5 ms·

I've wondered recently how much the reverse is true. Can we reliably determine that a product is safe for humans by testing it on animals, or is that also a fa

I've wondered recently how much the reverse is true. Can we reliably determine that a product is safe for humans by testing it on animals, or is that also a fallacy?

loeg 8y ago
Generally we don't test products on humans if they kill animals first.
- cortic 8y ago
  We've likely missed cures or treatments with this method to, there are lots of nutritious foods that are effectively poison to some animals. New (unnatural) compounds and chemicals would very likely be even more varied in their effects.
  - loeg 8y ago
    I think this is a well known downside. The upside is we kill fewer humans, and I think IRBs are very comfortable with that tradeoff.
    - cortic 8y ago
      Not sure this is a valid argument; An unknown number of deaths[a] caused by possibly not developing a treatment, vs an unknown number of deaths[b] caused by possibly developing a treatment. Where as deaths[b] could be, in theory, a controlled and limited number of willing participants, deaths[a] could, in theory, be millions of disease victims. a is not fewer than b.
      - JetSpiegel 8y ago
        Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.
        cortic 8y ago
        >Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer. >How many of those "willing participants" [are willing] Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be. I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
        JetSpiegel 8y ago
        > If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. Precisely, and for the same reasons. > I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement. As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.
akiselev 8y ago
No, we cannot - at least not reliably. That's why, with a few exceptions like chemo drugs, clinical trials start by giving separate groups of healthy patients increasing doses of the drug until 50% of a test group can no longer tolerate the side effects, to establish a maximum dose for the rest of the trials. Deaths in these Phase 1 trials are not exactly an every day occurrence but it's enough of a risk that this phase is most often done under total medical supervision (i.e. the patients don't go home until their role in the trial is over). This is also the phase where doctors begin to collect data about the pharmacology of the drug, which is used to compare the animal models against in vivo to figure out how the effects diverge.

I've wondered recently how much the reverse is true. Can we reliably determine that a product is safe for humans by testing it on animals, or is that also a fallacy?

loeg 8y ago

Generally we don't test products on humans if they kill animals first.

cortic 8y ago
We've likely missed cures or treatments with this method to, there are lots of nutritious foods that are effectively poison to some animals. New (unnatural) compounds and chemicals would very likely be even more varied in their effects.
- loeg 8y ago
  I think this is a well known downside. The upside is we kill fewer humans, and I think IRBs are very comfortable with that tradeoff.
  - cortic 8y ago
    Not sure this is a valid argument; An unknown number of deaths[a] caused by possibly not developing a treatment, vs an unknown number of deaths[b] caused by possibly developing a treatment. Where as deaths[b] could be, in theory, a controlled and limited number of willing participants, deaths[a] could, in theory, be millions of disease victims. a is not fewer than b.
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.
      - cortic 8y ago
        >Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer. >How many of those "willing participants" [are willing] Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be. I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
        JetSpiegel 8y ago
        > If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. Precisely, and for the same reasons. > I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement. As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.

akiselev 8y ago

No, we cannot - at least not reliably. That's why, with a few exceptions like chemo drugs, clinical trials start by giving separate groups of healthy patients increasing doses of the drug until 50% of a test group can no longer tolerate the side effects, to establish a maximum dose for the rest of the trials. Deaths in these Phase 1 trials are not exactly an every day occurrence but it's enough of a risk that this phase is most often done under total medical supervision (i.e. the patients don't go home until their role in the trial is over). This is also the phase where doctors begin to collect data about the pharmacology of the drug, which is used to compare the animal models against in vivo to figure out how the effects diverge.