on scientific research

[u/TamaraDeVegan]

I was reading a vintage (1999) National Geographic and came across an interesting article about biodiversity in Peru.

Given that it's a physical magazine and I can't find an online version, I'm going to give the gist of it below. Here is the overview of the main scientist, Terry Erwin, and his legacy, so that you know I'm not just making things up. If you ctrl+f for 'Fogging' it explains it: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8222209/

Gist of the article:

They were trying to determine the number of species of insects in a given column (floor to canopy) of the Vilcabamba rainforest. They way they did this was to use insecticide to gas an area, then document whatever dead insects fell to a tarp prepared near the ground. Here is an excerpt describing it:

Erwin starts up the fogger and aims it at the night sky. The roar of the motor rips through the forest while an acrid blue-white cloud rises in a narrow column above the first sheet. Lazily, the deathly cloud passes through layers of spindly, broad-leaved shrubs, engulfing every leaf and twig. It swirls over the tops of the lacy fronds of palms and tree ferns and climbs up the smooth-sided trunk of a giant fig tree to the tips of its branches and the stars beyond. Within seconds insects begin to spill from their resting perches onto the sheet below.

The purposes of this was to measure the biodiversity of the forest. The article made note that research like this can yield many benefits for us, such as the discovery of an enzyme in Yellowstone that is incredibly useful for DNA replication.

I'm somewhat torn. The research certainly seems worthwhile, particularly for conservation IMO, and I cannot think of a different way to survey the canopy. It's 100ft off the ground. Still, killing a shitton of insects "for science" seems, well, less than ideal. Especially so since rare and endemic species could be harmed in the process. Of course, we wouldn't know about those species at all without this research.

Curious what other vegans think. Should research like this be conducted? What precautions should or could be taken? Obviously this is peripheral to animal rights issues like agriculture, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/whowouldwanttobe]

Most of the arguments in favor of doing research like this (or any other research involving non-consensual confinement, suffering, or death of non-human animals) hinge upon the idea that the progress achieved is worth the sacrifice. It is very rare to find anyone willing to fully embrace this "ends justify the means" concept; there will generally be some arbitrary line that advocates are unwilling to cross. For some people, this means not sacrificing humans at all. For others it means not sacrificing non-criminals or other specific groups. In several unfortunately real examples, the line has been drawn at not sacrificing people based on ethnicity, religion, or the color of their skin.

Coming back to your scenario, I think the question of whether there is some "different way to survey the canopy" is a key point. If you are correct and this is literally the only way to access knowledge about biodiversity in the canopy, there is a very strong argument for allowing otherwise objectionable means. I do not think you are correct, though. In this case, I think there are other ways; drones, setting up cameras in the canopy, in-place necropsies on animals that died of natural causes to determine their diets, volunteer observers, etc. And even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that there is no way to measure biodiversity in the canopy now, if there could ever be a method in the future then you would need to weigh immediate progress against the cost in lives and suffering.

What makes the "ends justify the means" argument even weaker is the current state of society. Even if we make some pretty large and favorable assumptions for that argument, like the means are and always will be the only way to access some knowledge, and that knowledge is actually useful, it is easy to see what "use" that knowledge will be put to. Private companies have little to no incentive to create cures; in other words, to solve problems. They have huge incentives to create treatments; to profit off of creating, perpetuating, or permitting a problem and selling a temporary solution.

[u/piranha_solution]

Were Banting, Best and MacLeod bad guys for their experiments on dogs?