Russia to Send Monkeys to Mars

[phillipeb]

Russia has a long history of scientific discovery and space exploration through the use of animals. Beginning with space dog Laika in 1957, the space program expanded to run tests on other dogs (many returned safely to Earth) and eventually monkeys. Although the monkey testing program was stopped through lack of funding in the mid-1990's, the nation has announced plans to send the closest relation to humans to a place where no man has gone before: Mars. And here's us thinking it will be a human first stepping onto the Martian surface…

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monkey_mars.jpg

 

I must admit, I had to read the story twice before I believed it. Russia wants to send monkeys not only into space, but to Mars. I had an idea that monkeys (or more specifically macaques) were used in space missions in the past, but in my mind this was in the past and would be considered cruel in this day and age. But hold on, aren't macaques used in medical experiments the world over anyway? Why is it so shocking that macaques should be chosen to pioneer interplanetary travel before mankind?

 

These questions are emotive (and controversial) and will cause much debate internationally. Many will believe that the experimental testing on animals in the ultra-modern world of space travel will seem barbaric, but there are some serious problems we might definitively answer through the use of macaque space travel. First and foremost, due to the interplanetary radiation we expect to be bathed in during a transit to Mars, by studying a macaque's physiology during the long journey we may be able to learn how the human body will react to larger than normal doses. The fact remains, monkeys are genetically close to humans, its little wonder that we turn to them for answers.

 

To this end, monkeys at the Sochi Institute of Medical Primatology, at Vesyoloye near the Black Sea, have begun the selection process for the ultimate medical animal testing experiment. The institute has a long history of involvement in the Russian and Soviet space program. Sochi was the training facility for the first monkeys into space in 1983. Abrek and Bion had a five-day trip around Earth and were returned safely in Kazakhstan and rehabilitated to live "normal lives". Two years after this historic flight, monkeys Verny and Gordy spent seven days in space. In 1987, Dryoma and Yerosha spent a record breaking (for a monkey-assisted flight) two-weeks in space. Interestingly, Dryoma was given to Cuban leader Fidel Castro as a gift. Following this, in 1989, 1992 and 1996, three two-week flights were carried out until funding for the project ran out. Now experiments have been continued on Earth to simulate weightlessness.

 

Now, to revitalize Sochi's history of macaque space flight, they are beginning a two-year program to select 40 monkeys to be sent to the Institute of Biomedical Problems in Moscow so tests can be continued into aerospace biomedicine. This will culminate in a possible primate mission to Mars.

"People and monkeys have approximately identical sensitivity to small and large radiation doses, so it is better to experiment on the macaques, but not on dogs or other animals." Boris Lapin, Institute Director.

 

Critics of the program are frustrated by the use of animal testing in any capacity, but remain realistic about the situation. "Humanity sacrifices more than 100 million animals a year in the name of health and beauty. It's time to think of an alternative to experiments with animals," says Andrei Zbarsky of the conservation group the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

 

"…certainly, I feel sorry for the monkeys, they might die, but the experiments are necessary to preserve the lives of the cosmonauts who will fly to Mars in future" - Anaida Shaginyan, Institute Researcher.

 

This will be a controversial measure by the Russian space program and they are expecting resistance from their European partners. Although monkeys and other animals are used in medical science here on Earth, it might prove too distasteful and cruel for most, but possibly the only means to measure the physical impact on the human body after a long trip to Mars.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/14/russia-to-send-monkeys-to-mars/

[Wobbly Lifter]

10 years from now Monkey-Martian hybrids will be invading earth, and to think we could have stopped it....

[phillipeb]

http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/08-06-01/Images/0806apes.jpg.jpg

[Im Your Man]

If it was only to send one monkey per year or less, in space or on another planet, it would be OK. The monkey would be scared or even like the trip, then die. Unfortunatly it's not only this and I'm pretty sur before sending a monkey in space they experiment on dozens, killing them with tests on radiations, ultraspeed, resistance...

[Guest]

The monkeys that would be sent are probably treated like kings relative to those being tested first. It still shouldn't be done by any means but more than anything we should be targeting NASA for their impact tests...along the the University of Pennsylvania who does a lot of the primate testing for them.

[phillipeb]

Yes they definetly do stress tests on the Monkeys before the choose the most genetically gifted monkey for space travel.

 

The thing is there are ways to test radiation effects without live animals. You can monitor levels of radiation in regards to what spectrum and concentration in any given area. So the simian tests are unwarrented

[Wobbly Lifter]

I want to be a spacemonkey.... I wonder if Russia would let be a test subject.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Wobbly Lifter

[Im Your Man]

I wonder if instead of monkeys they could send voluntary prisonners from death row.

