If he's working in China, they'll probably let him do research on condemned prisoners. There wouldn't be any published articles about that though. I wonder what 'dark research' has been carried out in totalitarian regimes.
2016 in a nutshell: Boffins break monkeys' backs to turn them into tragic shuffling cyborgs
Scientists trying to find a cure for spinal injuries have claimed a notable success. Grégoire Courtine, a neuroscientist with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has produced a paper describing how his team mapped and recorded the neural activity in monkeys standing and walking on treadmills. The eggheads then crippled …
-
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 14:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
they'll probably let him do research on condemned prisoners
Waste not, want not.
But why stop there? After the research has been done, suffocate them, skin to be tanned for wallets and car seats, any flab for soap, meat for restaurants (or feeding prisoners if it doesn't taste good), bones for fertiliser. And brains, nipples, noses, eyelids, tongues, rectums, dangly bits, miscellaneous internal organs that the butcher can't sell, ears, fingernails.....they all go into burgers for a well known fast food chain. Gherkins and fries with mine, please!
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 14:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: But why stop there?
If you've ever wondered why the human bodies in the "Body Worlds" exhibits look Chinese, you've seen another use: entertainment.
Arguably that's quasi-educational? And didn't Jeremy Bentham beat the Chinese to that by a couple of hundred years? Now, for entertainment you'd combine condemned Chinese prisoners, back-breaking scientists, the little electronic control, and you'd have the prisoners in a big glass case, each alive, their spinal cord suitably severed, and their movements now controlled by a console gamepad that the visitors outside the glass case could use. You know those martial arts combat games on consoles? Imagine how much people would pay for a "real meat" version. Maybe do the same to some wolves, and then you could do Men versus Wolves battles.
Mind you fighting for the entertainment of the proles is a bit low brow, and they'll do that amongst themselves without the aid of technology. If the Chinese have got enough condemned, then why not sell them pre-fitted with the remote control kit, and (rich) people could have their own remote control butler. Never mind monkey butlers, or characterless robot-butlers, science has leapfrogged that, and we are on the cusp of a golden age of condemned man butlers (and as fitting this day and age, "Made in China").
And in fact, if the death penalty meant becoming a cyber-butler rather than death, it could become much more common - we could replace life sentences with cyberification. If there's insufficient demand for butlers, then we could get them to do other stuff like roll out universal broadband, fill potholes, do low grade care jobs, lick toilets clean, and stuff like that. Infamous criminals would then have to do public chores - unable to top themselves, they'd endure an entire lifetime of public abuse as they did menial jobs.
Think of the possibilities!
-
Monday 14th November 2016 09:33 GMT Tom Paine
Re: But why stop there?
You could be on to something there. And a battalion of these retrofitted zombiebots could march for the annual May Day march past, along with a few battalions of the PRA, some mobile ICBM launchers,.. tramp! tramp! tramp! Here they come! See how perfectly synchronised they are...
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 12:19 GMT Kaltern
I hate to be the one to say it, but isn't this utterly pointless? I mean, it's basically the same as cutting a cord with lots of wires. If you already know what wire connects to which, it's trivial to repair the damage, but in the case of those already paralyzed, you wouldn't probably know what 'wires' were damaged, and thus would be impossible to repair.
Hell I could probably fix those poor monkeys with a soldering iron. Well, maybe, my hands are not as steady as they used to be...
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 23:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Not pointless
I have connections with groups in the USA who are working with people who have have spinal cord injuries and the researchers are working to map the motor pathways post-injury with quite a lot of success - sure, nobody's getting out of bed and walking around the room yet, but the progress to date suggest that this should be possible in the future. At the moment, once the patient is out of bed and supported, they can make them walk and that's a lot more than was possible even a few years ago.
I expect that in 20 years it will be possible to work around most spinal cord injuries to give the patients a large degree of mobility - and it will be done without crippling any animals.
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 07:16 GMT MacroRodent
Wiring set up worse than in my house
If you already know what wire connects to which, it's trivial to repair the damage,
In this case, the wires are squishy, deteriorate easily, they are unlabeled, and the communications protocol used on them is undocumented ,and varies from unit to unit...
Impressive feat connecting them, says I.
-
-
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 14:14 GMT Rusty 1
Re: Not ethical
Agreed - this is very nasty stuff.
