NASA to irradiate monkeys.

[Auntie Proton]

Kuchen Fairy

I don't agree with hurting another living creature, even for our own educational gain. However, I have less of a problem with this than I would with testing medicines on animals. Radiation poisoning is something almost all living creatures can be subjected to with similar results. Obviously this experiment will not only severely harm the subjects but will more than likely kill them as well, which I don't advocate at all. Radiation levels can be tested from afar; we know how much it takes to kill a human being. I don't find this experiment all that necessary.

After reading the article, this study is about how radiation will affect performance over long periods of time. While this can be done on mice, it is important that it be done on primates, since they are far more similar to humans in physiology, especially in the central nervous system.
Also, the monkeys will not be killed but live in the care of some hospital. I don't personally think this is that dangerous for them, especially considering the reason we're doing this is because we're going to be exposing humans to the same risks in the future.

[Christopher Columbine]

Well how about we get poor African kids and irradiate them instead. The same number of relatives will give a damn, and we'll get more accurate results.

[Ninth Pariah]

Asevenex

So they're just now doing radiation testing? Thy shouldn't have to since they landed on the moon.

....Oh, wait. That never happened.

Trip to the moon and back is what? Two weeks, tops. If you d**k around up there. Trip to Mars? At least three to six months, probably longer, since I'm pulling that out my a**. Much longer exposure times, possibly far greater effect on the human body. Worst the moon landings went through was a few hours in Earth's radiation field. Sun is far worse, even at eight or more light-minutes. Look at the cancers it can cause on earth, never mind in space without a goddamn atmosphere or magnetic field.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Christopher Columbine

Well how about we get poor African kids and irradiate them instead. The same number of relatives will give a damn, and we'll get more accurate results.

Dont be silly; they are people. This is animals we are speaking to here.

[Kazuma]

Uncle Enzo

What do you guys think about this?

Either we will end up with an army giant radioactive super-monkeys we can fight against Japan's Godzilla or we will end up with alot of small furry cancerous masses...

Place bet now!

[Irahatam]

Uncle Enzo

PC Stuch Troll

And Thus We Are One Step Closer to Making Planet of the Apes a Reality.

Too small. Superheroes.

This makes a wonderful mental picture. mrgreen

[pulchritudinous soup]

Squarlien

It is a worthy sacrifice.We eat many kinds of animals and that is deemed socially appropriate but when animals are experimented on in order to improve scientific understanding then a controversy begins. This sociological controversy confuses me. The animals who may or may not dies for the advancement of scientific understanding are more productive to society than those who die for food.

"Scientists are particularly interested in studying how the radiation impacts the monkeys' central nervous systems and behaviors over time. "

Seem's slightly absurd, doesn't it? Even if scientific advancement is important, there are limits to how we treat animals. I am not opposed to this, specifically, but I am against cosmetic testing against animals. That's just flat-out stupid.

To whom, exactly, is this for? Astronauts? Are we trying to expand our knowledge of the universe by exploring? Or, are we doing this because we can? Or, both? No answer is correct: I just want to know why.

Anyway, animals who die for our food is vital to our survival. We need meat (well, some of us do anyway). Meat is a natural consumption of human-beings so yes, animals who die for the production of food is important.

[Squarlien]

pulchritudinous soup

Squarlien

It is a worthy sacrifice.We eat many kinds of animals and that is deemed socially appropriate but when animals are experimented on in order to improve scientific understanding then a controversy begins. This sociological controversy confuses me. The animals who may or may not dies for the advancement of scientific understanding are more productive to society than those who die for food.

"Scientists are particularly interested in studying how the radiation impacts the monkeys' central nervous systems and behaviors over time. "

Seem's slightly absurd, doesn't it? Even if scientific advancement is important, there are limits to how we treat animals. I am not opposed to this, specifically, but I am against cosmetic testing against animals. That's just flat-out stupid.

