Question N

[Jonetta]

A statement is made in this story that killing is unavoidable if science is to advance. Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts.

[Charlene]

I remember when pregnancy tests were to inject the woman's urine into a test rabbit, which had to be killed to give the results. At the time, I was just twenty-two, and I did not think much of it.

I don't think the blanket statement about killing being necessary to advance "science" is fair or correct.

[Anita]

Now with the advancements in computer science that is not a true statement. A certain amount of live testing still needs to be done, but the killing of a test subject is not unavoidable. Even Harrington's death was a freak accident. He wasn't killed by the injections.

[Sharon]

It depends on how you look at it. There are tests where group A gets the "new and improved" medication to kill cancer or whatever disease they are studying. The other group gets the sugar pill. People in group B will die because they aren't getting the appropriated treatment. However, I don't think anyone should go into a study expecting death.

[Charlene]

That's an interesting comment, Sharon!