). So, if we use that thought the reverse should be true, if you have a beating heart you are alive, maybe brain dead but alive. I do not think either a zygote or zeitgeists has a heart let alone a beating heart. So, in my book they are not a creature or thing that can be alive from the start. They might be part of a live thing, but not living on their own.

OK, so what are you going to tell me that I'm missing in my thought process?

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 3:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and scientists call something that leeches off another life form a parasite. Doctors help cure you of parasites (even non-life-threatening ones). If a zygote isn't viable outside of the womb, it is, ipso facto, a parasite. All doctors should offer treatment upon discovery of pregnancy. It is then the woman's choice whether to accept treatment or deal with the consequences.

OK, so what are you going to tell me that I'm missing in my thought process?

(I'm at least partially playing devil's advocate here - that is, I don't buy into this argument, but I support a woman's right to choose.)

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Myg on 10/17/2008 4:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the logic of your arguement, a human being is a parasite from the moment of conception to death of old age.

The underlying fact is, and its often lost; is that we rely on other humans and creatures around us just like a 'parasite' does.

Its a web of interconnectivity that is unescapable and dangerous to the very fabrics of society if not accepted.

To call a spoon a fork definetly wont help you chose from the "primordial soup" any easier.

By foolsgambit11 on 10/18/2008 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on. My conflation was humorous and pointed (if I may say so). Your conflation ignores a major portion of the definition of a parasite. A parasite has a single host. It's also humorless and all new-agey. Our relationship with other humans and creatures (with the exception of the ones we eat, I suppose) is more a mutually symbiotic one, anyway.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By William Gaatjes on 10/19/2008 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 3
Actually there has been some research done where the zygote in a later state starts to function as a parasite but more similair like cancer does. I am still searching where i found that.

On a side note, I noticed that some egg laying animals do not have cancer like diseases. Maybe the ability to get cancer is someting only mammals have because mammals give living birth ? Maybe there are similair genes used by cancercells to hide themselves when they become an organised like a tumor. For those that say men can have tumors too, we have the same immune system as women only with women, in the womb the embryo and the placenta has some way of fooling the mothers immune system.

Here are some links for the interested :

search for this text on the website below :Why_isnt_an_implanted_embryo_rejected_by_the_mothe r_in_the_way_that_an_allograft_is

I don't know, i am cetainly not an expert but i do find it fascinating.

By William Gaatjes on 10/19/2008 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
yay i thought it up, and finished reading the sciencedaily article and the researcher says it too. I am happy :).

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Myg on 10/17/2008 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

When the world wakes up and realises that calling something by a name doesnt make it the name; then they can consider themselves educated. Otherwise we are just giving things names to try and hide the greater unity behind them for the convienence of our guilt and desire to not take responsibility for the things around us.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 8:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
A little off topic, but to respond to your generalization:

Yes, because you should definitely take responsibility for your uncle raping you when you are 12 years old and go ahead and have that baby.

But you're right, it'd be selfish of a 12 year old not to have the child which will live its life in ridicule.

No one is pro-abortion, some are just anti-choice.


I'm pro-responsibility, but I would never condemn another person for their choices. If stem cells can be harvested without creating life, great. But if lives can be saved by ones that haven't yet become sentient, I do not fear for the "geist" or "spirit" of the embryo that was used. I think that whatever "God" you may believe in is looking out for it.

Oh, and Sylar, Peter, and all of the people who can see the future (there are a few now) can already see the tangent that I've started). *evil smile* :]

By JonnyDough on 10/18/2008 3:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
Very good perspective. :-) I applaud you. Never say never though, everyone condemns everyone.

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Myg on 10/19/2008 5:15:12 PM , Rating: 1
Since when does it make sense making two victims out of one?

How is that responsible?

RE: Reminds me of Bicentennial Man...
By Alexstarfire on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 3:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Like how Peter thinks of how a person makes them feel to activate his powers!

Sorry, Jason's Sylar comment above had to be reinforced.

By quiksilvr on 10/19/2008 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Me neither! What did I say that merits a -1 rating?

By snownpaint on 10/17/2008 5:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Kill everything, I was to live forever. /s/

So worried about that little blob of goo..

What about the monkey. Breed in a cage, raised in a cage. then had holes drilled in its head, surgery to paralyzed it's arm, force to complete tests locked in a chair only to then be locked back in a cage, finally killed to study its brain. Is one life greater then another. Is life determined by just being or by living. Especially when one life hasn't had one yet, and another had one of the worst kinds.
Personally, I don't care about the monkey or the goo ball. its just me. if you trash it, see if you can reuse it. waste is a waste.

