Submitted by BoundariesAreFun t3_yrvd7y in science
[deleted] t1_ivvzljx wrote
[removed]
who519 t1_ivw2404 wrote
It is sad that many are sacrificed and often suffer horribly, but if we don't further this research millions of people, dogs, cats, mice, rats, chimps every animal on earth will continue to die of this horrible disease. There is no other way.
TheArmed501st t1_ivwpzzp wrote
Now i dont really know vaccines and how covid’s vaccines were made but im guessing that humans were involved in testing because you know…theyre already one foot in the grave might as well be a test bed yeah?
Wide-Dealer-3005 t1_ivxihxa wrote
Human testing is always part of a drug's experimentation. They try it on people whose condition is so severe that there is no approved drug that can cure them
who519 t1_ivz636n wrote
I think the new "right to try" law, maybe the only good thing Trump ever did as president allows people access to any experimental treatment they want if they are already terminal, which is also good for research...but I don't know the details.
[deleted] t1_ivw5ap2 wrote
[removed]
Visulas t1_ivw6s98 wrote
Depends on the goal. There may be another way to develop a cancer vaccine, but there may not be another way, which saves as many lives.
[deleted] t1_ivwa1mb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivwenii wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivyfa07 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivykg54 wrote
[removed]
Karma_Redeemed t1_ivwf657 wrote
Thought experiment:
Consider the scenario that there isn't another method of conducting these scientific experiments. How many human lives would you sacrifice if it meant saving a lab animal? What's a fair rate of exchange for you? What if you yourself had an incurable, terminal illness that would have been curable if animal testing was available?
I don't mean to imply that one must have all the answers to criticize an injustice, but cheap throw away lines like "There's always another way" or "Not with that attitude" reek of shallow moralizing more concerned with virtue signaling than coherent ethical belief.
[deleted] t1_ivweq23 wrote
[removed]
J-Dawg_Cookmaster t1_ivweknk wrote
How can we prepare scientific studies to be safe for human trials? I'm not disagreeing but with medical science there's not a lot of ways
[deleted] t1_ivww4vx wrote
[removed]
jasongw t1_ivwnxb6 wrote
Unfortunately--and as much as I wish it were otherwise--sometimes there really is only one way. And the reality is that you can't test medicine effectively on non-living things.
ForeverStaloneKP t1_ivwz4ye wrote
Animal testing is always a weird one. I love animals. I've studied Zoology. I want to be an Ecologist. The thought of animals being born just to be tested on and then euthanised at the end of the study is distressing. However it doesn't change that I probably wouldn't be alive if animal testing didn't exist. You probably wouldn't be alive either. Somewhere in our family tree, someone who benefited from the treatment would have gone without and died.
Given that I'm alive because of animal testing, if I then go on to look after animals, or work in ecology and protect the environment by using my abilities to save and protect more animals, is that a worthy trade off when you extend it to include everyone who works with animals or fields that benefit animals in a positive way? What about people like David Attenborough, who has reached billions with his message of protecting animals and the environment and will continue to do so for generations thanks to film?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments