3 ms·
> If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that
by StavrosK 5y ago
> If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead.
That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that ethics committees are much more averse to human testing than to animal testing, so we're less conscientious about animal testing.
- hungryforcodes 5y agoIn ... all countries?
- thaumasiotes 5y agoYes, it's safe to say that, in all countries, people are more comfortable with animal testing than with human testing. The quality of results from human testing is many orders of magnitude better; if you're willing to do it, there's no point in doing any animal testing.
- tffgg 5y ago1. He refered to countries using humans for testing being a leap 2. Using humans for testing makes no sense bc. animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans
- thaumasiotes 5y agoWhat do you believe is the conflict between these two statements? >> if you're willing to do [human testing], there's no point in doing any animal testing. > animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans These are two statements of the same idea.
- tffgg 5y agoSince ethics has been invented for human society, there is no surprise for being averse to humans. Neither is that good or bad by nature