That the Swiss will allow further work to be done locally following "successful" work in China is disgusting. Next I suppose we'll be hunting whales as Japanese research has shown that whales more often than not have one or more flippers, fins, or flukes.
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 14:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Not ethical
very nasty stuff
You'd have thought enough poor bastards had been mangled and disabled in the past two decades of continuous hobby wars (plus the far greater number injured by road accidents) that there wasn't any need to cripple a few poor bloody monkeys.
Having said that, if this leads to a cure for a range of crippling injuries and diseases, would the guy still be a villain, and would wheelchair bound vegans be refusing to accept a "cure" when the dirty work has already been done?
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 19:55 GMT Mark 85
Re: Not ethical
Having said that, if this leads to a cure for a range of crippling injuries and diseases, would the guy still be a villain, and would wheelchair bound vegans be refusing to accept a "cure" when the dirty work has already been done?
He probably would still be a villain and it's probable that the research would be considered tainted. Go back to WWII and experiments done on the Jews. For example, there was research into hypothermia that was brutal for the victims but provided a sound database for further study. For decades the results of the testing in the camps was forbidden to be used and understandably so. A little thing called "ethics"...
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 23:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Not ethical
'For decades the results of the testing in the camps was forbidden to be used and understandably so. A little thing called "ethics"...'
Do you really believe this was adhered to for very long, if at all ?
The data may have never been publically refered to, but the data was certainly referenced as a starting point for research.
This would have been the case in the USSR for certain, and I do not believe the USA would have allowed the USSR to gain a march on them for the sake of something called 'Ethics'.
Look at some of the then 'secret' research projects that happened in the 50's / 60's / 70's and guess where the starting point was derived from !!!???
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 12:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Not ethical
In reply to the Down votes, this is not a fiction or made up view.
As an example, a quick search via google finds:
'Of all known Nazi experiments, the Dachau hypothermia experiments are the subject of the most controversy in the world of medicine. At least 45 publications have made a reference to the Dachau experiments, with some like Robert Pozos (a physiologist specializing in hypothermia) believing that using these results could advance medical research and save lives. Dr. Robert L. Berger said in his 1990 article Nazi Science — The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments'
From https://www.sciencedump.com/content/are-results-nazi-human-experimentation-being-used-medicine-today
This is not the first or only mention of the use of the data from the Nazi Experiments.
It is reasonable to presume that there are other instances of usage/reference that have happened since the data was found at the end of the 2nd World War. (Not all publically documented.)
I am not anti-science but simply stating that ALL boundaries are capable of being passed if someone is able to 'self-justify' the exception, no matter how flawed the justification may be.
To mirror/mangle a well known phrase .... "Justification is in the mind of the beholder"
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 16:18 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Not ethical
a quick search via google finds
I don't need to do a Google search to discover what Nazi medicos did to prisoners. A Jewish friend has horrendous scarring to his legs where the skin was removed without anaesthesia. Jews don't really feel pain apparently. The skin was used to graft wounds received by German soldiers, presumably to little effect given immunology. My friend was four years old at the time.I thought of this when having my CRT-D implant when the anaesthetising nurse "forgot" to top up the local anaesthetic because he was "distracted". There's not much ethics in medicine.
-
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 09:30 GMT John Smith 19
"Go back to WWII and experiments done on the Jews. F"
Actually AFAIK they did them on any concentration camp inmates, including Russian PoWs.
The key ones are to do with aircrew survival in the Atlantic IE effects of Hypothermia and the design of ejector seats and high altitude exposure. High altitude and hypothermia were done at Dachau.
This data was seized by the Allies at the end of the war. The question is what is worse. Killing these people or killing these people and ignoring the information so they died for nothing?
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Go back to WWII and experiments done on the Jews. F"
The gamut of the peoples impacted is well known, it does not change the fact that the information has been used by parties also with that knowledge.
There are many arguments about the use of the data AND if the data is of any scientific value at all.
The justification of using the data to turn the bad to a good cause has been used and very strenuously fought against by many parties including obviously survivors and their families etc.
This is not a simple question.
I simply wanted to state that the prohibition of the use of the data was not as clear cut as it was made out. As the data is available to many via official and unofficial routes the simplistic assumption that the agreed prohibition had/has been working is not vailid.