[Wobbly Lifter]

I wonder if instead of monkeys they could send voluntary prisonners from death row.

 

That's fucked man.

[Im Your Man]

If I was going to die in a few weeks form an incurable disease or was going to go on electric chair, I guess I'd like to go die on Mars instead. Diying while watching the red landscape with 10km high mountains and while listening to some classical music. lol

[Wobbly Lifter]

Sure but we shouldn't use capital punishment in the first place. My problem is with the (implied) idea that some people don't deserve to live. That's fucked. Sure I'd rather die in space then the electric chair, but those are hardly the only options.

 

Are you going to tell meat-eater to go after death row inmates rather then cows?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Wobbly Lifter

[phillipeb]

arguing that everyone or thing has a right to live conversely gives rise to the logistical argument that it also has the right to choose to die. That being said the statement makes perfect sense.

[Guest]

If you feel you have the right to kill something...then you have the right to be killed as well. As for testing prisoners I'd be game if they were willing volunteers. Especially when it comes to drugs.

[veggieprincess]

I wonder if instead of monkeys they could send voluntary prisonners from death row.

 

That's fucked man.

 

I don't think your argument is a good one because he said WILLING volunteers.

 

The monkey isn't a WILLING volunteer, but a WILLING volunteer who knows he is going to die anyways is actually an interesting concept.

[Wobbly Lifter]

People on death row aren't choosing to die. Giving them the option of which way isn't much of a choice.

 

Sure but we shouldn't use capital punishment in the first place. My problem is with the (implied) idea that some people don't deserve to live. That's fucked. Sure I'd rather die in space then the electric chair, but those are hardly the only options.

 

Are you going to tell meat-eater to go after death row inmates rather then cows?

[Im Your Man]

People on death row aren't choosing to die. Giving them the option of which way isn't much of a choice.

 

If those people are living in the US, where they know there's lots of capital punishement, (more than in any other country ?) so they know, before commintting their crime, that there's some risks of dying too after. That's not true they don't chose, because everything we do we do it after we make a choice. If those people are uncounscious and don't think before acting or don't wanna take responsibility for their acts it's sad but it's their problem. Most of murderers who killed a human being also killed hundreds or thousands of animals by eating them, by choosing which food they want, but eating meat without even thinking they killed an animal. But nothing justify killing a person for any reason, I'm against death penalty, but against low sentences like a few years of jail. I think they should forget about to see freedom again in the future and live with their mistake.

If some prisonners are willing to volunteer to help science (in exchange of some privileges like having a tv in the cell or stuff like that), then why not?

[phillipeb]

People on death row aren't choosing to die. Giving them the option of which way isn't much of a choice.

 

Sure but we shouldn't use capital punishment in the first place. My problem is with the (implied) idea that some people don't deserve to live. That's fucked. Sure I'd rather die in space then the electric chair, but those are hardly the only options.

 

Are you going to tell meat-eater to go after death row inmates rather then cows?

 

The interesting thing about societal laws and the contracts there in are that we are of course born into these contracts without our consent but we are also able to construct opposition to the contract as well as leave the country where the contract is enacted.

 

So in effect the person in question had the right to choose whether or not he did based on preconditioned societal factors of right and wrong. Having failed to either understand or aknowledge them placed him in that confine.

[phillipeb]

beat me to it Im your man.

[Wobbly Lifter]

The USA puts kids to death. They didn't have a choice to move or change the system. Anyway the line of reasoning is bunk, you can justify anything but surprises that way. Just because you know something might/will be the result doesn't mean you freely choose it. For example if I get fired for joining a union, and I have been fired for that in the past, I didn't choose to be fired, even if I could see it coming.

[Wobbly Lifter]

I'm sorry I shouldn't have hijacked this thread into a discussion about capital punishment.

[phillipeb]

The USA puts kids to death. They didn't have a choice to move or change the system. Anyway the line of reasoning is bunk, you can justify anything but surprises that way. Just because you know something might/will be the result doesn't mean you freely choose it. For example if I get fired for joining a union, and I have been fired for that in the past, I didn't choose to be fired, even if I could see it coming.

 

Actually your reasoning is a bit flawed just based on mathematics. if a=b and b=c then a=c. If you were fired for joining a union and then knowingly repeated the same process means that you should at the very least know that this is a possibility.

 

While it is true you did not actively seek to get fired you engaged in behavior that had taught you previously to expect and outcome there by choosing to take your chances with said outcome, effectively giving you a choice.

 

btw i believe in unions and i don't believe in the death penalty but i belive in discussion.

