3 ms·

I think this is a bad take. Poor people will be tested after animal testing so it is not that worst. There are many cases of this one example is [1] Animal tes

I think this is a bad take. Poor people will be tested after animal testing so it is not that worst. There are many cases of this one example is [1] Animal testing is unnecessary most of the time. Even when its necessary they are brutally tortured and after testing is over they are simply killed. But you know companies don't think animal deserves to live. We can use simulations etc but you know its hard to change culture. 1. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ethics-in-human-experimentation-in-science-based-medicine/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ethics-in-human-experimenta...

giantg2 5y ago
The use simulations for many things already. That hell's them to determine what to test on animals in many cases, and still they have failures. It's very had to simulate things that we don't know everything about. That's why they do the testing.
joshuaissac 5y ago
> Poor people will be tested after animal testing so it is not that worst. > Animal testing is unnecessary most of the time. Even when its necessary they are brutally tortured If animal testing involves brutally torturing the test subjects, then surely it would be much worse for poor human test subjects if they are swapped in, compared to what they go through now. Those steps that involve torturous pain would have to happen with the human subjects instead of the animals.