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 23:04 GMT Maty
Re: Not ethical
Facts don't have ethics.
If someone discovers a fact in an immoral manner, that research is immoral, not the discovery. By all means find and punish the researcher appropriately. (In the case of the Nazi researchers, they should have been punished as one would any other murderer and torturer.)
However, the facts do not change according to who discovered them, or how.
-
-
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 15:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Not ethical
Next I suppose we'll be hunting whales as Japanese research has shown that whales more often than not have one or more flippers, fins, or flukes.
Please explain why hunting for whales, as long as it's sustainable, is more unethical than killing any other animal for food?
Your post is simply an expression of moral relativism with racist undertones.
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 17:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Not ethical
I think it's because a lot of people have grown up with a belief that whales are really wise old sages of the deep. It's the whale songs, I guess. Killing them is therefore much more heinous than offing a cow. Also most of these people don't eat whale, so they don't have to feel like hypocrites as they sometimes do when chowing down on a Big Mac.
-
Saturday 12th November 2016 22:00 GMT Sandtitz
Re: Not ethical
"Please explain why hunting for whales, as long as it's sustainable, is more unethical than killing any other animal for food?"
Because humans are irrational.
It's not any more unethical than any other mammal harvesting, including any domesticated pet. Our (western) society just frowns on that, but I have no beef with rat/dog/bug/whale/turtle eaters as long as it is sustainable and the species is not endangered.
The unethical part in whaling is that the Japanese claim it's done for scientific reasons when clearly it is not. The Icelanders are also hunting endangered whales but at least they're not claiming it's for the common good.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Monday 14th November 2016 09:46 GMT Tom Paine
Re: Not ethical
Yes, whale meat is eaten in Japan, the Faroes, and IIRC in Greenland and the high arctic north of Canada.
In Japan, of course, there are plenty of other things available to eat, should you have objections to doing so.
And whilst I'm here, a little music to accompany this Monday morning philosophising:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6b8KuDou7k
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Monday 14th November 2016 17:07 GMT bombastic bob
Re: Not ethical
re: whale hunting. eating whale meat
in certain parts of Scandinavian countries [I forget where, exactly], Japan, and among certain Eskimo tribes, whaling (and whale meat) has been part of their lives for CENTURIES (if not longer). I've never eaten whale meat, but whale steak used to be generally available in Japan. I think Japan no longer does any whaling, though (not even for research). At one time it was a cheap alternative to beef.
-
-
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 09:39 GMT John Savard
Delaying Hope
There are many people with spinal cord injuries - and none of them are getting any younger. They need to be cured as soon as possible, so they can get on with as much of the rest of their lives as possible.
Monkeys are not persons, they are things. Yes, they are biological things rather than inanimate things. But I find it hugely unethical that restrictions would be placed on their use in legitimate research, as this represents an inversion of values.
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 13:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Delaying Hope
Rather than resort to cheap insults, I would simply state there is 'Life' and there is not.
It does discomfort me greatly that we are crippling animals to test our 'skills'.
I hope that the research is successful quickly, for all our sakes.
I cannot understand the mind set of 'Biological things' as this also includes 'Man'.
It is simply the old idea that 'Man' is at the top of the Hierarchy and can do anything it want to the 'Things' lower down.
['Things' makes it easier to justify the actions that are performed.]
Across history redefining 'Things' has been 'useful' to justify anything 'Man' can think of, even against others.
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 16:18 GMT Havin_it
Re: Delaying Hope
Well, you know, we could use what we learned to fix knackered (not by us) monkeys too. I doubt we will (outwith the class of vet practice Michael Jackson had for Bubbles back in the day), I'm just saying.
Don't be too hard on John. His language is a bit blunt, but he has a point and I find I largely agree with it (uh-oh). I don't desire the extinction of any species of life, nor inflicting suffering (a very difficult thing to quantify in less-sentient organisms, mind you) without purpose. However, it's unthinkable that humans could thrive as we do without exploiting other species in various ways, including lethal and "life-changing" ways. Polio is a lifeform, but I'd eradicate that in a heartbeat. It's all relative.
