It is indeed a poignant reflection to consider the ethical implications of scientific experimentation on non-human animals, particularly when such research involves the abduction of these creatures from their natural habitats and ultimately results in their death. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a crucial aspect of the scientific enterprise, but it is essential that we also consider the ethical implications of our actions and strive to minimize harm to other beings as much as possible. In this case, the researchers may have been motivated by a desire to advance our understanding of the biological processes at work within these animals, but it is important to recognize that this pursuit of knowledge must be balanced against the value and dignity of the beings being studied.
I'd say that all ethics is off the table if any of these scientists enjoys a chicken burger for lunch, like millions of people doing all sorts of jobs.
It's not fair to ignore ethics. Spousal abuse was legal for a long time. It wasn't until the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 1993 that violence in a marriage would result in consequences. Protecting the weak is important.
There is a lot missing here. Getting the red blood cells out of the way may be a necessary condition for transparency but it isn't sufficient. I mean, if you drain blood out of a body and replace it with a clear liquid (think embalming fluid), you don't end up with transparency. The tissue has to be fundamentally transparent, but for those pesky RBC's.