To whom, exactly, is this for? Astronauts? Are we trying to expand our knowledge of the universe by exploring? Or, are we doing this because we can? Or, both? No answer is correct: I just want to know why.

Anyway, animals who die for our food is vital to our survival. We need meat (well, some of us do anyway). Meat is a natural consumption of human-beings so yes, animals who die for the production of food is important.

1. I said nothing about cosmetic testing.
2. People often don't know where scientific advancements will lead but that does not mean we should not do them. Einstein's first major paper was about the photoelectric effect and gave strong incontrovertible evidence to the fact that light is also a particle along with a wave. This seemed useless at the time but is now probably more important than his work on relativity. Why? Lasers have a significant portion to do with computers and his work with light is one of the pillars under laser technology. In this case there is a clear use though. Get to mars. Space colonization would be cool but it is not the benefit we will see in the near future instead development in off world resource gathering. Rare medals that the earth will not continually provide can be gathered off world eventually. I'm not talking about precious medals but instead those used in the development of computers and shuttle technology. This is a small step towards off world resource gathering. This is also a step in understanding the universe and different topographic features of other planets. Who knows what revealing mysteries are in the depths of mars?
3. I never said that animals who die for food did not die for the benefit of society but my point was that those who die for scientific advancement serve a better purpose to the common good.

[Catacular Funcakes]

Ninth Pariah

They already made glowing monkeys. It invloved modified DNA and a jellyfish.

sauce

And cats, too.

[UnfunnyKitty]

Eh, can't say I really care, sometimes these things are just going to happen

[Gorbek II]

Asevenex

So they're just now doing radiation testing? Thy shouldn't have to since they landed on the moon.

....Oh, wait. That never happened.

http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv275/taylorbell_photo/boxxy-trolling.jpg

[ZechsK]

Squarlien

pulchritudinous soup

Squarlien

It is a worthy sacrifice.We eat many kinds of animals and that is deemed socially appropriate but when animals are experimented on in order to improve scientific understanding then a controversy begins. This sociological controversy confuses me. The animals who may or may not dies for the advancement of scientific understanding are more productive to society than those who die for food.

"Scientists are particularly interested in studying how the radiation impacts the monkeys' central nervous systems and behaviors over time. "

Seem's slightly absurd, doesn't it? Even if scientific advancement is important, there are limits to how we treat animals. I am not opposed to this, specifically, but I am against cosmetic testing against animals. That's just flat-out stupid.

To whom, exactly, is this for? Astronauts? Are we trying to expand our knowledge of the universe by exploring? Or, are we doing this because we can? Or, both? No answer is correct: I just want to know why.

Anyway, animals who die for our food is vital to our survival. We need meat (well, some of us do anyway). Meat is a natural consumption of human-beings so yes, animals who die for the production of food is important.

1. I said nothing about cosmetic testing.
2. People often don't know where scientific advancements will lead but that does not mean we should not do them. Einstein's first major paper was about the photoelectric effect and gave strong incontrovertible evidence to the fact that light is also a particle along with a wave. This seemed useless at the time but is now probably more important than his work on relativity. Why? Lasers have a significant portion to do with computers and his work with light is one of the pillars under laser technology. In this case there is a clear use though. Get to mars. Space colonization would be cool but it is not the benefit we will see in the near future instead development in off world resource gathering. Rare medals that the earth will not continually provide can be gathered off world eventually. I'm not talking about precious medals but instead those used in the development of computers and shuttle technology. This is a small step towards off world resource gathering. This is also a step in understanding the universe and different topographic features of other planets. Who knows what revealing mysteries are in the depths of mars?
3. I never said that animals who die for food did not die for the benefit of society but my point was that those who die for scientific advancement serve a better purpose to the common
good.

Given that the earth will one day naturally pass on, as all planets will, developing our prowess in space is essential to the survival of our species, and many other species on earth that we will take with us.

Irradiate those damn monkeys!!!!!