[ 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: 15 KB, 260x344, 899045_f260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186715 No.2186715 [Reply] [Original]

Is animal testing necessary? For developing cures for things like cancer or HIV or is it just pointless testing on animals? What are the benefits and such. Arguing with a PETA whore here but I'm fairly ignorant on the matter.

>> No.2186723

It's useful for early stage testing but gets less useful as time progresses. Personally I'd like to see them switch over to using convicts

>> No.2186729
File: 139 KB, 794x599, 794px-OdontodactylusScyllarus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186729

It isn't necessary with us being able to use human cells that are grown in lab. However lab animals do have other useful purposes. Like studying their brains in action, experimenting with their genetic code, injecting them with nano-bots and sending them through mazes for shits & giggles.

>> No.2186739

At present, yes, it is still necessary. Physiologically animals like rodents are very similar to humans, so precinical testing is done on them. It can be argued from a utilitarian standpoint that animals are expendable. It sort of defeats the purpose of developing medication for patient groups if you first have to pilot untested medication on them, thereby inevitably causing some of them to die.

However, in my personal opnion there is a strong need for alternative ways of testing. Cultured tissues etc. can also be used to test physiological effects of new medications. Sadly, at present this is still unfeasible to do this on a large scale because of monetary and practical constraints.

>> No.2186746

>>2186723
>using convicts
Besides the obvious ethical concerns there are practical issues with this as well. Using a group like this has limitations in that this leads to sampling bias. Also, some clinical medications can't be used on healthy humans because if you want to test the physiological interaction with a pathological phenomenon, healthy subjects don't qualify.

>> No.2186747

>>2186739
We should use pigs instead. They're smart and very similar to us. Fuck ethics.

>> No.2186751

>>2186747
Oh wait I forgot.. we're eating them anyway. No harm in using them.

>> No.2186757

>>2186747
>Fuck ethics
This is the equivalent of saying:
>I will never work with humans or animals in an experimental setting.

>> No.2186758

That's why you use convicts. If the die it eases prison overcrowding and tax payer money isn't spent keeping them locked up, the data gathered is more accurate and they can tell the researchers about any side effects that aren't obvious. Win win win win win

>> No.2186762

I volunteer to be subjected to testing whether having sexual intercourse (oral, vaginal and anal) with incredibly beautiful 16 year old girls has magical healing properties.

Where can I sign?

>> No.2186763

>>2186746
What ethical concerns?

>> No.2186766

>>2186758
The more advanced (in an evolutionary sense) your testing group is the higher the costs are in maintaining the group. Working with rodents is cheap and ample. Working with chimps for instance is allowed but super fucking expensive.

>> No.2186767

>>2186763
Wow, you're so edgy! How awesome. Can I have your autograph?

Many of my twelve your old friends would NEVER dare to say such an edgy thing, as you just did.
Seriously, I admire you.

>> No.2186771

>>2186763
Violating the physical integrity of homo sapiens.

>> No.2186772

>>2186767
You're really going out your way to be anal today.

Ethics are a joke, anyone here knows that.

>> No.2186776

insulin was developed with animal testing

>> No.2186782

>>2186772
>Ethics are a joke, anyone here knows that.
Yet anyone with a decent and relevant education knows they're not.

>> No.2186790

>>2186771
So?

>> No.2186792

>>2186767
>Look at me I'm trolling on the internet
Edgy as fuck man

>> No.2186796

>>2186790
Being a convict does not negate the intrinsic value an individual has. Testing on humans is ethically problematic due to each person's intrinsic value, let alone human rights.

>> No.2186797

>Keep people locked up at the cost of £20,000 per capita per annum
>Use them to advance medical knowledge

>> No.2186801

>>2186797
Sounds like a great plan to me.

>> No.2186804

>>2186796
There are billions more where they came from. They are being punished, punishment is supposed to be bad. if they have their rights violated maybe they'll think twice before violating someone else's

>> No.2186815

>>2186804
How naive. Also, keep ignoring the practical limitations.

>> No.2186817

>>2186804
I hope you never have children

>> No.2186819

We can go through 100 mice in a snap, and cheaply. And it's kind of sort of illegal to cause people cancer or other debilitating disease, and some illnesses are genetically or biologically driven from a point before we can force on normal people.

Let's say we're trying an HIV drug. Turns out it's roughly 100% toxic to the individual, causing convulsions and death instantly. With mice, we can preliminarily test a dozen or so, but with people, we'd have to test a much larger group, as any policy making organization drastically inhibits how often we can use people as guinea pigs, though not necessarily the max size.

>> No.2186825

It would surely be more appropriate to test on consenting-animals i.e. humans

>> No.2186835

I have read this thread and decided none of you know what in the fuck you are talking about. Most of you don't even understand the basic reasons why we use animals for testing.

>> No.2186837
File: 77 KB, 318x382, 43052.gif..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186837

>>2186796
> Humans
> Intrinsic value

>> No.2186839

>>2186815
You are a blind and stupid child, you can't see the big picture. Maybe when you grow up you will gain a less saccharine view of the world

>> No.2186842

>>2186835
Then you either haven't read the thread or you didn't understand the thread

>> No.2186849

>>2186835
Please inform us.

>> No.2186861

>>2186839
I do neuroscientific research you dumbass. I've worked with rats, mice and even with macaques for a while. I only work with human subjects now. Probably I can see the big picture more clearly than anyone here. It's pretty funny to see you have to resort to ad-hominem by the way. Good job kiddo.

>> No.2186863

>>2186842
I understand it, and i did read it.

Many of the responses saying yes, animal testing is necessary, use faulty reasoning for why animal testing is needed.

>> No.2186866

>>2186863
Enlighten us than will you? Where are we wrong?

>> No.2186869

They already test on humans, secretly.

viva la revolution

>> No.2186868

>>2186861
>Resort to ad hominem
>Says other person resorts to ad hominem
You were going quite well up to that point

>> No.2186876
File: 64 KB, 481x314, 1291224151573.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186876

>>2186861

>> No.2186879

>>2186868
I didn't use ad-hominem, I simply insulted you. There's a difference. The former constitutes the entire argument while the latter is used as an addition. Dumbass. See what I did there?

>> No.2186892

>>2186879
>He can't think for himself
>Uses ad hominem

>> No.2186902

>>2186879
>Use ad hominem
>I didn't use ad hominem

>> No.2186905

>>2186892
A) you didn't understand my post, B) yous trollan

>> No.2186908
File: 105 KB, 445x482, 1290967078795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186908

>>2186905

>> No.2186913

>>2186863
OP here. Waiting for you to respond to >>2186866

Also I didn't intend for this thread to turn into an argument about ethics. I just want some actual facts about the need for animal testing.

>> No.2186915

>>2186908
Surrender accepted. Have a nice day.

PS: I ain't even mad yo

>> No.2186916

>>2186866
>>2186849

Animals are not used simply because we cannot use people for ethical reasons. I've worked with yeast, dropsophilia, and I now work with mice.

Each animal model has its own advantages and disadvantages. I'm not going to go over them all, but for instance people want to work with yeast over humans because:
-can be maintained in a haploid state
-many of their cellular systems are simpler than higher eukaryotes but are still able to be translated to them
-extremely fast generation time
-cheap to maintain
-easy to integrate DNA at homologous sites in DNA

Uses for drosophila:
-they have balancer chromosomes which makes making transgenics
-cheap to keep in a lab setting, although you can't freeze them for storage
-Good, well defined chromosomal integration systems using phiC31 and integrase and the Pacman system

I have more reasons, but I have to go pick something up, i'll be back in like 15 minutes and we can discuss this more

>> No.2186919

>>2186913
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

>> No.2186922
File: 145 KB, 1420x1072, 1286492463068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2186922

>>2186915
>Lose argument
>Employ troll tactic 7
>KEKIRWNIRIA
So we are all agreed, humans have no intrinsic value and only children think otherwise

>> No.2186946

>>2186916
It was my understanding OP was referring to research with direct clinical applications. The importance for animals in fundamental research speaks for itself. However preclinical evaluation of medication is done on rodents mostly. Yeast and drosophila aren't appropriate for obvious reasons. I don't think anyone here was arguing the only reason for using lab animals was ethical constraints by the way.

>> No.2186951

I vehemently dislike it, but unfortunately we don't have an alternative as of yet. I, for one, wouldn't want to be felled by something that's curable through this.

>> No.2186952

>>2186922
>You are a blind and stupid child, you can't see the big picture
That's not an argument, that's a statement. You haven't refuted anything. Good day sir.

>> No.2186987

>>2186922
Anarchist, nihilist teenager detected.

How edgy. I bet you wouldn't be thinking the same if you were to be subjected to tests.

>> No.2186997

>>2186922
guess what, it doens't matter what you, I, or the rest of 4chan thinks on the topic.

The only opinion that matters is the people that fund the research and approve the drugs.

>> No.2187001

>>2186952
>Maybe when you grow up you will gain a less saccharine view of the world

>> No.2187004

>>2186987
Of course not. How can you not know that humans are selfish?
Go through puberty then came back

>> No.2187008
File: 4 KB, 126x113, 1286288434749.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187008

>>2186952
>>2186987
>>2186997

>> No.2187010

>>2187001
Right. That's a statement as well.

And umad pictures aren't arguments either.

>> No.2187011

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/
Here you go op

>> No.2187016

Marijuana should be legalized.

>> No.2187017

>>2187010
It's a prediction based on observations.

>> No.2187021

>>2187016
You mean the drug that has been proved to cause permanent brain damage when taken by adolescents?

>> No.2187027

>>2187017
A completely irrelevant prediction concerning my person. Keep sidetracking the discussion.

>> No.2187032

>>2187016
>>2187021
4/10

Nice effort but a bit too obvious.

>> No.2187036
File: 121 KB, 350x441, 1284636533094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2187036

>>2187027
>He doesn't see how it's relevant

Exactly why your opinion is worthless

>> No.2187048 [DELETED] 

>>2187036
You discredit someone with actual experience working with humans and animals. My opinion is more relevant than yours kiddo.

>> No.2187060

>>2187036
You discredit someone with actual experience working with humans and animals. My opinion is more relevant than yours kiddo. 

>> No.2187078

OP, you are alive today because people tested on animals. If you reject animal testing, commit suicide immediately or you are a hypocrite.