animal rights campaigners jailed

close
more_vert
handofdave H
handofdave Jan 25, 2009 17:26:27
Replying to dee

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.

D dee
dee Jan 25, 2009 17:52:41
Replying to handofdave

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!

S stray
stray Jan 25, 2009 17:58:19
Replying to handofdave

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.