Nanotechnology and the nerve cell or Who said animal testing was useless again?

Agent Monkeysee on 15/3/2006 at 23:43

What if it's a child made out of a thousand rats?

Pyrian on 16/3/2006 at 00:53

Quote Posted by Aerothorn

I suppose what bothers me about animal research is that there's no end to it. The justification is "sure, these animals have to be horribly tortured, but if we're able to do it we'll get this scientific breakthrough and all of socieity will be better for it". So you'd think that eventually once we had all these we'd all be better and we wouldn't have to do the testing anymore. But of course, that's not how science works, it doesn't stop, its just a constant stride for progress...so no matter what we get from these experiments, we'll continue to find excuses for animal testing...so yeah, I am really against it.

Advances in computer power will eventually remove the need for animal testing.

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Would it not have been a damn sight more useful if we had performed these experiments on humans who were already blind (and don't try and tell me you wouldn't have a queue of volunteers longer than the Gulf War casualty list if there was even a slight chance that their blindness could be cured)?

Clinical (i.e. human volunteer) trials are not done until after pre-clinical (i.e. animal non-volunteer) trials - but they are done. It is considered better to risk an animal before risking a human. The end result is that far fewer humans have to be tested on for drugs that do not work. Similarly, in vitro (i.e. in a test tube) tests are performed before in vivo (i.e. in a live creature) tests, resulting in far fewer wasted animal studies.

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

What it boils down to is that experiments on unwilling animals are, for one reason or another, a hell of a lot cheaper than experiments on willing human participants.

That's not inherently true at all - and it's only because clinical trials are very heavily regulated, for patient protection. And it's precisely that regulation - for patient protection - that studies are required by law to be performed on animals first. So, basically, you are full of shit, here. It has nothing to do with profit (that would be NO testing), and everything to do with maximizing human life and quality of life in general.

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

hay guys there's this great new drug thalidomide totally no side effects in lab rats you should try it

The side effects of Thalidomide are easily observable in animal studies - but proper reproductive animal studies weren't required until after that debacle. Also, it's in use, since the major side effects are confined to fetal development ("do not use this product if you are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or have any possibility of becoming pregnant"). It is because of Thalidomide that a whole class of further toxicology studies are required by law.

I don't see pregnant human volunteers as being a reasonable alternative.

Ko0K on 16/3/2006 at 02:16

Quote Posted by Para?noid

I'm not much of a beach-goer after seeing that, but yeah... That's kind of what I visualized. NOT.

mopgoblin on 16/3/2006 at 04:00

Quote Posted by Stitch

Does this basic concept extend in your world outside of scientific testing as well?

If not, why?

If so, how can you live with yourself?

Yeah, it does. I don't deliberately harm animals (although I might make exceptions for harmful non-native species, parasites, attacking animals, etc), I don't eat meat and I try to avoid pre-made food containing eggs, and I attempt to grow a significant portion of my food in the garden. I do drink milk and eat a few things that use free-range eggs, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the products I use result from causing harm that I don't know about, but I think I make a reasonable effort, and I'm not doing anything approaching the nasty things some of these researchers are doing.

Quote Posted by d0om

Now with animal testing its not like the rats have the options of 1) being tested on or 2) living happily in the fields. Their options are 1) being tested on or 2) never having existed.

An argument like that wouldn't justify experiments on humans without their consent - you can't have humans created so you can experiment on them and dissect them afterward. Why should humans get this special protection if other species don't?

Shug on 16/3/2006 at 05:18

because we're special

Swiss Mercenary on 16/3/2006 at 09:19

What Shug said.

Unless you are willing to rescue the 5 baby rabbits from a burning building, rather then a child, you do make a distinction on the moral value of human life vs animal life.

scumble on 16/3/2006 at 09:47

Quote Posted by mopgoblin

I don't deliberately harm animals (although I might make exceptions for harmful non-native species, parasites, attacking animals, etc)

I don't like to squash flies or woodlice deliberately, but I won't go out of my way to avoid accidentally treading on something. Deliberate cruelty to some organism is generally bad for the soul, but killing animals for food isn't necessarily cruel in the same way - it's not being done for twisted enjoyment.
Personally, I go for free range animal products with the understanding that animal welfare has been addressed. You can tell the difference between a battery egg and a free range one very easily. You can also see the difference with meat.

Quote Posted by Shug

because we're special

Or, when it comes to the crunch and you are nearly dead that baby Koala isn't going to get priority.

PigLick on 16/3/2006 at 15:04

last page of this thread=good

SD on 16/3/2006 at 16:08

Six people in the UK are currently on the verge of death after partaking in clinical trials of a new drug ((http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm) story here).

The funny thing is, the drug had cleared tests on mice, rats and dogs. GG animal testing, you really proved your worth in this instance!

scumble on 16/3/2006 at 16:34

Apparently a rare occurrence. All clinical trials have risks, even if animal testing can't guarantee success. It's possible that without that these six people might be actually dead and not in a "serious but stable" (granted that two are critical) condition.