3 ms·
> as well as testing the drug on a real creature Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit > you have to test on a full organism Are yo
by bsdz 4y ago
> as well as testing the drug on a real creature
Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit
> you have to test on a full organism
Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises".
> Organoids just don't have the complexity of living creatures
I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans.
Furthermore, there have been some disasterous human clinical trials where drugs have passed all the animal model testing but left many of the human participants dead.
- tsol 4y ago>Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit Better than nothing. >Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". No, I'm just saying a full body with multiple organ systems, hormones, and everything else has many more variables than a cell in a petri dish. So a living organism of some sort is a big plus. It's true that if you tested on humans you'd have even fewer unknowns, but that's obviously unethical. >I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans They aren't perfect. They're just the best thing we have right now