104 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

Sorry for doubleposting, but I totally forgot to mention: One thing that makes me doubt her words is that she's backing to well known false facts!

[Tom Henrik]

Your statement is a bit contradictory, Juni. Nowadays, with our sophisticated technology, developing new drugs is easier than ever. It was in the old days of medicine that development was difficult. Mainly because the most correct scientific tool in those days were observation alone.

Animal testing is a new "tool" in research. And, as we are all aware of, it's is a flawed tool, as humans aren't 100% compatible with other animals. However, it does have it pros and cons.

One of the biggest pros are side-effect results that derive from animal studying during these tests. We wouldn't have discovered that a pig heart could be used in a human, for instance, without it.

One of the biggest cons, however, is the one listed in the article. Because we are so much different, chances are that a big cure has passed us by - as it proved useless on the animal in question. Like the "we've been able to cure cancer in mice for 30 years now, but the methods simply doesn't work in humans" statement is a clear reminder of.


Edit:
What well-known false facts?

[Juni Ori]

Read my reply to your earlier post.

And btw, as far as I know, there's no actual proof that we've missed anything. And what are these better tools of scientific research, btw?

[A. J. Raffles]

Isn't there a method that basically uses artificially grown human tissue (which isn't particularly ethical either, really)? I think I've also heard something about very sophisticated simulations which might "predict" the effects a certain drug will have, based on an awful lot of data.
OK, to be honest, I haven't a clue.

[Juni Ori]

Hmm... First I started wondering of its reliability, second the cost...

[taikara]

@Raffles: I think you're talking about stem cell research.

The use of cells developed in embryotic phases of human growth. They're very adaptable, so you can "force" them to grow into certain types of cells - liver, kidney, etc.

Considering that harvesting stem cells for research often involves abortions and "test tube baby" sort of stuff, yeah, that's really controversial. Stem cells are also able to be harvested in limited quantities from the ambilical cord at birth, which is a bit more acceptable, I suppose.

And no offense, but I wouldn't trust a computer simulation to predict the effect of certain drugs. Simulations are programmed by people - if people really knew, we wouldn't be testing on animals, now would we?

[Juni Ori]

taikara, on May 23 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

And no offense, but I wouldn't trust a computer simulation to predict the effect of certain drugs. Simulations are programmed by people - if people really knew, we wouldn't be testing on animals, now would we?

I can't put it in any better words.

[Tulac]

Quote

And no offense, but I wouldn't trust a computer simulation to predict the effect of certain drugs. Simulations are programmed by people - if people really knew, we wouldn't be testing on animals, now would we?

Maybe we would but it's more expensive that way...

[taikara]

Umm, I think you missed the point (Edit: and please forgive me if I've misunderstood your statement - what you've said is a little unclear, but I've taken it to mean you think computer simulations are a viable alternative to animal testing, but more expensive).

Restated: A simulation is programmed by a human being. You have to know how something works in order to program a simulation. If human beings actually knew all the possible interactions of every chemical to be introduced to the biochemical compounds in the tissues of a living being in order to program such a simulation, we wouldn't need to test drugs on living creatures - animal or human.

How expensive it may or may not be really has nothing to do with the pure lack of logic in using computer simulations to test drug effects and safety.

[Tulac]

I think we can guess with high probability, and only thing that needs to be tested are side effects...

Per say airplane construction, they are 100% sure that it'll fly, they don't build prototypes. If you may recall when the new Airbus airplane was publicly tested, the first test flight with all the fancy people on it, and all the TV cameras that plane didn't have an hour of flight test, nor did any of it's type before that, so if they were so sure with the complex physics, I thikn that you could test chemical reactions based on what we know with high probability, I'm talking about different creams and lotions, shampoos, not medicine...

[Juni Ori]

I must remind here, that I do not accept animal testing for cosmetics, only for medical purposes. And in cosmetics sense I don't believe there's so much more to be tested, that such animal testing would be in any way necessary. However, Tulac's example of jets is only one side of the coin. On the other side there's huge number of prototype testing hours done with experimental - and thus unknown - types of planes. Using basic types, which have long been reliable, testing isn't necessary, as we can simulate everything. However, on medical science there's still so much unknown, that it can't be in my opinion compared in any way to reliable found plane type developement. Still good comment.

[Tulac]

Quote

Using basic types, which have long been reliable, testing isn't necessary

Exactly and this topic is about P&G which makes cosmetics(amongst other products), and test it on animal, now I'm not sure how big are the variations of chemical substances, I very much doubt that you can change the formula of a shampoo by that much...
Now for medicine, I approve of the testing if the effects are truly unknown which mostly is the case...

[Juni Ori]

Hmm... I guess I slept past that thingy, or then totally forgot it. I've been defending animal testing in purely medical purposes. My bad...

[A. J. Raffles]

Well, I think we sort of branched off on Procter and Gamble because we can all pretty much agree that animal testing for cosmetics isn't exactly vital. But that still leaves the issue of whether other things (like medical research) would justify it.

[DakaSha]

nothing justifies it because its egotistical BS.

edit: actually id be for it if it was VERY strictly regulated... also for every animal even locked up something should be done for the ANIMALS... i mean if they are being tested on they should get some kind of benifit. but it isnt so to hell with the people who even work in those places.

edit again: asks for a ban on viewing this thread