Cruel?

[SharkBait1992]

in science my teacher said we are going to do a lab where we take a goldfish but it in ice cold water so it dies and then warm it up and bring it back to life. this sounds cruel to me. is it? to add to my frustration when i brought up my concerns about where the fish would go afterwards she said she had a bowl so she would take one and i told her that that is like putting a great dane in a crate for a chihuahua and she said the dreaded words..... who cares its just a fish. :scry: she should know better than to say that to me, i started explaining why and she just ignored me so i gave up. so is this experiment cruel because it sounds cruel to me but im not sure and i am ready to express my concerns to my teacher.

[Brhino]

cruelty towards animals is sort of up to the interpretation of the individual. There are animals that are beloved pets, there are animals that we kill for food, there are animals that are pests that we crush without a second thought, and there are animals we deliberately harm to advance our own purposes. An animal that falls into one category for one person may fall into another category for someone else.

If you have a moral objection to using a fish for a vaguely scientific experiment and then housing it inappropriately afterward, that's certainly your right. For that reason students can usually opt out of animal dissections if they chose to do so. However, you don't necessarily have the right to impose your stance on the rest of the classroom, so if the teacher is set on her plans and the class as a whole finds them acceptable, there's probably not much you can do about it.

[jessfish]

yes thats cruel

there are studies that show that freezing a goldfish to death is the worst (& most painful) way for it to die...& then to bring it back to life - thats messed up.

Your teacher needs to do something different that doesn't involve or encourage cruelty to an animal!

[mommy1]

what's the point? what are you studying that this is a relative experiment?

[Lab_Rat]

I highly doubt that this animal experimentation has been approved by the IACUC committee or whatever oversight body the school has for such things. Generally, experiments on vertebrates require approval. This seems to be a very pointless experiment; what lesson is the teacher hoping that you learn?

[SharkBait1992]

However, you don't necessarily have the right to impose your stance on the rest of the classroom, so if the teacher is set on her plans and the class as a whole finds them acceptable, there's probably not much you can do about it.

i figured, i think i will just let her know why i dont want to do it and see what happens


what's the point? what are you studying that this is a relative experiment?


This seems to be a very pointless experiment; what lesson is the teacher hoping that you learn?

i got so caught up on what would be happening that i dont remember the purpose

[jessfish]

i figured, i think i will just let her know why i dont want to do it and see what happens

i think thats a great plan

[Rue]

Yes. It is cruel. It is unnecessary.

She should find another line of work.

[Fisharefriends27]

I think it's cruel. People just don't know how to care for fish properly.

[SharkBait1992]

thanks everyone im just gonna let my teacher know why i wont be participating

[Goes to 11!]

what's the point? what are you studying that this is a relative experiment?
This is a relevant point, Please find out what the purpose of this is and let us know.

[friz]

If where you live is anything like where I live, your science teacher was hired for his coaching ability. Look on the bright side. You will probably get to go on a field trip to the zoo to poke the animals with sticks.

[Spidyman]

I think you guys are over reacting. First no school would aprove this if it did not have a purpose. Second the goldfish was probly the comit which lots of people use to feed their fish. I do not agree with the bowl thing but unless one of the students or teachers want to take care of it that is how it will have to live.

[mommy1]

first, feeding live food does not equate to killing for experimentation. second, i neither agreed nor disagreed to the experiment, i only asked more information so i could decide my opinion.

[SharkBait1992]

first off i just realized that i made it seem like the teacher was the one that was gonna keep the fish in the bowl but it was my friend who said that. I will try to find out what the experiment is for tomorrow.

[BrandonBCA]

This is a fairly common experiment in biology classes. It's to show how temperature affects cold blooded animals metabolisms. If done correctly, you won't kill the fish only slow it's metabolism down to a near-stop(water temperature at or below 50F). Unfortunately, western culture just doesn't value goldfish.

[Lady Hobbs]

I don't equate this to "putting a great Dane in a crate for a chihuahua". A fish having to live overcrowded has nothing to do with this project your teacher is proposing and I have to wonder if you misunderstood her experiment. I don't believe the school would approve of this as you have described.

When something is dead, it's dead, for one thing. Goldfish survive in very cold ponds in the winter but they are warmed up gradually as the outside temp change. It's not like freezing them stiff then tossing them into warm water all at once. That would obviously kill them.

I put my fish down by doing the reserve method. Take them from tropical temps and toss them in ice water and they die within moments from shock. I believe there's more to this story so will wait to see what you have to say and see how this really plays out. But as now told, it just doesn't sound right or part of the story is incomplete.

[William]

Shows the difference in culture, In scandinavia, where i am from. The teacher would risk prison time for an experiment like that dimple because the impact on the fish does not stand in proportion to the need to do it as a teaching aid. Granted the risk for that is very low, the risk for a fine on the other hand would be very high.

[SharkBait1992]

I don't believe the school would approve of this as you have described.

agreed, but thats how my teacher stated it almost exactly. its possible that i took it too literally and she was just exaggerating i guess we will see when the day comes. Thanks for the replies everyone!

[Rue]

I have nothing against using animals...but it has to be a good reason...and the animals have to be cared properly BEFORE and AFTER the experiment is over.

If the fish (that survive) all end up being looked after...and go to someone's pond in the spring...that's one thing...but if they're homeless/neglected after the experiment is done it's quite another...

...the other question is is there a need to do this? Can you learn this biology in another, equally (or more) effective method? I'm guessing you can. So, as I said, it's cruel. And if she's really negating that aspect of animal care - as in 'it's just a fish'...then she really needs to rethink her teaching program or career.

[SunSchein89]

I would go to the principal/head of the science department and see what they have to say about the experiment.

[Scrup]

If its not freezing the goldfish solid, there will be no harm done as long as its slowly acclimated. That would be my biggest concern about this.




there are studies that show that freezing a goldfish to death is the worst (& most painful)

Never heard that freezing fish was a cruel way to put them under...Got any links?

[KatzeSlaugen]

freezing to death for fish/amphibians slows metabolism down, and they fall asleep/hibernate and while theyre asleep they pass on.

kindof like freezing to death for humans. you get really cold, then you start feeling warmer and get a peaceful warm feeling all over your body. then you fall asleep just like your really tired, and you expire