Honestly, it's embarrassing how much better this administration has been on animal testing compared to Democratic administrations. They've done a lot to hasten the end of animal testing, including putting pressure on institutions to find alternatives.
This is a wildly dishonest take. The only reason there's less animal testing now is that they defunded science across the board. The current administration absolutely does not care about animal rights.
maybe peta can offer themselves as human test subjects to study disease and medicine etc., and their kids. It might sound harsh but i really do not know how they envision people developing this type of thing without such tests.
ofcourse its not great, but afaik we still can't do much better. Perhaps if universities and their medical centers got proper budget they could grow humans and human parts to test on. theres many things like artificial wombs and 3d printing of tissue etc. but afaik these will be hugely expensive and way outside their budget.
Or does peta prefer only big pharma to be able to do research and sell simple medicines for ludicrious prices (as we've all seen them do already).
Wonder what other people's take on it is.
i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights. i mean, sure animals are essential, and sentient, and know what is suffering and incarceration, but so do many humans around the globe, even in 'developed' countries.
maybe they should put them in a childrens' hospital full of kids with incurable diseases and ailments -_-. i've been there and seen _that_ and its a ton more depressing and horrible and a few monkeys suffering (which is still horrible but magnitudes less i can tell u).
try looking one of those kids in the eyes and tell them you are advocating for something that will prevent their chance of a cure how slim it might be. im quite sure u need to be pretty unempathic to be able to do that to say it lightly....
this kind of advocating causes litterally violence to some of these researchers... completely bonkers.
I think the point is making sure people know and actually see the cost of the research. If advocating for animal welfare leads to people being angry at you, be more open and transparent with exactly how animals are being tested at your research facilities. Be so open that PETA doesn't need to expose you cause there's nothing to expose.
The main point of primate research is immune research and (late stage) cancer research. So not doing this also has very serious consequences for individuals, except they're less visible.
Plus it's not like Pharma companies want to do primate research (for some things, yes) but almost exclusively it's because regulators require it for approval.
> You've created a false choice between children dying or torturing monkeys. This isn't the trolley problem.
Everyone knows the real answer is that we can just wait 10 years and AI will solve it after faster than light travel and ushering in luxury gay space communism.
How is experimenting on animals less horrible than experimenting on humans? at least humans are able to consent. We should not do these things to beings that are unable to consent.
its not a false choice. there is no choice. you choose humans and let good people do good work. If these researchers could, they would use alternatives
It's surprising how often the critics of animal rights activism are people lacking empathy and logical thinking.
> maybe peta can offer themselves as human test subjects to study disease and medicine
One of the issues with animal testing is that there's very few transferable results. Animal testing continues because it's the done thing, and "better than nothing". We're getting few public health benefits when we weigh it against the death of the millions of animals killed for science.
> this kind of advocating causes litterally violence to some of these researchers
> does peta prefer only big pharma to be able to do research and sell simple medicines for ludicrious prices
Lazy. Make an effort at least, please.
> i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights
This is the part that makes me confident about your lack of logical thinking, if you were wondering. Why are you on HN instead of fighting for human rights? Are you a Nazi? Why aren't physicists fighting for human rights? I mean sure space is important, and essential, but look into a dead kid's eyes and tell me you want to work on making telescopes better.
> try looking one of those kids in the eyes and tell them
Pretty certain that kids are much more likely to advocate for animal rights than adults are. Show these videos to your kids and ask them.
> a few monkeys suffering (which is still horrible but magnitudes less i can tell u)
What you can tell us seems to be of limited value...
It's surprising how people criticizing the critics are people who lack basic understanding of research.
Do you think researchers that experiment on animals do it for the pleasure of managing all the bureaucracy that comes with it, the potential pain of the animals and having to wait months or years for a result ?
> i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights.
that's like saying "I wonder why you're volunteering at an animal shelter instead of a homeless shelter". a large majority of the population isn't doing either. it's bonkers to criticize the people actually doing something about any injustice in the world. i bet most people working for either cause have done more than you or i will ever do in advancing rights for any species, human or non-human
animals can live in the streets fine. this is normal in many many countries. most types of animals dont need shelters. Types of animals who need animal shelters should simply not be kept as prisoners and personal entertainment slaves. think about how an animal arrives in a shelter...
Animal models do not translate well to humans, something that’s been known for decades. Researchers continue down this path not because it makes sense but because “it’s always been done this way”.
