Why is this an uncrossable line, though? Clearly this research is meant to be a first/early step towards preserving brains in the event of traumatic bodily injury. Is that not a worthwhile goal? Is it outweighed by some possible nefarious abuse of this technique?
There are obviously major issues to work out still, but I don't see how else this research can advance but with animal experiments.
I would be seriously disappointed if some of these people don’t have research projects running for this. You can get away with some crazy stuff once you leave US soil.
I don’t see major issues either. If they can make this work it reasons maintaining the eyes may be possible, and perhaps some auditory nerve capability too.
I’d probably take the chance if faced with early death otherwise.
Because animal torture is considered unethical. If you don't agree that's fine. Let us at least agree the line is needed. We shouldn't be discussing this retroactively.
Please don't represent your debate opponents here as supporting "animal torture" -- that's horrible.
In this article there was no brain function at all.
As research progresses, it may be possible to establish brain activity without any pain sensation. One can debate whether being suddenly blind, deaf, and paralyzed rises to the level of animal abuse. And then, whether this is nonetheless worth the research benefits.
That's exactly my point,is there a law that defines what constitutes enough brain functionality to classify this as torture.
This isn't about you or anyone else supporting animal torture,don't imply my saying things I did not. This is about clearly defining what constitutes animal torture and unethical practices are and implementing most severe of consequences for those who cross it.
The debate is need for a clearly defined line and consequences,not where it should be drawn.
There are obviously major issues to work out still, but I don't see how else this research can advance but with animal experiments.