Nanotechnology and the nerve cell or Who said animal testing was useless again? - by SubJeff
SubJeff on 14/3/2006 at 09:32
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4801728.stm)
Potentially a fantastic find. If this can work in humans then nanotechnology and animal testing will be validated so solidly that the ALF and co, and the tech naysayers, will have to just own up as tards.
Direct nerve fusion with other kit? Unlikely but...
Shayde on 14/3/2006 at 09:55
I think Americans should be paid to be guinea pigs instead of using animals. You people sell your blood and semen already it's not that much of a stretch. :)
SD on 14/3/2006 at 13:27
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
If this can work in humans then nanotechnology and animal testing will be validated so solidly that the ALF and co, and the tech naysayers, will have to just own up as tards.
SE, the ALF doesn't question that animal testing brings "benefits" to humankind. It's just that they are opposed to the use of animals in tests as a matter of principle. And thank God we have people like the ALF in our society to keep these Frankenscientists in check.
Scots Taffer on 14/3/2006 at 13:32
Oh shit, SD, there's this EAT RED MEAT ad running in Australia right now that you just have to see... I mean, I don't agree with you on your plant munching at all, but this is just LOL. Look it out. It has Sam Niell that guy who was in the movie with the MEAT EATING DINOSAURS.
Ajare on 14/3/2006 at 14:00
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
SE, the ALF doesn't question that animal testing brings "benefits" to humankind. It's just that they are opposed to the use of animals in tests as a matter of principle. And thank God we have people like the ALF in our society to keep these Frankenscientists in check.
I'm not a huge fan of using animals for experiments either, I doubt many people are. It's not very nice for them. But you have to think more practically - the only two alternatives are using humans, or no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas. Unless you're prepared to seriously advocate one of these, there's simply no practical point in going on about how unkind it is.
As for frankenscience, there's a big difference between grafting a horse's cock onto a chicken, or creating a luminous llama, and curing blindness. And we already have enough moral arbiters to stop things getting too wild already, we don't need the ALF for that.
Shayde on 14/3/2006 at 14:08
Why should human life be more valuable than that of an animal? We are overpopulated as it is, and surely testing cures for human diseases would be more accurate on a human subject.
Don't all "U BABY KILLAR!" me, I'm just saying try to see it from a different perspective. So what if some people are blind, if we don't live past 60 years etc. We are a huge species, breeding like mad. I'd prefer to see another happy monkey than another person cured of something.
Of course the counter argument is, if it was me in trouble I'd want to see/live/have an extra ear. And possibly that's right. But if I was told you can see again, but you have to murder 10 000 monkeys to do it, I wouldn't.
Also I was raised by a hippy so my views aren't really surprising.
Rogue Keeper on 14/3/2006 at 14:09
That's why research in the area of human cloning is the most important priority.
Once we'll be able to clone humans, we can use them as disposable testing subjects and spare precious animals.
Shayde on 14/3/2006 at 14:11
Not sure if you were going for sarcasm there BR
(I suspect so with the "precious") but I DO agree.
Cloning an eyeball in a petri-dish of course, not full on person cloning ala horrible movie "The Island".
henke on 14/3/2006 at 14:22
Ok, so I don't normaly get this worked up but this simply
WILL.
NOT.
STAND.
The Island was NOT horrible! Sure, it wasn't great but to call it "horrible" is just insane!
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE MAD :mad: :mad: :mad:
edit: oh wait. The Island? Oops. I haven't seen that, I was thinking of The Beach. ok nvm
