4 ms·

If animal experiments were banned in neuroscience I think it's likely that would force the development of new technologies for studying the brain that would act

If animal experiments were banned in neuroscience I think it's likely that would force the development of new technologies for studying the brain that would actually accelerate progress in neuroscience - "necessity is the mother of invention".

ghodith 5y ago
That seems unlikely. Look into techniques like ICSS which have no non-invasive substitutions. Banning animal experiments in neuroscience would just eliminate large swaths of research pursuits, leaving only observational techniques like FMRI, which would slow down the science greatly.
- metta2uall 5y ago
  It's not just FMRI - what about blood tests looking at gene expression, computational methods, tissue engineering, and stuff that hasn't been invented yet? Regarding ICSS though, I've had a look and I really fail to see how this technique is benefiting humanity..? For example they've discovered more detail about where cocaine affects pleasure/reward neural circuitry - so what?
  - ghodith 5y ago
    The point wasn’t FMRI per say, just that it would limit the science to observational studies like FMRI, which cannot reproduce the results of things like ICSS. Also such research may have large implications for understanding and treating addiction. The first step is understanding it.
    - metta2uall 5y ago
      As far as I know we already understand quite a lot about the neurological basis of addiction. Some treatments already exist but the main problems with them are social & political ones. Discovering better drugs would be really useful, but this can & is being done computationally. In addition, such research may also produce techniques for creating addictions & otherwise more effectively controlling human beings.
pvaldes 5y ago
> If animal experiments were banned in neuroscience... would actually accelerate progress. And if planes would be banned humans will develop wings, or maybe not. The other option, advances in neuroscience stagnating for decades until we would be able to develop this miraculous Kosher substitutes, is also possible. Young researchers quitting the field in mass upset by the new barriers would be also a probable outcome. I want ALS and Alzheimer solved as fast as possible and the new solutions supported by proven solid facts so, thanks, but not thanks.
- metta2uall 5y ago
  You're seriously underestimating human ingenuity if you think advances will stagnate for decades. It's also possible more researchers would enter the field since many young people are probably disgusted by the prospect of having to do dubiously ethical experiments on animals. I also want ALS And Alzheimer's solved as fast as possible, but perhaps the solution will be arrived at thanks to more advanced tissue engineering and computational methods, and we're 100,000,000 person-hours away from it. But resources are finite, so investment in animal experiments takes resources away from and delays us finding the actual solution. This is of course speculative, but thinking that animal testing will deliver the solution is also speculative, with career & institutional inertia also playing a role.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    > You're seriously underestimating human ingenuity Trust me, to be a scientist now is ludicrously difficult enough. I could tell you about the artificial barriers raised carefully to stop or delay for decades this people to... doh, solve OUR problems, but we would need a few hours for enumerating them. > many young people are probably disgusted by the prospect of having to do dubiously ethical experiments on animals. You seem to think that everybody is playing ping pong with rats in the labs but the real life is a little different than in the films. Most young people currently, right now, avoid easily this problem choosing NOT to do this kind of experiments. You are 120% free (and strongly encouraged) to do research only in something that you like. Nobody will stop you if you want to follow a botany career. Most of the really hot stuff come from plants or invertebrates after all. Nobody will force you to do design your experiment in a non ethical way, or make illegal drugs in your lab or... whatever. You can choose. Well... in fact it is not your choice only. Research with animals is strictly regulated and watched by independent teams. People doing such non ethical experiments would be, first: forbidden to publish in most journals and two, fired-bye-bye before 24 hours. And no more grants for you in the future, of course. Because those animals are 1) essential for the survival of the team and a poor management would attract diseases, stopping 50 people to justify their grant money for several really stressful months. 2) extremely expensive and difficult to obtain. 3) bond with their caretakers more that you think and 4) Its sacrifice could save thousands of lives and sustain thousands of jobs. And because universities and companies will avoid bad publicity at any cost, no matter how student heads will be necessary to chop.

ghodith 5y ago

That seems unlikely. Look into techniques like ICSS which have no non-invasive substitutions. Banning animal experiments in neuroscience would just eliminate large swaths of research pursuits, leaving only observational techniques like FMRI, which would slow down the science greatly.

metta2uall 5y ago
It's not just FMRI - what about blood tests looking at gene expression, computational methods, tissue engineering, and stuff that hasn't been invented yet? Regarding ICSS though, I've had a look and I really fail to see how this technique is benefiting humanity..? For example they've discovered more detail about where cocaine affects pleasure/reward neural circuitry - so what?
- ghodith 5y ago
  The point wasn’t FMRI per say, just that it would limit the science to observational studies like FMRI, which cannot reproduce the results of things like ICSS. Also such research may have large implications for understanding and treating addiction. The first step is understanding it.
  - metta2uall 5y ago
    As far as I know we already understand quite a lot about the neurological basis of addiction. Some treatments already exist but the main problems with them are social & political ones. Discovering better drugs would be really useful, but this can & is being done computationally. In addition, such research may also produce techniques for creating addictions & otherwise more effectively controlling human beings.

pvaldes 5y ago

> If animal experiments were banned in neuroscience... would actually accelerate progress. And if planes would be banned humans will develop wings, or maybe not. The other option, advances in neuroscience stagnating for decades until we would be able to develop this miraculous Kosher substitutes, is also possible. Young researchers quitting the field in mass upset by the new barriers would be also a probable outcome. I want ALS and Alzheimer solved as fast as possible and the new solutions supported by proven solid facts so, thanks, but not thanks.

metta2uall 5y ago
You're seriously underestimating human ingenuity if you think advances will stagnate for decades. It's also possible more researchers would enter the field since many young people are probably disgusted by the prospect of having to do dubiously ethical experiments on animals. I also want ALS And Alzheimer's solved as fast as possible, but perhaps the solution will be arrived at thanks to more advanced tissue engineering and computational methods, and we're 100,000,000 person-hours away from it. But resources are finite, so investment in animal experiments takes resources away from and delays us finding the actual solution. This is of course speculative, but thinking that animal testing will deliver the solution is also speculative, with career & institutional inertia also playing a role.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  > You're seriously underestimating human ingenuity Trust me, to be a scientist now is ludicrously difficult enough. I could tell you about the artificial barriers raised carefully to stop or delay for decades this people to... doh, solve OUR problems, but we would need a few hours for enumerating them. > many young people are probably disgusted by the prospect of having to do dubiously ethical experiments on animals. You seem to think that everybody is playing ping pong with rats in the labs but the real life is a little different than in the films. Most young people currently, right now, avoid easily this problem choosing NOT to do this kind of experiments. You are 120% free (and strongly encouraged) to do research only in something that you like. Nobody will stop you if you want to follow a botany career. Most of the really hot stuff come from plants or invertebrates after all. Nobody will force you to do design your experiment in a non ethical way, or make illegal drugs in your lab or... whatever. You can choose. Well... in fact it is not your choice only. Research with animals is strictly regulated and watched by independent teams. People doing such non ethical experiments would be, first: forbidden to publish in most journals and two, fired-bye-bye before 24 hours. And no more grants for you in the future, of course. Because those animals are 1) essential for the survival of the team and a poor management would attract diseases, stopping 50 people to justify their grant money for several really stressful months. 2) extremely expensive and difficult to obtain. 3) bond with their caretakers more that you think and 4) Its sacrifice could save thousands of lives and sustain thousands of jobs. And because universities and companies will avoid bad publicity at any cost, no matter how student heads will be necessary to chop.