[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 347x371, image_2_1172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1924535 No.1924535 [Reply] [Original]

How does /sci/ feel about animal experimentation?

>> No.1924539

Would you rather have us experiment on your mother?

>> No.1924541

>>1924539
Newtonian physics don't hold up at that kind of mass, and most biological functions break down in gravitational fields of that magnitude, so it's difficult to have your mother be a model system.

>> No.1924543

I say we do those experiments on religious nuts

>> No.1924544

>>1924539

I'm not against animal experiments, I'm just interested to see what the consensus on /sci/ is.

>> No.1924548

Very much approve of them.

And I delight in informing ANIMA-donation-beggars on the streets of this.

>> No.1924550

Prisoners for life would be more apt test subjects for experimentation.

>> No.1924554

It's hard enough to care about cruel things happening to humans you don't know, let alone other animals.

>> No.1924555

People who save a dozen rabbits or a hundred mice condemn a thousand people now, and countless people in the future, to death or agony.

Animal testing for medicine, if necessary, is great. I personally have a mouse (named Prion the Not-Yet-Bionic Mouse) whose spine I expose repeatedly for my experimental prosthetic control device. He's probably in a lot of pain when I'm working, although I give him sedatives between sessions. You know what? Joe Soldier over there with no arms and one leg is probably in more pain, so I really have a hard time caring about the mouse.

Animal testing for cosmetics and such is dumb as fuck and should not be allowed.

>> No.1924556

Animal testing of drugs and surgical procedures -> good
LD-50 testing on animals -> not kind, but essential
Animal testing of cosmetics -> bad

>> No.1924561

>>1924555
>>1924556

How should we test our cosmetics then?

>> No.1924567

>>1924561
I'm not here to tell you what to do, I'm here to tell you what not to do.

>> No.1924570

>>1924561
Pay wimminz, apply to face of wimminz, observe.

>> No.1924576

/sci/ officially hates cosmetics. Good to know. I shoulda guessed. /sci/'s women just use the air-brush.

>> No.1924592

>>1924561

Cosmetics should not be so toxic as to require test subjects.

>> No.1924599

>>1924592
How will we know if they're toxic if we don't test them?

>> No.1924604

test on racial trash, mentally ill and convicts

>> No.1924607

>>1924599
Stop putting toxic shit in them in the first place. There is absolutely no excuse for putting a known carcinogen in some rouge and hoping the binders keep it inactive.

>> No.1924616

>>1924604
I agree I cannot understand the logic behind putting innocent animals through suffering when there's tonnes of bad people out their who we fucking pay to feed.
Human results will also produce better results meaning the volunteers after the drug has been approved will be safer.

>> No.1924619

>>1924616
>their
>there
fixed
I was typing quickly

>> No.1924622

>>1924607

>Implying every other chemical substance in the fukken universe isn't to some degree a carcinogen.

>> No.1924630

>>1924622
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermaceti

(not a carcinogen, but very gross)

>> No.1924633
File: 70 KB, 387x386, 1284636547187.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1924633

I love em and advocate doing more.

>> No.1924653

>>1924535
Approved.

>> No.1924662

>>1924554
Who says it has to be cruel?
I think the cruelty of the test is likely a measure of inefficiency in the deductive process.

IE- If the experiment turns out vastly different than what I thought when seeking a beneficial outcome for the creature then I have failed somewhere in my paperwork.

We are past the point where we try shit and see if the rat dies a horrible death for most testing situations.

>> No.1924679

I believe people with with a life sentence deserve suffering for science more than an innocent animal does.

>> No.1924681

>>1924662

Well, perhaps when testing with cosmetics and other relatively harmless products.

I can assure you, however, that many, many laboratory animals are killed in more or less cruel ways as control groups when testing medicine.

Say I want to test a new antibiotic... I claim that this antibiotic will cure the horrible Disease A faster and with smaller doses than the currently marketed ones.

Now I make 4 groups of rats :

Group 1 is the blind. They are injected with Disease A and receive no treatment.

Group 2 is for comparison with current market products. They are injected with Disease A and are subsequently treated with Competing antibiotics, in quantity x

Group 3
Is injected with A and treated with My Antibiotic in quantity x

Group 4
Gets A and My antibiotic in quantity 0.75x

Data and results are largely irrelevant to my example.

