4 ms·

Why do you say there is no downside? As Jonathan Kaplan points out in the comments of the article Crito links to, Ebola is not 100% fatal and several drugs tha

by kvb 12y ago

Why do you say there is no downside? As Jonathan Kaplan points out in the comments of the article Crito links to, Ebola is not 100% fatal and several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans (see e.g. TGN1412 [1]). [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412

colanderman 12y ago
several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans This is an argument for animal testing?
- Crito 12y ago
  The argument for animal testing would be that several drugs have had catastrophic effects on animals, and would have had those same catastrophic effects on humans had we not tested first on animals. Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarly in both animals and humans.
  - colanderman 12y ago
    Ya, too bad humans with terminal diseases can't give consent to receive experimental treatments. Better to forcibly test on a being that can't say "no".
    - Crito 12y ago
      Even if the established/widely accepted standards of ethics made human testing in lieu of any animal testing the clear ethical choice, it still would not be practical. Think about it, how would you work on potential cures of ebola in the (several times many year long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks) gaps between ebola outbreaks? Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Put all research on hold until the next outbreak came around? You'd be able to find plenty of human test subjects for diseases like malaria or HIV, but for many diseases you would rapidly exhaust your supply of sick humans.
      - colanderman 12y ago
        There are many practical things we do not do because they are unethical. For example, bombing military forces using human shields as cover. Very practical, considered unethical and hence not practiced. (Same applies to the inverse, using civilians as shields.) Eugenics, practiced to advance the human genome by artificial selection. Practical, not ethical! During war, placing people of the same race as the enemy into concentration camps. Practical, no longer considered ethical, thankfully! Testing drugs on the clinically insane and on criminals, or of humans of different races. Practical, not ethical. Enslaving people of a different race to work plantations. Practical! No longer considered ethical! ------------- For testing between outbreaks, how about instead of your strawmen, we try infecting lab-grown specimens of non-sentient tissue with Ebola? This is the 21st century, we can grow entire organs [1]. Even barring that, tissue from organ donor cadavers can be used. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10275996/The-body-parts-which-can-be-regrown-in-a-laboratory.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10275996/The... ------------- And one more thing: Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates? Is it because they do not have advanced technology? Is it because they do not speak our language? Is it because they cannot resist us? Is it because they are not chosen by your God? Is it because they look different than you? Is it because you have no social links with them? Is it because, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you believe them not to be capable of thought and feeling? Something else I haven't listed? Everyone who downvotes me, I challenge you to answer this question. It's the least you can do if you don't doubt yourself.
        Crito 12y ago
        Let me guess, you'd be opposing a cure to ebola even if it didn't involve animal testing because "Why do you think that it is okay to kill poor hapless ebola?" > "Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates? Is it because they do not have advanced technology?" Sure, let's go with that one. Humans are able to research and eradicate diseases, but monkeys are not. Humans therefore have a greater inherent worth. Go proselytize somewhere else.

by kvb 12y ago

colanderman 12y ago

several drugs that have worked in animals have proven to have catastrophic effects when administered to humans This is an argument for animal testing?

Crito 12y ago
The argument for animal testing would be that several drugs have had catastrophic effects on animals, and would have had those same catastrophic effects on humans had we not tested first on animals. Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarly in both animals and humans.
- colanderman 12y ago
  Ya, too bad humans with terminal diseases can't give consent to receive experimental treatments. Better to forcibly test on a being that can't say "no".
  - Crito 12y ago
    Even if the established/widely accepted standards of ethics made human testing in lieu of any animal testing the clear ethical choice, it still would not be practical. Think about it, how would you work on potential cures of ebola in the (several times many year long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks) gaps between ebola outbreaks? Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Put all research on hold until the next outbreak came around? You'd be able to find plenty of human test subjects for diseases like malaria or HIV, but for many diseases you would rapidly exhaust your supply of sick humans.
    - colanderman 12y ago
      There are many practical things we do not do because they are unethical. For example, bombing military forces using human shields as cover. Very practical, considered unethical and hence not practiced. (Same applies to the inverse, using civilians as shields.) Eugenics, practiced to advance the human genome by artificial selection. Practical, not ethical! During war, placing people of the same race as the enemy into concentration camps. Practical, no longer considered ethical, thankfully! Testing drugs on the clinically insane and on criminals, or of humans of different races. Practical, not ethical. Enslaving people of a different race to work plantations. Practical! No longer considered ethical! ------------- For testing between outbreaks, how about instead of your strawmen, we try infecting lab-grown specimens of non-sentient tissue with Ebola? This is the 21st century, we can grow entire organs [1]. Even barring that, tissue from organ donor cadavers can be used. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10275996/The-body-parts-which-can-be-regrown-in-a-laboratory.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10275996/The... ------------- And one more thing: Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates? Is it because they do not have advanced technology? Is it because they do not speak our language? Is it because they cannot resist us? Is it because they are not chosen by your God? Is it because they look different than you? Is it because you have no social links with them? Is it because, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you believe them not to be capable of thought and feeling? Something else I haven't listed? Everyone who downvotes me, I challenge you to answer this question. It's the least you can do if you don't doubt yourself.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Let me guess, you'd be opposing a cure to ebola even if it didn't involve animal testing because "Why do you think that it is okay to kill poor hapless ebola?" > "Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates? Is it because they do not have advanced technology?" Sure, let's go with that one. Humans are able to research and eradicate diseases, but monkeys are not. Humans therefore have a greater inherent worth. Go proselytize somewhere else.