By Ictor on 10/17/2008 3:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
The idea that a monkey is paralized disgusts me. Animals are being degraded to raw material, to be mutilated, totured, and mudered for a new "humanloving" goal.

RE: Disgusting
By Lord 666 on 10/17/2008 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Science also tests on humans, but they are called volunteers. In those studies, they are not rewarded with treats, but paid thousands of dollars.

I'm from the school of thinking that MORE human experiments will only benefit mankind. Opening an offshore research facility to specialize on grey area ethical experiments would only expedite medical discoveries.

RE: Disgusting
By Ictor on 10/17/2008 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 4
There are no closed systems.

Degrading life in one area makes it only more likely in another. Changing society in an immoral heap, where medical discoveries become meaningless.

RE: Disgusting
By robinthakur on 10/23/2008 12:54:49 PM , Rating: 1
Your terrible spelling and lack of perspective offends me far more than the thought that we might be using a monkey to further our understanding of the human body and brain enough to allow people to walk again. As somebody who probably is not crippled, and doesn't have any family members who cannot walk you would doubtless not see what the point is. Far from being a raw resource this monkey's life has been documented in extraordinary detail, and will benefit the human race, which is more than can be said for you and your kind. The scientists carrying out these experiments exercise the utmost care and respect at all times when dealing with live specimens and have a great respect for life, minimising the pain which their subject feels where possible. To portay their fantastic work as being barbaric and analygous to mutilation, 'muder' and 'toture' beggars belief and considers only your emotion reaction and not the consequences of their actions.

If you disagree that strongly, invent an artificial brain and nerves and then we won't need to do animal neuroscience experiments anymore. You won't or can't do that because your only instinct is to hinder humanity.

Human's put humans first. Monkey's put monkeys first, so I guess that makes you a monkey.

RE: Disgusting
By Ictor on 10/24/2008 6:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
"There are no closed systems.

Degrading life in one area makes it only more likely in another. Changing society in an immoral heap, where medical discoveries become meaningless."

Apologies for the terrible spelling.

You don't know me or my kind.
I'am a human being not a naked ape. Which you as a true darwinian probably believe.
Subject = raw material.
Repect and "minimising pain to a subject" are like water and oil. They can't be in same place.
The consequences you are talking about are sciencefiction. The present consequences of their actions are animals in pain.
There will never be an artificial brain. The complexity of the brain is forever beyond humans technological capabilities to recreate.
Like attracts like. To toture and slaughter animals for medical research for some future "relieving" of human suffering, ultimately creates greater human suffering. Suffering which hinders humanity in all it's systems.

B.d.w. I want to thank you for proving my point.

RE: Disgusting
By Ictor on 10/24/2008 6:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
repect = respect = an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each individual and each species.

immoral or right?
By Screwballl on 10/18/2008 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 1
Well for those who claim immoral, then you must not be religious. And if you are religious then you must not be Christian in any form as all of the bibles state man has the power to do what he wants to any animal.

Gen 1:26 Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Commence voting down because I brought up a religious point of view lol

RE: immoral or right?
By nycromes on 10/18/2008 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
You read that as we have the power over them to do whatever we want to them. I read it as we have a responsibility to take care of them... its all in the eyes of the beholder.

But to be honest, I don't mind animal testing when it might help us out. If I were paralyzed, you can bet I would want them to find a way to fix it.

RE: immoral or right?
By mindless1 on 10/18/2008 9:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
You have twisted the intent of that passage then tried to paint a black and white picture in a grey world.

Dominion commonly means dominance, power, control, etc. Lots of people may've been more or less dominant than others at some point in their life, lots of people have some degree of control or power over what others do and don't do. Lots of people don't paralyze others then use electrodes to see if they can make their arms work again. It's a similar situation with humans and animals.

How is it that you can't realize the passage could not possibly have been intended to deal with neural medical experimentation since that field didn't even exist at the time?

Further, lots of non-religious people happen to agree with some of the supposedly moral concepts in the Bible, and lots of religious people don't agree with some of them. Your arbitrary stance is just wrong on so many levels.

RE: immoral or right?
By William Gaatjes on 10/19/2008 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
God really likes himself to speak about "us".
Or was he that lonely ? :)
Or was there a holy mother next to the holy father ?