This research has little real value for human medicine. If anything, animal testing might have set back human healthcare. (People have literally died by taking medicine that worked fine on animals yet severely harmed humans).
A bigger amount of people is alive, because animal test discarded a lot of bad ideas before they were tested in humans.
There was a recent post about using bacteria to kill cancer. They selected 50 strains of bacteria. With in vitro test they reduced thenumber to 9. Withmice test they reduced the number to 1. I think they are testing only that bacteria in other animals, because it may still be a bad idea (or hopefuly a brilant one).
This assumes that what is harmful to animals is harmful to humans. If you determine whether chocolate or strawberries are edible by their effects on dogs, none of us would be eating those :)
This is _sometimes_ true, but we will also miss opportunities by not trusting a substance that would be fine for humans but not for mice.
There are cases of substance that are fine for animals and bad for humans. The fists trials use very small groups and thy have rules like waiting 15 minutes or 1 hour between subjects. There was a very bad disaster a few years ago where the experimenter got lazy and injected everyone almost at the same time and two or tree died and a few had severe health problems.
> miss opportunities
It's totally possible, but if it already killed 50/50 rats, 15/15 dogs and 5/5 monkeys, and they offer me to be the fist human subject, I'd run away faster than Forest Gump.
I imagine there are exceptions. For example, we understand very well why ivermectine kills a lot of invertebrates but not (most) vertebrates and is a very good horse and human dewormer. There may be something that kills everything except humans, and we may understand why theoretically, but I'd not like to be the first to try it.
I honestly don’t care about this and I’m a person that cares about animal welfare immensely. But what I care about more is scientific progress and if this is the only way we can do it right now then I’m for it. I do feel sad for our very close relatives though and their pain must be an akin to or pretty close to what we feel.
I understand what they are saying. It makes me sad too, but I still support it. I "don't care" in the sense that I have zero intent to make it stop, but I still feel empathy towards animals.
The average factory-farmed animal is treated with even worse levels of cruelty than this, for a far lesser return, and I still eat meat because it is the path of least resistance.
The benefits of animal research for medicine, even if "there is no clear evidence that the experiments led to changes in public health recommendations" for any one specific lab, are too great to throw away over a bleeding-heart animal welfare story.
I don't celebrate the cruelty; in fact, I think things should be far different, mostly for the current state of factory farming, but I am not an idealist who thinks that the suffering we bring these animals invalidates the benefits we bring our own species through these experiments.
There are some recent breakthroughs that make it way easier to do testing without animals, including biochips that use human cells for drug testing. I greatly support this and hope it spares more animals from experimentation, but for certain domains like one highlighted in this story (neurological research), I am willing to accept that animal testing is still necessary.
1) you MUST do experiments on primates. Because there aren't any other animals that have human immune systems, and while "fake" human immune systems exist (in transgenic mice), they are not accepted by the FDA.
You want a treatment to transplant something (either biological or technological) into humans? You must do primate testing. You want to mess with the immune system? You must do primate testing (common for monoclonal antibody treatment that is often the only option for older people, as well as immunotherapies for various cancers). And then of course there's a bunch of medicine that just won't work on any other species.
2) you CANNOT do experiments on primates. Or mice for that matter. Oh and you can't make them transgenic in the first place either.
32 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 8.7 ms ] threadI'm not inclined to give this administration the benefit of the doubt, but in this one small area they've done well, IMO.
ofcourse its not great, but afaik we still can't do much better. Perhaps if universities and their medical centers got proper budget they could grow humans and human parts to test on. theres many things like artificial wombs and 3d printing of tissue etc. but afaik these will be hugely expensive and way outside their budget.
Or does peta prefer only big pharma to be able to do research and sell simple medicines for ludicrious prices (as we've all seen them do already).
Wonder what other people's take on it is.
i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights. i mean, sure animals are essential, and sentient, and know what is suffering and incarceration, but so do many humans around the globe, even in 'developed' countries.
maybe they should put them in a childrens' hospital full of kids with incurable diseases and ailments -_-. i've been there and seen _that_ and its a ton more depressing and horrible and a few monkeys suffering (which is still horrible but magnitudes less i can tell u).
try looking one of those kids in the eyes and tell them you are advocating for something that will prevent their chance of a cure how slim it might be. im quite sure u need to be pretty unempathic to be able to do that to say it lightly....
this kind of advocating causes litterally violence to some of these researchers... completely bonkers.
uhhhh
Plus it's not like Pharma companies want to do primate research (for some things, yes) but almost exclusively it's because regulators require it for approval.
