Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#31

Post by creamynebula »

GordonS wrote: post #11
standardUser wrote: post #3

Two things really stood out in this article. One is how brutal animal experimentation can be. The other is the opening line.

I read a lot of medical research papers, and I've been thinking about this recently. Every time I read about a rat being "euthanized" or "sacrificed", when they have neuropathy induced by toxins, when they have limbs amputated, when they have their spine severed... I can't help but pause for a moment and think about that animal. I wonder if there are any good estimates of how many rats, rabbits, dogs and otherwise ar…

Other than a solid majority of people being aware of and actively against such practices, I don't see it.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#32

Post by keiferski »

newsbinator wrote: post #24
keiferski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptil…

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

Having read a bit about it, my position is something like:

- Experiments are way too common and mostly have useless/unusable outcomes.

- Ethical standards are basically nonexistent.

- Limited animal testing for serious human conditions (cancer, disease, etc.) is justifiable if great care is taken to maximize the benefits and minimize animal suffering.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#33

Post by rajin444 »

keiferski wrote: post #17
ACAVJW4H wrote: post #10

When can we reasonably expect the “cyclist gets banned from tour de france after committee finds athlete installed enteric oxygenation device in the saddle” headline?

Just wait until genetic modification becomes available on the black market. Then things will get really interesting.

Maybe we'll finally start addressing real unearned privilege: genetic. Pro sports players didn't do anything to earn the genetic makeup which accounts for a significant portion of their ability, yet they aren't asked to acknowledge it and take steps to reduce its impact.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#34

Post by willcipriano »

newsbinator wrote: post #24
keiferski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptil…

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

> we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years?

Without hesitation. A serial killer is someone who believes murder is acceptable and turnabout is fair play. Provided they are actually guilty there is little that is unjustified when dealing with willfully violent actors such as that. Add in now this person who has harmed society can be used to repair it and I can't think of anything more fair in a cosmic sense.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#36

Post by Robotbeat »

antender wrote: post #8

This article is like reading Gulliver's Travels Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, but as a real-life thing. Can't stop laughing!

Don’t know why you were downvoted; there’s a very similar part to this article in the book, except instead of pigs and mice, it’s dogs.

Other parts of that book mention machine-generated texts (with hilarious results). Almost 300 years later, it’s remarkable how relevant much of the lampooning of the sciences (broadly considered) in this book remains!

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#38

Post by barbazoo »

newsbinator wrote: post #24
keiferski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptil…

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

> Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years?

Not in a civilized society with a rule of law

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#40

Post by reureu »

keiferski wrote: post #32
newsbinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

Having read a bit about it, my position is something like: - Experiments are way too common and mostly have useless/unusable outcomes. - Ethical standards are basically nonexistent. - Limited animal testing for serious human conditions (cancer, disease, etc.) is justifiable if great care is taken to maximize the benefits and minimize animal suffering.

In the cases where animal testing is justifiable, I would love to see us start funding care for the remainder of the animal's natural life as part of the grant that funds the original research (at least in the cases where the research itself doesn't cause irreparable suffering or risk exposure of some novel pathogen).

At the height of covid, there were a few pigs that were test subjects for ventilators who, after the experiments ended, were sent to an animal sanctuary. I wish we could cut down on animal research by, say, 90% and the remaining 10% could have similar outcomes as those pigs.

Post reply on HN