Man has to respect every animal and only take what he needs to feed or protect himself in a reasonable way.
Keep the balance and you will always have food without much work.
Become greedy and you will starve.
Becom an idiot and you will starve.

By InvertMe on 10/17/2008 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why but that monkey picture creeps me out.


RE: Creepy
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 2:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds you to much of family??

Sorry, had to say it.

Be carefull Pfizer...
By greylica on 10/17/2008 5:58:01 PM , Rating: 4
Once they find how to reroute p**is, may be a leg neuron can sustain and vibrate plus more hours !

From someone in the field...
By ipay on 10/18/2008 12:57:10 AM , Rating: 3
Dear whiney animal rights types, RTFA.

"Wrist muscles were then paralysed by injecting anaesthetic (3% chloroprocaine or 2% lidocaine, each with 1:100,000 adrenaline) into catheters or cuffs surrounding the median, ulnar and/or radial nerves."

Now go back to bitching about how scientific research is the same thing as cosmetic testing, and how the world can be healed using hemp rope. Hey, I got an idea! Let's talk about the importance of the findings! Morons.

Protesting pediatric dentist offices holds the same moral ground as you. Good job defending humanity.

""People Eating Tasty Animals""
By DatabaseMX on 10/17/2008 3:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
That will catch up with you Further On Up The Road ... not to worry!

By funnieguy89 on 10/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hello,,,
By MrPoletski on 10/19/2008 7:30:25 AM , Rating: 2

Monkey torture.
By Dean364 on 10/18/2008 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By DatabaseMX on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By mkrech on 10/17/2008 4:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Bob, you've been told not to play on the computer.

Now come on, it's time for your medication and diaper change. We don't want you making another mess on the nice padded walls.

Be a good boy and you can watch some more CNN.

RE: Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By croc on 10/18/2008 1:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
And we are also short of a few kidneys, livers, lungs...

RE: Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By William Gaatjes on 10/19/2008 3:23:43 PM , Rating: 1
There you have your moral and ethical discussion.

Hypothetical speaking :
Let's say we have a law that permits us to use organs of prisoners that have received the death penalty. They shall be killed in a non toxic way (local anesthetic to sleep and a painless death and a pin through the head for example similair like cows and pigs are killed for meat) to preserve the quality of the organs. That way these prisoners could redeem themselves by helping patients who have not commited a crime but will die soon because of a failling organ. I would not have a problem that prisoners who do not get a death sentence would be asked to be donor's for example a kidney in exchange of sentence reducement. You can live to be old on 1 kidney.
Let's say this would be allowed. Now you have the problem that some patients surely would rather die then have a liver or a heart for example from a pedophile on death row.

If you want animal experiments to stop, make sure we can do the stemcell research to just grow a body with only a redimentary brain to keep the body alive but without cortex or other brain parts related to higher brainfunctions that makes us who we are. That we we can do the research we need to do to protext ourselves from diseases, have organ's for patients untill we can grow them form the patient themselves. As long as stemcell research on humans is not possible in a more advanced way , we have no choice to use animals for every experiment. Denying door 1 leads to door number 2. It is that simple.

RE: Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By Yossarian22 on 10/20/2008 12:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
A farce of a discussion if there ever was one.
Ethics in this field is concerned with two questions.
1: What deserve to have rights?
2: What are those rights?
The OPs 'discussion' was nothing more than empty, incoherent, rhetorical drivel. His post directly contradicts itself (If we don't have the right to test on animals, what gives us the right to imprison other humans, let alone test medicine, on them? ).
Your problem isn't one. I have the choice of rejecting treatment. If that is somehow a problem, then it is one every single instance of medicine shares.

RE: Inhumane Animal Treatment ....
By William Gaatjes on 10/20/2008 1:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, i was not hoping for a discussion, just to let people think.

You see, Most prisoners do not have a clean bill of health. It is very likely the organs aren't in a good shape either. And the prisoners who live healthy and just want to start a new life after they get out are not the once waiting for death sentence to be executed. As always there are exceptions but when it comes to testing medicines or donor organs we are not talking about exceptions.

No, i personally feel for more research to stemcells and dna to grow in the future what we need for donor applications and for new medicines or new to be discovered knowledge. I can understand that using embryo's or foetuses is not that easy. I would not feel good about it at all as images and sounds and accompanying feelings of crying children pop up in my mind. And that is why i could live with the idea that a body could be made but not a person for medical research as described in my former post.

By William Gaatjes on 10/20/2008 1:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
argh, typo. Once must be ones.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki