Submitted by Responsible-Hat5816 t3_yl5gb7 in Futurology
I abandoned my pursuit of medical research and dropped out of grad school because I couldn't stomach the animal testing and I'd like to think I could have been pretty good at it. I doubt I'm the only one.
I'm not trying to pass moral judgement on the scientists that have made tremendous advances using animals but to actually be the one to do it requires a steely conviction that the ends truly justify the means because the means for me were straight up traumatic.
A toll is taken on the researchers as well even if they found better ways of justification or coping than I was able to find. I can't believe you can just hurt animals so frequently and completely detach yourself from it unless you're built very differently than most people. I would wager any researcher that's worked with animals, if they're being candid, has taken some serious emotional damage from doing that work.
[deleted]
I actually turned down a lab tech job this summer where I would’ve needed to take care of the test animals (mice and rats to begin), clean their enclosure, and euthanize them as well. Had to thoroughly read the job description. Would have been a great opportunity to put in my resume, as I’d love to work with animals, just not like that. It’s at least a well compensated job but yikes.
These organ on chip systems are nowhere close to being able to replace mouse or monkey studies for new drugs. Animals are extremely complex and no scientist seriously believes they can be replaced any time soon. It might upset PETA but animal testing is essential for modern medicine
Correct! Cutting our nose off to spite our face it seems to me. It is essential to identify defects BEFORE it moves to, ya know, US.
In our pursuit to send a altruistic message we are seriously considering a step in the methodology that will do more harm to fellow humans. Wtf?
The Methuselah Foundation (another Aubrey de Grey's foundation) has recently advocated for alternatives to animal testing, such as organs-on-a-chip and organoids, and they announced a prize to help foment research in the area:
>Passed unanimously in September by the U.S. Senate, the bill faces a promising outlook in the House...
>
>This rare consensus across bipartisan lines represents a scientific tipping point into an era where new technologies can now outperform animal studies for many indications, says cell biologist Don Ingber, the founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University in Boston. Animal research continues to benefit people in a variety of ways and is unlikely to disappear altogether, he says. But given a strong preference for alternatives on both sides of the aisle, the change could potentially be a win for animals, people, and science.
Originally posted by u/lunchboxultimate01
r/longevity
LETS GO!!! Removing unnecessary barriers for medicine hitting market is such an underrated but much needed step to accelerating medical research
Organoids are currently more difficult and expensive than rodents. This is replacing a cheap, well-established roadblock with a new, complex, and not fully developed roadblock.
Also, WTF? Why would you advocate for medicines having less testing? Do you want humans to suffer unexpected side effects?
No I just want less red tape. I want less testing but better testing. Basically less road bumps but making sure the road is safer.
To clarify, this probably isn’t ready to replace animal testing yet, if it ever will be. But the fact that the FDA appears to be looking at ways to streamline the ridiculous process is insanely promising.
You get use to the smell of burning monkey flesh if your around it all day. -P. HF
That's great to hear. This technology has been maturing quite well recently. I fully expect it to be in use extensively by the end of the 20s.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Responsible-Hat5816:
The Methuselah Foundation (another Aubrey de Grey's foundation) has recently advocated for alternatives to animal testing, such as organs-on-a-chip and organoids, and they announced a prize to help foment research in the area:
>Passed unanimously in September by the U.S. Senate, the bill faces a promising outlook in the House...
>
>This rare consensus across bipartisan lines represents a scientific tipping point into an era where new technologies can now outperform animal studies for many indications, says cell biologist Don Ingber, the founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University in Boston. Animal research continues to benefit people in a variety of ways and is unlikely to disappear altogether, he says. But given a strong preference for alternatives on both sides of the aisle, the change could potentially be a win for animals, people, and science.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yl5gb7/what_if_we_didnt_have_to_test_new_drugs_on/iuwjgww/
[removed]
[deleted]
Yeah let’s just focus on simulating living systems as accurately as possible. That’ll reduce unnecessary suffering for sure.
Whatever speeds it up. We need to fast track cures for hepatitis, aids, and herpes (all of the herpes viruses including mono, hsv, varicella zoster, and so on)
We need real cures, not half measures.
Can we somehow ensure they won't do these phase of testing on humans who desperately needs money?
Why couldn't we create an A.I. to determine what chemical reactions cause the side effects? Then we could simply input whatever concoction is developed only to know what the side effects and their chances are will be? Could even narrow down likely hood to be affected, even on how it interacts with other diseases etc.
A.I. is the way.
Lol no.
Ai can replicate patterns you've fed to it.
It's a pattern duplicator, nothing more
Uh, the A.I. that essentially solved protein folding would like a word.
And that word would be “data”.
Uh, so you're telling me the A.I. is capable of creating new solutions from pre-existing data? And that is different from my implication in what way exactly?
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. If an AI could only handle situations identical to the data it trained on then it would be pretty useless when deployed into the real world where data would almost certainly not match up perfectly. So it obviously needs to be capable of (and is capable of) extrapolation beyond what it is trained on. So it is obviously more than what you call a "pattern duplicator." AI does pick out patterns in huge amounts of data that can meaningfully represent a solution to a problem though.
This is what you sound like. Just replace physics with AI.
MajesticS7777 t1_iuwn1qx wrote
This is great! If we could do away with animal trials, that'd be one fat plus in our "good deed as a species" list. Only we must be 100% sure that this new technology works, and not just on paper but is completely fool-proof and failsafe. It's a complex piece of tech so there's many points where human error can creep in, potentially throwing off results. Wouldn't trust the safety of medicine on tech that could throw false negatives due to poorly cleaned lab vials or something.