I normally wouldn't say anything about politics on these boards, but since the folks at Larian seem to have sneaked some political commentary into Beyond Divinity, I don't think it's inappropriate to respond in this forum. I am really enjoying this game, and I have the highest respect for the folks at Larian so please don't interpret this as an angry post. It isn't meant that way at all. I just wanted to have the opportunity to respond to what I feel was a political statement that I don't agree with.
South of the imp village in act 2, there is a dead imp lying on the ground near some mushrooms. Next to him is a book that seems to have been some sort of imp research journal. The book describes "alternative methods of identifying poisonous mushrooms", or something to that effect. The book goes on to say that the alternative methods involve "testing the mushrooms on non-imps". It seems that the unfortunate imp must have tested the mushrooms on "non-imps" and found them to be safe. He evidently then ate some and died -- because the mushrooms evidently WERE poisonous to imps.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, this looks like a veiled political statement against the use of animals in medical research. I say that because one of the most common arguments used by animal rights activists has been to claim that testing medical procedures and new medications on animals is ineffective because we frequently see different results in humans than we do in animals.
I'm certainly not opposed to veiled political statements of this type in computer games, TV shows, movies, or any other form of entertainment. However, I am disappointed to see Larian apparently advocating a distorted and misleading view of medical research.
It's clear that, when it comes to testing new medications, we only have three alternatives:
(1) Stop developing new medications. If one advocates this point of view, there isn't much more to say, except that I find it very odd to think that someone would prefer to save rats than human children.
If you do want medical progress to continue, then it's obvious that any new drug must be tested on *SOME* species first.
(2) That species could be Homo sapiens. How many people here would really give a medication to their children, knowing that it had never been tested before on *ANY* species, humans included?
(3) We could do what we do now, which is to test new medications on animals first. Many mammal species have biological systems that are remarkably similar to our own. If we've tested that new medication on various animal species first, the probability that it is harmful to humans is minimized. Doesn't this approach at least beat guesswork?
There is no way around this. Cancer, for example, kills over 500,000 Americans every year. I personally watched my mother die of cancer. She died a horrible, agonizing death over a period of two years. She literally starved to death half a mile from a grocery store, because the cancer had destroyed too much of her digestive tract for her to eat. Barring further medical progress, a shockingly high percentage of the people reading this post will get cancer at some point in their lives (roughly half, if I remember the statistics correctly).
There is a major cancer center at the medical school where I work. Take a walk through that section and see people of all ages (including many children) wasting away, most of their hair having fallen out from chemotherapy, and then tell me that it isn't worth killing some rats to help us find better ways to help such people.
The simple fact is that animal research is crucial to medical progress. Computer models, tissue cultures, and the like are important components of the scientific progress. However, they cannot begin to replace the need to test our treatments and theories in real, living organisms. Real living things are complex beyond comprehension. There is no way that a computer model or a slice of tissue in a dish could ever tell us what a drug will do in a real, living organism. We simply must try it and see.
Two years ago, my son was born. He had severe respiratory distress that resulted in a hole being ripped in his lung. Had he been born in 1960, he would most likely have died without being held by his mother even once. Thanks to decades of animal research, however, we have a healthy, happy toddler today. I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly happy with the thought that some pigs were humanely killed by the researchers that developed the procedures that saved my son's life.
Contrary to what animal rights activists will tell you, animal research in the United States is very heavily regulated and governed by committees that include both scientists, veterinarians, and laymen. Every tiny detail of the procedures a scientist uses on animals must be approved in advance by these committees. Researchers must demonstrate to these committees that their procedures are scientifically necessary, and that the animal's safety and that reasonable alternative approaches were considered. Violations of the agreed-upon protocols can easily result in a researcher's grant being terminated.
