Conundrum

[Ibby]

Dumbass.
Your quoted section is not discussing carp.
Your quoted section is discussing university policy regarding animal experimentation.

And, since you asked, no, I don't swat mosquitoes or kill roaches. Through the lens of my buddhist philosophy, I feel I shouldn't. But that is not anyone else's business, and it isn't my business to tell anyone else to kill or not to kill. While I can council against it, I can't tell them not to.
However, if i was, say, the administrator of a university, I would say that nobody performing an animal experiment for the university can have death as the end result of that experiment.

The conundrum is not an ethical one; it is a regulatory one.

And I am stating it is a ridiculous one in regards to this instance.
Lay Buddhists are not required to be vegetarians, much less to do no harm to animals in any way.
The removal of introduced species in the most expedient way is what is best for the the whole.
I have read monks clearly stating that those with diabetes should take the medicine derived from animals. A clear choice.

[Aliantha]

The university policy is that no experiment using live animals may have an end point which equals death for the animal. That is to say that the university believes it is morally wrong to kill the animals simply because the experiment is over and you have no further use for the animal.

That's why this situation is unique and certainly not a situation the university would have forseen when making this rule.

[Aliantha]

Just a further point.

If the student ignores the university rule and destroys the carp, even on the basis that it is considered a noxious pest, the university would have the right to withhold all graduation honours for the student on the grounds that the student has broken with university guidelines for ethical behaviour.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

The university policy is that no experiment using live animals may have an end point which equals death for the animal. That is to say that the university believes it is morally wrong to kill the animals simply because the experiment is over and you have no further use for the animal.

That's why this situation is unique and certainly not a situation the university would have forseen when making this rule.

I am saying, overtly, that it is a stupid, nearsighted, moronic, policy.
Get it?
What if the purpose of the experiment is to kill the animal?
The policy makes no sense.
How does a researcher determine the farthest aspect of anything if they are worried that their grant will be taken away?
Obviously not a major science university.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Dumbass.

As ever, reduced to childish name calling so readily.
Pathetic and beneath me.
Buddhist my ass. LOL!!!

[Aliantha]

I am saying, overtly, that it is a stupid, nearsighted, moronic, policy.

No shit!

Yes, it's a major science university Rkz. A G8 uni in fact.

[ZenGum]

Drat this foolish bureaucracy.

I'm a (less than strict) vegetarian, and in general consider that animals have * some * rights - not to be tormented with gratuitous pain, for example - but that sometimes using animals for research can be justified.

I think the carp should be killed. They cannot legally be released and shouldn't be. Nor does it make any sense to keep them indefinitely until they die of old age. Waste of resources and they die anyway. The best thing to do is kill them humanely.

I think, therefore, that the best course is to find a loophole in the uni regulations which allows the carp to be humanely killed. I've been deep inside several Australian Unis, and almost every regulation has a clause to the effect of "except where authorized by the appropriate authority". Find this loophole and train the fish to swim through it.

I reckon there must be some clause like this - the idea that a uni would never kill any animals seems impossible. Don't they do biopsies? dissections?

Here are some more creative ideas:
* get the biology 101 professor to get the first year students to dissect carp. All gone.
* arrange an "accident" involving the carp tank and say, some cyanide.
* stage a courier mistake and send the lot to the kitchens of one of the colleges. Yum yum.
* drop them down the back of the filing cabinet like bureaucrats always do with problems they can't handle.
* devise an experiment involving the carp and crocodiles. Can they cohabit? ooops, apparently not.
* test their aerodynamic properties with a giant catapult.
* get the philosophy department to argue that the carp were never living animals in the first place, and/or will not actually die as they continue to exist in some new form (crocodile dinner/the Great River in the Sky).

Seriously, find the loophole. I cannot imagine being able to give away 200 carp as pets.
Maybe the loophole will be selling them (say, for one cent) to someone else who can legally kill them. I have heard of a fertilizer called "Charlie Carp". They might be interested.

My only other idea is to find another student who is willing to do research on carp, and pass them on. Hot potato the little buggers.

Also, who approved this research program without planning what to do with the fish afterwards? Put them all in big plastic bags full of water, put the bags in styrofoam boxes ... and deliver the lot to the office of this person. Here ya go, your problem now.

[Aliantha]

DPI approved the program.

using them for an anatomy class is a good idea (even 'the boss' thinks so), that one definitely has some merit.

You're right about university beauracracy Zen. It's precisely the reason Dazza has had enough of it and is moving on to private industry rather than keep on pushing shit uphill with a pointy stick.

Actually it is easy.
Do her experiments then just kill the carp and state clearly she killed it because she wanted to and it had nothing to do with the experiment.
End of issue.

[Aliantha]

that is not a real world solution rkz...no matter how sensible it might seem.

You're talking about a students' future here. Keep that in mind if you want to make suggestions. If she goes against the university policy in an overt manner, she's likely to fuck herself up and achieve nothing.

Better to avoid it, then write a paper about it after she has the degree.

My solution is not against policy.
In no way are the fish dying in relation to anything to do with any experiment.
She does not even have to kill them, just throw them on the lawn, if they die on their own it is not her fault, she was not even there.
Of course I would write those who's job it is to make these decisions and tell them exactly what I think and what it is doing to real research.
I did the equivalent in college and published the letter on the school website with some others the same day I sent it.
It had to do with sexual content in a play that was being suppressed by the dean.
I brought up two shows he had done while he was in school.
The play went on.
Logic and facts are always the strongest allies in a fight.

[Aliantha]

You're a hero rkz. What more can I say?

[ZenGum]

I had thought of "passive killing" (like the thawing of frozen embryos) but if you're going to kill the fish, make it quick and humane. Although I don't know how to kill a fish quickly and humanely, I don't think throwing them on the lawn would do it. Also, that would be littering.

But I think these solutions are against university policy - it does state that

the university believes it is morally wrong to kill the animals simply because the experiment is over and you have no further use for the animal.

So arguing that the experiment is over won't work. As I read this small part, the regulations still govern what you do with the animals after the experiment.
Flaunting this may mean the university refusing to give her the degree.

Ali, does the DPI have a carp eradication program? can they step in here? "Here, give the little darlings to us, we'll give them a good home ... "

[Aliantha]

It's possible Zen. One of the previous posts had something about handing them over to the governing body which in this case would be the DPI who have a vested interest in the research, so it's definitely a good option to investigate.