5 ms·
Its pointless to use animals in research, it makes no logical sense. Even if the research is successful after 10 years of animal cruelty ... you still have to t
by foobar_ 6y ago
Its pointless to use animals in research, it makes no logical sense. Even if the research is successful after 10 years of animal cruelty ... you still have to test it on humans.
- sk0g 6y agoWhat about all the chemicals that never get to human testing due to harmful effects coming up in animal testing? Is that not a net positive from a human perspective?
- foobar_ 6y agoAre there absolutely no alternatives to test that ?
- sk0g 6y agoNot as far as our brightest scientists in the relevant fields have been able to figure out. What do you propose?
- foobar_ 6y agoTest with synthetic proteins ? https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation...
- hobofan 6y agoYes, those techniques are what we are moving towards and we are slowly getting there, but for the time being they can't be universally applied.
- foobar_ 6y agoYou do understand you are just defending big pharma and cosmetics. I really doubt any new ground breaking discovery has come from animal testing.
- BorisTheBrave 6y agoI've never seen a more text book example of changing the subject when you don't have a real answer. sk0g and hobofan point out a key benefit of animal testing, explain why there is no alternative at present, and rather than addressing that or acknowleding the point, you respond with non-sequiturs. Try to learn to separate what you want to be true "animal testing is pointless" vs what is actually true "animal testing has benefits that cannot be sensibly found any other way". Then we can productively move towards eliminating animal testing. But if you won't even listen to others points, how do you hope to convince them of anything?
- hobofan 6y agoAnimal testing is all over biochemistry and biology, is not just used for pharmaceutical and cosmetics testing. Many ground braking discoveries have been (and are still being made) via animal testing. There are whole subdisciplines that are based around animal testing like developmental or behavioural biology. Though you can avoid it if you really want to, if you study biochemistry, you will learn how to do animal testing and are taught about all the ethics involved, how to do the testing in the most humane way, and how to avoid (or minimize) doing it in the first place if possible. I've been going through the list of recent Nobel Prizes and the research for these involved animal testing: Nobel Prize for medicine 2018 (mice), 2017 (flys), 2014 (rats), 2012 (frogs, mice). Older research made before we had good tools to work with cell cultures, etc. will probably skew even more towards animal testing.
- foobar_ 6y agoCitation needed. What specific things were discovered ? Are they useful to humans ? Could they be done without testing ? All that I read are pointless science articles about aging in mice as if that applied to humans.
- tsimionescu 6y agoNone that we know of yet.
- vixen99 6y agoSure - though plenty of chemicals hurt animals but don't hurt us. One small example: theobromine and caffeine (in chocolate) kill cats and other animals that lack the ability to metabolize these alkaloids rapidly enough. Oddly enough, our own cat loves chocolate and (following a near miss & visit to the vet) now appears to resent having had that avenue of pleasure permanently blocked.