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

Stitch on 16/3/2006 at 16:46

And let's also not forget that we* are benefiting from years of scientific and medical breakthroughs that are the direct result of animal testing. Dislike animal testing if you will, but you simply can't deny the fact that it has yielded great rewards for humanity. Cherry picking the exceptions proves nothing.

*includes Mopgoblin and Strontz

SubJeff on 16/3/2006 at 16:49

I'm wondering if you are actually able to think outside of what you have been fed Stronts.

First off, lol sample size of 1 single trail. Do you know how many are conducted each year? Do we have to assume that based on your stupidity all scousers are dumb ALF apologists? And you do realise that this is at Phase 1 - where the whole point is to check for human toxicity that may have been missed in animal tests, right? No one ever, EVER, said that animals are a perfect proxy for humans. But neither are crash test dummies but lol we use them.

Secondly, we have no idea why this has happened yet. It could just be that the drug is ok for animals but not humans. It could be accidental overdose. It could be a cross reaction. Even if it is just not compatible with humans, sad though it is the test has succeeded in catching a drug that isn't suitable.

SD on 16/3/2006 at 18:53

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

And you do realise that this is at Phase 1 - where the whole point is to check for human toxicity that may have been missed in animal tests, right?

Yes I understand what stage these tests were conducted at (you conveniently forgetting I have a degree in science again?) - my only point is that if toxicity to humans can so easily be missed by animal tests, then what is the value in animal tests at all?

The only reliable indicator of toxicity or, indeed, benefit to humans is tests on humans themselves. Let's flip it around for a second - who knows how many potental life-saving drugs never even make it to the human test stage because they proved highly fatal to rats or mice, even though they may in fact have no negative effect on humans?

Swiss Mercenary on 16/3/2006 at 18:56

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

'So easily missed'?

Why won't you give me some numbers on that.

Agent Monkeysee on 16/3/2006 at 19:24

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Yes I understand what stage these tests were conducted at (you conveniently forgetting I have a degree in science again?)

What did you study?

Pyrian on 16/3/2006 at 19:33

I'm guessing he has a B.S. in BS. ;)

Strontium Dog, we'd remember your background in science more often if you remembered any of it. Nobody ever knows for sure what will happen when a substance is introduced to any organism - even humans aren't a perfect stand-in for each other. What could be more harmless than a peanut? How many tests could be successfully conducted? But they kill some people.

Animal testing isn't perfect. However, there are issues of scale, here. The number of substances which would harm humans but don't because we test on animals first can be roughly estimated at about 10,000 per year. Your counter-sample size of one does not impress me.

SD on 16/3/2006 at 19:53

Quote Posted by Pyrian

The number of substances which would harm humans but don't because we test on animals first can be roughly estimated at about 10,000 per year.

How do we know they would harm humans if they've only been tested on animals?

scumble on 16/3/2006 at 20:25

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

What did you study?

StD, this is an important point - what kind of science degree? Chemistry? Biology?

Pyrian on 16/3/2006 at 21:08

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

How do we know they would harm humans if they've only been tested on animals?

Quote Posted by Pyrian

Nobody ever knows for sure what will happen when a substance is introduced to any organism...

Show some evidence of reading comprehension for a change, please.

The answer to your question is that no amount of testing - even on humans - is enough for 100% certainty that a given person won't be harmed. So, no, we don't know, can't know, and never will know. It's just a matter of probability and statistics. And the odds are high (~90%) that a substance toxic to a given mammal is also toxic to most mammals, including humans.

JACKofTrades on 16/3/2006 at 23:25

Wow Std, do you give yourself a fat lip when you kneejerk like that?