4 ms·

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 huma

by 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.
      - colanderman 12y ago
        > 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. So would you agree with the statement that Westerners have greater inherent worth than Australian aboriginal adults? After all, they don't have the technology or knowledge to research and eradicate diseases. How about vs. the Amish? They choose not to engage in such research. How about a normal human adult vs. an invalid? I'm curious where you draw the line. > "Why do you think that it is okay to kill poor hapless ebola?" > Go proselytize somewhere else. I feel sorry for you, that you are both so easily offended and lacking in debate skills that your response is so childlike. I was hoping you'd could provide a level-headed counterargument to mine, as I'm open to challenges to my worldview. Sadly it seems you're little more capable of checking your emotions than everyone else who downvoted because they disagree with me.

by Crito 12y ago

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.
    - colanderman 12y ago
      > 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. So would you agree with the statement that Westerners have greater inherent worth than Australian aboriginal adults? After all, they don't have the technology or knowledge to research and eradicate diseases. How about vs. the Amish? They choose not to engage in such research. How about a normal human adult vs. an invalid? I'm curious where you draw the line. > "Why do you think that it is okay to kill poor hapless ebola?" > Go proselytize somewhere else. I feel sorry for you, that you are both so easily offended and lacking in debate skills that your response is so childlike. I was hoping you'd could provide a level-headed counterargument to mine, as I'm open to challenges to my worldview. Sadly it seems you're little more capable of checking your emotions than everyone else who downvoted because they disagree with me.