Philosophy
Divorce Among the Gulls
This section, "Pictures at a Scientific Exhibition" is about young college students in the 1960s. They have to conduct laboratory experiments on rats, and other small animals and they have to kill the animals cruelly to do the experiments. The author shows how the students start out squeamish about killing the animals, but by the end of the physiology course, they are immune to the suffering of the animals they kill and maim. He also says that the course did not discover anything new about science, and so really, the animals died horribly for nothing. The author thinks that scientific training makes people less compassionate and less caring, and that does not make them any better scientists. In fact, he thinks it makes them less wise and less humane. He thinks that scientists should be more rational and that would make them better scientists. His arguments for his conclusions include his own experience in the science lab, and some of his colleagues' experiences in their labs, where they literally just throw unused animals away in the trash. They do not think about the pain these animals suffer, and/or they do not care. This article made these people seem cruel and unusual, but the author makes it clear that he knows many people that still do these practices, and it is not uncommon at all.
I did not like reading this essay at all, it was painful and gross. Some of the things they did to the animals seemed cruel and heartless, and it made me wince to read this. I think the author is correct, that many scientists become inhumane and even cruel in the name of science and scientific discovery. They do not think about the animals and how the experiments must hurt them. The author says these scientists have "no compassion or empathy, no remorse or guilt." I believe him, and I think this article shows that science can be very cruel. Now I understand a little more why animal activists fight for animal rights. If I saw things like this in the lab, I think I would fight for them too.
