3 ms·
> Why shouldn't we develop technology that replaces these techniques? We absolutely should. What do we do until such technology is developed?
by duckmysick 4y ago
> Why shouldn't we develop technology that replaces these techniques?
We absolutely should.
What do we do until such technology is developed?
- j-pb 4y agoUse worse/more expensive versions of the technology. The stuff is already here, it's just inertia that's keeping us from fully adopting it.
- duckmysick 4y agoIf it was just inertia, it means the options have similar outcomes and the only factor is the cost of switching. As you pointed out, there are other trade-offs.
- tsol 4y agoBut it literally isn't here. We need live organisms to test drugs, we can't do it all on computer chips and disconnected cells
- oaktrout 4y agoI have to think that computational models will be infinitely cheaper than animal testing. If they worked as well as animal testing surely some for profit pharmaceutical company would leverage them to reap enormous profits. Because this is not happening I conclude the the models aren't as affective.
- maxbond 4y agoWe'll have to do animal testing until the technology is developed and replace it incrementally. The technology will not be developed unless it is made explicit that not doing so is unacceptable.