[Wobbly Lifter]

I'm not sure math really applies here, nor do I think I said a=b and b=c, I'm pretty sure I said a(knowing) not-equal b(choosing), and anyways what your example is logic(which actually does apply)

There is a difference between knowing something may happen and choosing it. I did not choose to get fired, my employer choose to fire me. It's a big difference, just look at the power relations. I think your ignoring an important element of choice - people with the power do the majority of the choosing. Look if I threaten you and say 'give me your money or I'll shot you' and you don't give me your money, did you choose to die? or did I choose to kill you? I guess in some abstract way it's both, but one is much more important - I could kill you regardless of your actions(or let you live) - but I doubt in court I could say 'hey he choose to die'

 

Murders don't choose the death penalty, the gov't does. The people with power do.

 

Anyway what about the kids who wouldn't really have a choice even in your odd definition(due to lack of power in the social system and lack of understanding of the legal system and consequences)

If you disagree with death penalty why would you implicitly support it by agreeing with using death row people as test subjects? That further dehumanizes and makes them seem undeserving of the most basic rights(life, dignity, bodily integrity, etc.) making it harder to oppose/resist/change capital punishment.

[phillipeb]

First i would like to say that a statement is not an ethos. Often when we speak we speak from a point of personal conviction making it hard to understand someone who is speaking from the point of view of general discussion. That being said this was what i was alluding to:

 

" I guess in some abstract way it's both, but one is much more important - I could kill you regardless of your actions(or let you live) - but I doubt in court I could say 'hey he choose to die' Rolling Eyes "

 

My main argument was that if someone chose to die would we then have the right to stop them whether or not a social or private institution put them into that position? It was not however a statement of approval for capitol punishment, but rather an acknowledgment of the existence of that punishment.

 

Abstractly the argument of fate vs free will has raged since man first learned how to communicate ideas, and this debate is no different. You are saying that since the person does not chose to die but he leads a life that would warrant his death based on precondition societal rules, then the situation should not be conceivable at all because no social contract should invalidate a mans life. Conversely does a social contract allow for saving a mans life? Are we to say that the base nature of the human condition is to heal instead of hurt?

 

Furthermore there is a difference between working within a system and supporting a system. It perhaps may have parallels to the welfarist argument Vs the abolitionists argument for animal rights. By supporting a prisoners right to choose his fate once that fate has been restricted i am opening up the avenue for the person to choose the way he would die. Not condemning the man to die because of it.

[phillipeb]

As an asside your completely right that logic is wrong based on your pathos plea but not wrong based on ethos plea.

 

Math cannot as of yet condense the whole of the human experience. I appreciated your rebuttal of my logic because it forced me to think about what i was saying and what i wanted to say.

[Wobbly Lifter]

As an asside your completely right that logic is wrong based on your pathos plea but not wrong based on ethos plea.

 

Math cannot as of yet condense the whole of the human experience. I appreciated your rebuttal of my logic because it forced me to think about what i was saying and what i wanted to say.

 

I wasn't saying logic didn't apply don't see where you got that... nor do I think my argument was a 'pathos' argument.(what's with the philosophy jargon anyway?)

Math will never be able to condense human experience first because it's not the right tool for explaining many things, second any consistent system is necessarily incomplete.

I don't accept social contract as a viable theory so I'm not sure how to answer many of your questions as they don't really apply...

 

My main argument was that if someone chose to die would we then have the right to stop them whether or not a social or private institution put them into that position?

 

That's not an argument it's a question, a poorly phrased one at that.

 

By supporting a prisoners right to choose his fate once that fate has been restricted i am opening up the avenue for the person to choose the way he would die. Not condemning the man to die because of it.

 

When you look at things out of context, or in a 'perfect world' I'd agree. But the context here is all important. Look at the history of medical tests on prisoners. There's a history of corporations abusing prisoners, and it's starting again. There is a really base problem and it's treating people(criminals perhaps, but people none the less) like a commodity, there body is something for us to use(like meat eater treat animals.) This is very important to consider when one considers this:

 

"Free and informed consent becomes pretty questionable when prisoners don't hold the keys to their own cells, and in many cases they can't read, yet they are signing a document that it practically takes a law degree to understand," says Daniel S. Murphy, a professor of criminal justice at Appalachian State University.

 

I think it's important to strongly resist medical experiments on prisoners and often abused. It reinforces the idea that their interests are irrelevant, there exist for us and are non-people. The same attitude that allows capital punishment to take place - they conceptually reinforce each other. Like I said - it further dehumanizes and makes them seem undeserving of the most basic rights(life, dignity, bodily integrity, etc.) making it harder to oppose/resist/change capital punishment.

 

That is why I thought the comment I'm Your Man made was 'fucked'