5 ms·

> Can/should we be testing anti-depressants on animals at all? Would you prefer we test these things on humans? Scientists must put everything pass an ethics c

by hartror 16y ago

> Can/should we be testing anti-depressants on animals at all? Would you prefer we test these things on humans? Scientists must put everything pass an ethics committee, testing on animals isn't ideal but the alternatives are far worse. I have a vegetarian friend who works on vaccines, he doesn't like it but every now and again he injects a couple of hundred mice with something and a period of time later does them in for testing. He does it for the greater good, and it is done as humanly as possible. This whole thing has been done to death (pardon the pun) and there isn't an alternative. If we want to save human lives we have to accept sometimes some small furry creature is going to lose it's squeak. Cosmetics on the other hand . . . > Is it possible that depression in animals is different than depression in humans? Mentioned in the article that the tests on animal models of depression need re-evaluating. > Is it possible that lab conditions affect the psychology of the animal? See above.

bioh42_2 16y ago
Would you prefer we test these things on humans? Yes. I would prefer we test all drugs on humans as soon as volunteers can be found and the researcher thinks it would be beneficial. I am assuming a volunteer free from political or even financial pressure, doing it out of desire to help. And possessing great and detailed knowledge of the side effects and both the known and potential dangers. I admit this is a bit of a straw man. There are two reasons I want this. 1. Political. I am a libertarian and and thus think that if an adult wants to jump off a bridge they should be fully within their right to do that. The same goes if they want to test completely unproven or even fully known to be unsafe drugs. 2. Practical. This would speed up research tremendously, it would speed things up by years. We would save more lives.
- amalcon 16y ago
  And possessing great and detailed knowledge of the side effects and both the known and potential dangers. How, precisely, would you propose that the participants in the first ever test of a drug obtain such knowledge?
  - bioh42_2 16y ago
    Just assume there is a 99.9999% chance it will kill you. Many people would still take the chance to make a difference.

by hartror 16y ago

bioh42_2 16y ago

Would you prefer we test these things on humans? Yes. I would prefer we test all drugs on humans as soon as volunteers can be found and the researcher thinks it would be beneficial. I am assuming a volunteer free from political or even financial pressure, doing it out of desire to help. And possessing great and detailed knowledge of the side effects and both the known and potential dangers. I admit this is a bit of a straw man. There are two reasons I want this. 1. Political. I am a libertarian and and thus think that if an adult wants to jump off a bridge they should be fully within their right to do that. The same goes if they want to test completely unproven or even fully known to be unsafe drugs. 2. Practical. This would speed up research tremendously, it would speed things up by years. We would save more lives.

amalcon 16y ago
And possessing great and detailed knowledge of the side effects and both the known and potential dangers. How, precisely, would you propose that the participants in the first ever test of a drug obtain such knowledge?
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  Just assume there is a 99.9999% chance it will kill you. Many people would still take the chance to make a difference.