you are saying is absolutely false. For starters, science is NOT just for the benefit of white men with blonde hair. As a matter of fact, many of the scientists that I know personally are not even white
8) 8) 8)
ok, so i once said about someone who had written : [SARCASM]…his post…[/SARCASM]
that i thought sarcasm lost all its interest if you had to precise that it was sarcastic.
unfortunately i've come to realize that a lot of bluelighters just can't recognize irony, sarcasm and jokes.
this was IRONIC.
you said experimentations on animals are ok if they benefit humans.
and i joked saying "ok, well for me it's ok to experiment on black women if it benefits white men."
cause it's the same idea that the interests of the group to which you belong are more important than the ones of other groups.
I already mentioned all those alternative methods of research as completely inadequate
the defenders of these methods say they are more effective for instance because you can study exclusively what you want to. you don't have risks of interactions with other factors.
have you ever seen a modern research facility?
i wouldn't have been able to if i had wanted to.
but i've met people who worked with animals (and no i didn't spit on them). they couldn't deny that a cage is a cage, even if the wall are clean and white.
Well, I have and I can tell you the conditions for the animals are sanitary, healthy
but Marshall Farms wasn't allowed to open farm in france because of sanitary reasons! there are some mysteries in this world
The researcher is responsible for keeping the animals from hurting each other
what makes them hurt each other?
the stress due to the imprisonment.
Do you really believe that science as a whole is just one big trick being played on the people of the world?
science, no
animal experimentation, yes.
the public has been fooled before.
one example would be
Louis Pasteur that most still consider a great scientist.
(well, we could also talk about religion but the topic is to science here)
i have no doubt that when scientists first started to experiment they thought is was useful.
even to me it would seem logical (apart from the ethical problem)
but bad luck, it's not. and animals are not a model comparable to humans.
i also have no doubt that a lot of scientists decide to close their ears and (force themselves to) believe that their studies are useful rather than change their way of working.
it takes time to make people admit their mistakes and evolve. (even though most governments have been handed the poof of the utility of many illegal drugs, they won't admit their errors)
i'm also sure that 99% of the students believe what they are told without the slightest questioning. and consequently believe their 60 years old teachers when they teach them the methods used 30 years ago.
And what the hell is subvention?
sorry, french word. it means grant.
I already stated that most scientists would support a viable alternative should one come along
it doesn't cost much money to keep searching the way they've been doing. it costs money to invest in a new tool and to throw the old ones in the garbage can.
animal research is useful because biologically animals are very similar to people
from what i remember, rice (the vegetable) and humans have around 2/3 of their genes in common.
that's obviously not enough to make them look and act the same way.
on the other hand, one deficient gene out of 50.000 can give a human a disease that makes him incomparable with other humans.
You listed, what, 13 drugs with drastically different effects on some animal than on humans?
there are more that have killed (Chlorampenicol, Teropten, Flosint, Manoplax, Flenac, Zomak, Ibufenac), that are inoffensive to some animals, but dangerous to humans (Atropine, Botulin, Ergotinine, Hemlock, Alcohol méthylique, Scopolamine, Strychnine). or that are useful to humans but dangerous on some animals (Insuline, Cortisone)
which means that:
- when something is inoffensive to animals, you don't know what it will do to humans.
humans will have to test it anyway. the animals suffered and died for nothing
- research is slowed down when a chemical is found dangerous to animals, even though it can be useful to humans.
- consequently, when something is found inoffensive on humans and animals, animal experimentation didn't help, it's a coincidence. (but it's easy for scientists to justify later by saying "see, we had tested it successfully on animals". what about all the "successful tests" that were a failure on humans?
for each one approved ~200 go through preclinincal testing (now at least) in labs/animals
how many of the 199 could have been beneficial to humans? we'll never know until we use alternative methods that show how they act on humans and not animals.
Imagine if instead of those 13 drugs that mistakenly killed or blinded patients, there were 13,000...
from memory only, i think in france alone there are 1.000.000 (to be checked) people who go to the hospital every year because of medication' secondary effects.
i searched about thalidomide and you're right, tests on pregnant animals also show malformations. the company's excuse comes out then as "the tests were not adequately done". what is a good test then? one that studies every drug combination possible? what about the next "oh but we hadn't checked on animals if there was a risk of third generation mutation" or "we hadn't checked if the combination with cough syrup was dangerous"
of ~10,000 deformed babies, there would have been a couple dozen deformed rabbits. Would that really have been worse?
back to the ethical question then : what about the scientists' own babies?
you don't kill others to benefit your family.