They poisoned pregnant macaque mothers to see what would happen to their babies. Really sick stuff.
Everyone knows the real answer is that we can just wait 10 years and AI will solve it after faster than light travel and ushering in luxury gay space communism.
> maybe peta can offer themselves as human test subjects to study disease and medicine
One of the issues with animal testing is that there's very few transferable results. Animal testing continues because it's the done thing, and "better than nothing". We're getting few public health benefits when we weigh it against the death of the millions of animals killed for science.
> this kind of advocating causes litterally violence to some of these researchers > does peta prefer only big pharma to be able to do research and sell simple medicines for ludicrious prices
Lazy. Make an effort at least, please.
> i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights
This is the part that makes me confident about your lack of logical thinking, if you were wondering. Why are you on HN instead of fighting for human rights? Are you a Nazi? Why aren't physicists fighting for human rights? I mean sure space is important, and essential, but look into a dead kid's eyes and tell me you want to work on making telescopes better.
> try looking one of those kids in the eyes and tell them
Pretty certain that kids are much more likely to advocate for animal rights than adults are. Show these videos to your kids and ask them.
> a few monkeys suffering (which is still horrible but magnitudes less i can tell u)
What you can tell us seems to be of limited value...
Do you think researchers that experiment on animals do it for the pleasure of managing all the bureaucracy that comes with it, the potential pain of the animals and having to wait months or years for a result ?
https://caat.jhsph.edu/
http://www.pcrm.org/
Who are they?
that's like saying "I wonder why you're volunteering at an animal shelter instead of a homeless shelter". a large majority of the population isn't doing either. it's bonkers to criticize the people actually doing something about any injustice in the world. i bet most people working for either cause have done more than you or i will ever do in advancing rights for any species, human or non-human
This research has little real value for human medicine. If anything, animal testing might have set back human healthcare. (People have literally died by taking medicine that worked fine on animals yet severely harmed humans).
There was a recent post about using bacteria to kill cancer. They selected 50 strains of bacteria. With in vitro test they reduced thenumber to 9. Withmice test they reduced the number to 1. I think they are testing only that bacteria in other animals, because it may still be a bad idea (or hopefuly a brilant one).
This is _sometimes_ true, but we will also miss opportunities by not trusting a substance that would be fine for humans but not for mice.
> miss opportunities
It's totally possible, but if it already killed 50/50 rats, 15/15 dogs and 5/5 monkeys, and they offer me to be the fist human subject, I'd run away faster than Forest Gump.
I imagine there are exceptions. For example, we understand very well why ivermectine kills a lot of invertebrates but not (most) vertebrates and is a very good horse and human dewormer. There may be something that kills everything except humans, and we may understand why theoretically, but I'd not like to be the first to try it.
these monkeys die to become data for some grad student’s poorly thought out research experiments
Maybe the people who think this is OK should offer themselves?
Let's line up the MAGA and implant some electrodes in their brains.
Maybe we can understand what makes them so irrational...
The benefits of animal research for medicine, even if "there is no clear evidence that the experiments led to changes in public health recommendations" for any one specific lab, are too great to throw away over a bleeding-heart animal welfare story.
I don't celebrate the cruelty; in fact, I think things should be far different, mostly for the current state of factory farming, but I am not an idealist who thinks that the suffering we bring these animals invalidates the benefits we bring our own species through these experiments.
There are some recent breakthroughs that make it way easier to do testing without animals, including biochips that use human cells for drug testing. I greatly support this and hope it spares more animals from experimentation, but for certain domains like one highlighted in this story (neurological research), I am willing to accept that animal testing is still necessary.
1) you MUST do experiments on primates. Because there aren't any other animals that have human immune systems, and while "fake" human immune systems exist (in transgenic mice), they are not accepted by the FDA.
You want a treatment to transplant something (either biological or technological) into humans? You must do primate testing. You want to mess with the immune system? You must do primate testing (common for monoclonal antibody treatment that is often the only option for older people, as well as immunotherapies for various cancers). And then of course there's a bunch of medicine that just won't work on any other species.
2) you CANNOT do experiments on primates. Or mice for that matter. Oh and you can't make them transgenic in the first place either.