|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 17:52
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: dee wrote: My point was that her cure could have been researched without animal testing. Er... are you a physician? Are you suggesting that we substitute people for animals? Granted, there are people who would volunteer, but I'm skeptical that such a statement bears much ground in reality. I do think that as computer modeling becomes more and more sophisticated, we'll eventually be able to test things out on 'virtual humans'. As to whether a program that sophisticated would achieve the ability to feel pain and suffering is obviously one for the science fiction writers now, but for the time being there really is no substitute for trying things out on living beings, at least for some trials, as harsh as that may be to our sensibilities. Im obviously not a physician!!! Im also not up to date with the latest 'testing' methods, but there must be alternatives to using live animals, in any case, how is using animals accurate? They cant speak or say how they are 'feeling' after taking a certain drug can they?!! Also, the animals used in testing will have different metabolisms etc to humans so the drug will not work in the same way as it would on a person. I am in favour of human testing, do it on vivisectors!! Ha ha...joke!
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 17:58
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: [quote="dee"] I do think that as computer modeling becomes more and more sophisticated, we'll eventually be able to test things out on 'virtual humans'. No, that is not possible, not safely, not at all. To quote my own oft used mantra, you can never be sure you have all the numbers on the table, ever. Particularly true when dealing with a complex system, even more true when dealing with an organic system where no two models of it are the same. Even animal testing doesn't identified problems which have later turn up in human testing, there were human trials here in Addenbrookes, Cambridge of a new drug which resulted in the deaths of some of the volunteers, and permanent damage to others quite recently. That drug had been through animal trials, and it would be impossible to say that if we had a virtual human model it would have identifed it. It may have, it may not, you' can't say, you could never say. All you can do is try and trap as many possible exceptions as you possibly can, come up with as many possible trial enviroments as you can, etc.
|
|||
|
minerva 8 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:02
|
||
|
I always felt so sorry for Linda McCartney, who took drugs that had been tested on animals when she was fighting for her life with breast cancer. I make no judgments on her. She did so much for the welfare of animals and it was not her fault that all cancer drugs for humans have been tested on animals. Sure, she had the option not to take the drugs. But if one of my loved ones was dying and those drugs could save their life, my ideals would be questioned too as would most people's. The only judgment to be made is why must this be done in the first place. AIDS has proved that there are enough humans willing to be guinea pigs so that others might live.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:04
|
||
|
Like I said, yes, any possible alternative to animal testing should be used. In the case of my friend, we're not talking about drugs.. we're talking about biomechanics, but that's peripheral to the basic point. How do researchers know how drugs affect test animals? No, they cannot talk, but there's a wide range of ways in which researchers can tell if things are going right or wrong... bioelectric, toxicity monitoring, etc. I know I'm going to take flak for this, but the hardcore animal rights people do remind me of the hardcore anti-abortionists... they rely on pumping up the most graphic, upsetting aspects in order to sway opinion. It's a complex issue that requires a slightly more nuanced response than painting horrific and oversimplified pictures of the issue.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:08
|
||
|
Man fly? Impossible! You of all people, Stray, know how far computers have come within a single human lifetime. I'm surprised to hear you shoot that one down so out of hand.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 25, 2009, 18:14
Jan 25, 2009, 18:12
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Man fly? Impossible! You of all people, Stray, know how far computers have come within a single human lifetime. I'm surprised to hear you shoot that one down so out of hand. oh my god, that is not even remotely comparable. Complex systems is my bag, it has been for many years. There is no way I would entertain the possibility that we could ever model such a diverse organic model as a human being to any level where we could succesfully apply to it the task. I used to model complex systems for a living, and you would have never heard me say I'm 100% sure of any of them. Many of them are not even organic models, but economic ones. Exceptions will always, always occure. We're fallible, and NP-Impossible problems do exist ;), and we build the models, and we will never have a thorough understanding of many complex systems. The universe is, in fact, indeterministic.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:27
|
||
Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice!
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:41
|
||
|
dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:50
|
||
|
stray wrote: The universe is, in fact, indeterministic. yeah, but we can come pretty damn close. Complex systems, are, well, complex, but hey, let's look at medicine. A hundred years ago we were little better off than the Romans. Now we are using electrodes to enable people who are completely paralyzed to control robotics and communication devices. That's pretty freakin' complex! Come one man! You're applying contemporary limitations in computing power and knowledge to a future that hasn't happened yet.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 18:56
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing. Well show me some examples of 'nice' animal testing then! I certainly dont revel in the idea of abortion! And its certainly not a decision to be taken lightly either.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
