Not to mention the upcoming wave of Xenotransplantation. The gentleman receiving the pig heart transplant was only the beginning. Now we have a genetically engineered, separate line of swine specifically bred to provide us with spare parts on an industrial scale.
What are the airlines view on these going to be, will they transport a pig heart for human transplantation? Where does that scenario fall?
I’m not sure of your point. The answer is pretty simple: test on humans. If we aren’t willing to test on ourselves, why should we be willing to test on other beings? There’s no contradiction.
It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensation of any kind(besides euthanasia when they're deemed useless), it's also a lot more efficient and reliable, humans aren't 150lbs rats.
People risks their lives and health daily for a salary(or for a greater cause, which would still apply here) , why should this be any different? How is it any different from a firefighter?a bodyguard? a miner? a doctor in an ICU?
No matter how poor you are you have a choice, these animals never got one, there is plenty of times where I would have accepted to be a guinea pig for money.
The problem is you and I don't wanna test potentially dangerous drugs, even for lots of money as we have other choices for an income. Most of the people willing to test drugs will be desperate, poor people who need to feed their families. Say what you will about testing on monkeys-- but testing on poor people instead so that the people making the rules don't have to feed bad about testing on monkeys, is as dystopian as it gets.
People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, and we already have restrictions on how animals can be treated. Loosening the rules on what can be tested on humans (but strengthening the consent rules — for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial) and banning animal testing would not stop progress, it would ensure that progress was made when it was justified enough that people were willing to consent to risks for the progress of humanity.
How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
>People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials,
For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases.
>for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial
Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations
>Why can’t that apply to science on earth?
I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys.
>The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics.
>
>I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys.
That's not an actual alternative.
It's like nazis saying they have a good alternative for clinical trials: jews, romanis and gays.
Just because it's affecting a different group of sentient beings doesn't mean it's an actual alternative, it's effectively the same thing: violation of consent, abuse and sequestration at a huge scale.
So in your scenario, it’s reasonable to subject monkeys to suffering in order to test new anti-histamines that humans have decided they don’t care about enough to test?
If we can deliver a potential 1% improvement to the effectiveness of anti-histamines but it requires a dozen monkeys suffering through testing along the way, is that okay… because it’s monkeys?
Your argument is much more applicable to testing on poor people than mine — after all, we need to make progress.
I think that if the animal testing is so important because it’s fundamental to the future of the human race, you will absolutely find people willing to participate in early medical trials: after-all, we already do! I’m sure many people here have family who have participated in clinical trials.
Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to
volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough.
There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.
>There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal.
Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with.
If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
If it's anything like the in-person discussions I've seen on the matter it's not productive. I'm firmly polarised on one side and was happy to sit in the sidelines and not say anything on the matter in case I also got punched :(
There is a different thread on HN with people who are passionate about not releasing chemicals until they are proven safe for human consumption.
Can we get Dang to merge these two threads and have a mosh-pit of passion and see what comes out?