4 ms·

>Which humans? Consenting ones. It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensa

>Which humans? Consenting ones. It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensation of any kind(besides euthanasia when they're deemed useless), it's also a lot more efficient and reliable, humans aren't 150lbs rats. People risks their lives and health daily for a salary(or for a greater cause, which would still apply here) , why should this be any different? How is it any different from a firefighter?a bodyguard? a miner? a doctor in an ICU? No matter how poor you are you have a choice, these animals never got one, there is plenty of times where I would have accepted to be a guinea pig for money.

tsol 4y ago
The problem is you and I don't wanna test potentially dangerous drugs, even for lots of money as we have other choices for an income. Most of the people willing to test drugs will be desperate, poor people who need to feed their families. Say what you will about testing on monkeys-- but testing on poor people instead so that the people making the rules don't have to feed bad about testing on monkeys, is as dystopian as it gets.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, and we already have restrictions on how animals can be treated. Loosening the rules on what can be tested on humans (but strengthening the consent rules — for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial) and banning animal testing would not stop progress, it would ensure that progress was made when it was justified enough that people were willing to consent to risks for the progress of humanity. How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
  - tsol 4y ago
    >People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases. >for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations >Why can’t that apply to science on earth? I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. >The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people. The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics. >
    - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
      >I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. That's not an actual alternative. It's like nazis saying they have a good alternative for clinical trials: jews, romanis and gays. Just because it's affecting a different group of sentient beings doesn't mean it's an actual alternative, it's effectively the same thing: violation of consent, abuse and sequestration at a huge scale.
    - phphphphp 4y ago
      So in your scenario, it’s reasonable to subject monkeys to suffering in order to test new anti-histamines that humans have decided they don’t care about enough to test? If we can deliver a potential 1% improvement to the effectiveness of anti-histamines but it requires a dozen monkeys suffering through testing along the way, is that okay… because it’s monkeys? Your argument is much more applicable to testing on poor people than mine — after all, we need to make progress.

tsol 4y ago

The problem is you and I don't wanna test potentially dangerous drugs, even for lots of money as we have other choices for an income. Most of the people willing to test drugs will be desperate, poor people who need to feed their families. Say what you will about testing on monkeys-- but testing on poor people instead so that the people making the rules don't have to feed bad about testing on monkeys, is as dystopian as it gets.

phphphphp 4y ago
People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, and we already have restrictions on how animals can be treated. Loosening the rules on what can be tested on humans (but strengthening the consent rules — for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial) and banning animal testing would not stop progress, it would ensure that progress was made when it was justified enough that people were willing to consent to risks for the progress of humanity. How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
- tsol 4y ago
  >People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases. >for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations >Why can’t that apply to science on earth? I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. >The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people. The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics. >
  - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
    >I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. That's not an actual alternative. It's like nazis saying they have a good alternative for clinical trials: jews, romanis and gays. Just because it's affecting a different group of sentient beings doesn't mean it's an actual alternative, it's effectively the same thing: violation of consent, abuse and sequestration at a huge scale.
  - phphphphp 4y ago
    So in your scenario, it’s reasonable to subject monkeys to suffering in order to test new anti-histamines that humans have decided they don’t care about enough to test? If we can deliver a potential 1% improvement to the effectiveness of anti-histamines but it requires a dozen monkeys suffering through testing along the way, is that okay… because it’s monkeys? Your argument is much more applicable to testing on poor people than mine — after all, we need to make progress.