Of course surviving lab-rats will be put to death, as they are useless for further testing ( they now have antibodies, could still be carriers of the disease, etc. etc. )

End result : 400 dead lab-rats.

The biochemical industry muders lab-animals in horrific quantities. Don't kid yourself.

>> No.1924688

>>1924662
>We are past the point where we try shit and see if the rat dies a horrible death for most testing situations.

We really arent. Example: When a psychiatrist prescribes ritalin to a kid, he really has no clue if thats what the kid actually needs, its a guess which turns out to be wrong a lot of the time, I cant remember what the percentage of misperscribed kids are, but I feel like its some huge amount like 30% or more.. We dont have perfect knowledge of the brain or the rest of biology for that matter. Giving an animal a new drug and watching what happens is still a far superior method to testing a substance than trying to figure out whats going to happen on paper, cause the paper will be wrong, humans arent that advanced yet.

>> No.1924692

>>1924679

There are nowhere near enough criminals with a life sentence to replace the 50-100 million vertibrates and the many hundreds of millons of rats, mice and invertebrates used every year in animal experiments.

>> No.1924700

if we didn't kill them who would?

>> No.1924716

Fine. I have no qualms about animal experimentation whatsoever.

>> No.1924719

>>1924681

I think your concept of horrific quantities is a bit skewed. In the UK for example, we used 3.2 million animals for research in 2007 (mostly rats, mice and fish).

The number of animals killed in the UK for food annually is about 750 million cows, pigs, chickens, etc and about 650 million tons of fish.

>> No.1924727

I am currently performing toxicity experiments on millions and millions of worms and tossing out their corpses down the drain by the thousands every morning while sipping on my vanilla latte

feels good man

>> No.1924737

It is currently and looks like it will remain necessary for a long time to properly develop medicine. The use of animal testing for cosmetics and other non-essential products could be considered somewhat wasteful, but so could a whole lot of other non-essential products not directly related to animal testing including the computer that you're using to view 4chan right now. Which indirectly causes a whole lot more suffering in lifeforms around the planet instead of just specifically bred animals.

I am not prepared to abandon those comforts, if I do not see the use for something than I will not use that product, but I will not condemn people for using it either. I for one will not be a hypocrite.

>> No.1924811

>How does /sci/ feel about animal experimentation?
Eh, authoritative but so much work, takes so long. I wanna get my PhD and move on, man. Who the hell wants to sit there making knockouts for decades of their lives?

Call me reductionist, but a 5-day infection protocol is about the longest experiment I will willingly go near. The best science is the kind that is finished by lunchtime.

>> No.1925021

You can't say you morally approve of it unless you would be willing to do it yourself

>> No.1925054

I find it deplorable.

They should use human beings.

>> No.1925078
File: 104 KB, 450x295, pinky_and_the_brain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1925078

>my face when I just watched a mouse get a tumor dissected out of it about 2 minutes ago

>> No.1925105

i get uncomfortable watching a rat run around with a human ear growing out of its spine

>> No.1925119

>>1924681
I'm okay with this.
Quantity is not an issue, manner of death is a bit but still not much.
Everything dies, how bad it suffers before death is an emotional concern so it feels a little bad to inject rats with diseases that cause a slow painful death.
Compare that to what happens to the livestock on the way to becoming your next hamburger and considering that the rat's usual manner of death is pretty bad anyway and finally considering how many people will be spared the long painful death, the testing is comparatively not so cruel.

Cruelty will be a comparison. To some, being subjected to flawed logic is cruel.
That was many original point.

>> No.1925129

Animal testing is an unconditional good. Ethics when applied to animals are misguided.

>> No.1925157

>>1925054
seriously though? humans can give consent.
Animal testing that devolves into "spray this shit on its eyes and see if it gets eye cancer" should be reserved to voluntary human studies that would probably get more accurate results.

>> No.1925164

>>1924727

Right on! What type of latte?

>> No.1925168

>>1925157
its mentioned earlier in this thread why that doesnt happen. we dont have nearly the number of humans to successfully complete those studies.

>> No.1925189

Highly approve.

>> No.1925198

>>1925129

humans are animals you ignorant fuck