5 ms·

The article specifically talks about this and you haven't really made a concrete reply to anything they say. The quality of discourse on HN goes up when we all

The article specifically talks about this and you haven't really made a concrete reply to anything they say. The quality of discourse on HN goes up when we all meaningfully engage with the content. The goal shouldn't be to see who is fastest to post a dismissal of the headline.

carbocation 5y ago
The article doesn’t actually talk about it in any meaningful way. They talk about it in a statistical fashion: most animal studies are underpowered, most don’t publish, etc. And sure, I think we can all agree that nobody should be doing useless experiments, whether on animals or not. But that in no way proves the article’s argument, and it hardly even supports it. Are we going to test out new CRISPR therapeutic delivery systems in humans? We don’t have a non-living system that replicates a circulatory system, an immune system, and a liver. If the author has a suggestion for how to do things like this safely and effectively without animals, I didn’t hear it.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Failing experiments and learning something in the process is the bread and butter of science
fabian2k 5y ago
The article is makings lots of points, I don't find it well focused which makes it harder to make specific replies. For example it talks a lot about animal experiments in cosmetics, but one of the quotes mentions that those are already outlawed in the EU. So I'm not sure what the point is here, if it is to extend that ban to other countries the author should say so, and it's a point I'd certainly agree with. The author also claims to some extend that animal experiments can be replaced by other methods. In the general case this is simply wrong, you cannot replace all animal experiments. There are cases where you can gain similar information from other experiments without animals, and those should certainly be further developed. But this is really hard to discuss in general, the specifics matter here and not all animal experiments are equal. Animal experiments are also expensive and time consuming, if there are established and reliable alternatives they will find their use.
- wzdd 5y ago
  > if it is to extend that ban to other countries the author should say so The article explicitly states this in no uncertain terms as the final sentence in the paragraph you are talking about: "I see no good reason that [animal testing for cosmetics] should not be banned totally and everywhere." I agree that the article is unfocused. However for the specific issues you are mentioning here, it is simple to search the article to see if the author has covered the relevant point you are making.
Ensorceled 5y ago
The article gives a lot of examples of cruel, useless or ineffectual animal testing but does not address useful or critical animal testing at all. They are simply implying all animal testing is in the former category. > The quality of discourse on HN goes up when we all meaningfully engage with the content. The goal shouldn't be to see who is fastest to post a dismissal of the headline. The same could be said about comments.

carbocation 5y ago

The article doesn’t actually talk about it in any meaningful way. They talk about it in a statistical fashion: most animal studies are underpowered, most don’t publish, etc. And sure, I think we can all agree that nobody should be doing useless experiments, whether on animals or not. But that in no way proves the article’s argument, and it hardly even supports it. Are we going to test out new CRISPR therapeutic delivery systems in humans? We don’t have a non-living system that replicates a circulatory system, an immune system, and a liver. If the author has a suggestion for how to do things like this safely and effectively without animals, I didn’t hear it.

pvaldes 5y ago
Failing experiments and learning something in the process is the bread and butter of science

fabian2k 5y ago

The article is makings lots of points, I don't find it well focused which makes it harder to make specific replies. For example it talks a lot about animal experiments in cosmetics, but one of the quotes mentions that those are already outlawed in the EU. So I'm not sure what the point is here, if it is to extend that ban to other countries the author should say so, and it's a point I'd certainly agree with. The author also claims to some extend that animal experiments can be replaced by other methods. In the general case this is simply wrong, you cannot replace all animal experiments. There are cases where you can gain similar information from other experiments without animals, and those should certainly be further developed. But this is really hard to discuss in general, the specifics matter here and not all animal experiments are equal. Animal experiments are also expensive and time consuming, if there are established and reliable alternatives they will find their use.

wzdd 5y ago
> if it is to extend that ban to other countries the author should say so The article explicitly states this in no uncertain terms as the final sentence in the paragraph you are talking about: "I see no good reason that [animal testing for cosmetics] should not be banned totally and everywhere." I agree that the article is unfocused. However for the specific issues you are mentioning here, it is simple to search the article to see if the author has covered the relevant point you are making.

Ensorceled 5y ago

The article gives a lot of examples of cruel, useless or ineffectual animal testing but does not address useful or critical animal testing at all. They are simply implying all animal testing is in the former category. > The quality of discourse on HN goes up when we all meaningfully engage with the content. The goal shouldn't be to see who is fastest to post a dismissal of the headline. The same could be said about comments.