By and large, I'd sooner we cracked the technique of not doing unspeakable cruelty to our own species before we get to micromanaging the extent to which we're comfortable doing it to cows or monkeys. Because one way or another, we'll always be doing so. I challenge anyone to establish a "red line" on that which can't be argued against.
-
Monday 14th November 2016 10:59 GMT Bloodbeastterror
Re: Delaying Hope
"Rather than resort to cheap insults"
Accepted. Written in a moment of blazing anger at this person's lack of empathy. I was actually thinking his surname might lead to something akin to "savoir", in which case my comment would have been similar - the actual etymology was just a bonus.
And I see from subsequent comments that I'm not alone in my disgust at this person's attitude, which is so extreme that he may well be a troll hoping to rev up some excitement for his otherwise dull life.
-
Monday 14th November 2016 21:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Delaying Hope
"... which is so extreme that he may well be a troll hoping to rev up some excitement for his otherwise dull life."
Unfortunately, this mindset is not uncommon.
The justification is always that it is for the greater good of 'Man', and by definition 'Man' is more important that any other living creature regardless of what we do to that creature.
I know all the arguments, usually along the lines of ..... "Would you let a child die because you did not want to harm a Dog/Cat/Monkey/Rat ........ etc etc"
Of course, I would not want the child to die but it is an easy salve to excuse inflicting pain/distress on another living entity.
I suspect the mindset is more prevalent in younger people who tend to have a greater focus on the 'self' and age/experience/'a growing sense of empathy' changes a proportion of these peoples minds over time.
[Our current focus on 'Self' fostered by Social Media and Reality TV does not help either !!! :) ]
I don't have an answer but ignoring the situation is not a very good solution, in my view.
The argument supporting the continued use of Test Animals, from a 'Business bottom line' perspective, is it's not easy to justify any attempts to find valid alternative ways of testing that are as 'effective and useful', as all work costs and the same people could be doing 'constructive' research for the same outlay while the 'diversion' could be seen as delaying existing work on 'more important' research.
Just be thankful you are at the top of the Hierarchy !!!
-
-
-
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 16:43 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Delaying Hope
How selfish are we humans, kill anything for an extra 5 minutes of this life of confrontation.
Recently killed to give The Git and SWMBO rather more than an extra 5 minutes' life: one sheep, one cabbage, one carrot, one pumpkin, one parsnip and a handful of wheat berries (think of them as foetuses) mercilessly ground to powder for the gravy. The sage leaves were still living as I savagely chopped them up into small pieces.Having also registered as an organ donor, I too agree that none should go to John Savard.
-
-
-
Sunday 13th November 2016 23:01 GMT Haku
Who else remembers Project X (1987)?
Dubbed as a comedy, it was a bit depressing really, especially with the apt use of Peter Gabriel's Shock The Monkey song.
-
Monday 14th November 2016 08:03 GMT Pascal Monett
Feel sorry for the monkeys
These little guys were all ready to live their life and suddenly they are crippled and probably can't figure out why. Although they might be able to understand who is responsible (ie white coats).
It's cruel, but medical research often is. The only justification is that the goal is to improve Man's understanding of biology to better help in the future.
As cruel as this is, I'm pretty sure that the people who will be saved by whatever technology this experimentation gives birth to will be mighty happy that they can walk again.
But damn, those poor monkeys.
-
Monday 14th November 2016 12:47 GMT M7S
Any divers objecting to this?
as IIRC the decompression experiments that led to safe diving tables were conducted using goats.
There's a balance to be struck and I don't pretend to have all the answers but at some stage things like this need to be done, although if people objecting to animal testing for life saving medicines (and I do make a distinction from testing regarding cosmetics) would like to wear a little wristband then I am sure that with the increasing prevalence of things like diabetes, many medical staff would be glad to save the NHS lots of money and at the same time assist in reducing the population of the planet to a more sustainable level.
Before anyone gets on their high horse about "testing should be done using human volunteers", and there's certainly a good case to be made about capacity and consent, there are rules on this. One sample situation (that also in this instance would probably not be aided by the use of animals) is that no-one really understands how Entonox (laughing gas) works, nor therefore how to make it more effective, but there's no ethics committee that will allow you to inflict pain on people in any kind of trial with control subjects, double blind etc
Life sucks at times
Biting the hand that feeds IT
