From the Pages of The Journal of Unethical Research

[steepholm]

Yesterday's news about Volkswagen conducting experiments on various primates that involved them breathing toxic fumes, has drawn down plenty of ire upon the company. However, it's an ill wind, to coin a phrase, and it's a good opportunity compare the different kinds of outrage. Are we more shocked by the use of monkeys (who could not consent) or by the humans (because "paragon of animals", etc.)?

The BBC gave them ore or less equal billing on their website:



But the metadata tell a different story, suggesting that the monkeys were an afterthought:



The Independent, by contrast, puts the monkeys front and centre, with humans relegated to an afterthought a couple of paragraphs in:



The Guardian and The Mail don't mention the poor old humans at all! Nor do a lot of people, though I won't clutter up your friends page by proving it.



All in all, the monkeys have it, and the BBC is, as it turns out, an outlier, despite their hasty attempt to catch up. And what do we conclude from all this? That we are nation of animal lovers? That the humans' consent absolves the experimenters of responsibility? That monkeys sell papers?

Or simply that I still haven't quite finished my marking?

Comments

[shewhomust]

The six o' clock news on Radio 4, if I've got this straight, was describing two separate tests. In one, human volunteers were used to explore something about improving air quality (this was reported as unwise, but pardonable). In the other, conscripted (bad) monkeys (bad) was used in an attempt to undermine attacks on polluting vehicles (bad, bad, very bad).

Or simply that I still haven't quite finished my marking?

But this is research! Surely that trumps marking? (Can I even still use that verb? Yes, I can! Watch me!)

[steepholm]

I suppose it may be a good thing that humans and monkeys weren't actually sitting cheek by jowl in the same lab.

[cmcmck]

Like VW aren't already in enough trouble!