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

Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

erichgrunewald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#11

Post by cute_boi »

HPsquared wrote: post #3

There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.

I think this is a bad take. Poor people will be tested after animal testing so it is not that worst. There are many cases of this one example is [1]

Animal testing is unnecessary most of the time. Even when its necessary they are brutally tortured and after testing is over they are simply killed. But you know companies don't think animal deserves to live. We can use simulations etc but you know its hard to change culture.

1. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ethics-in-human-experimenta...

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#13

Post by rmak »

HPsquared wrote: post #3

There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.

poor people aka men.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#14

Post by trainsplanes »

throw737858 wrote: post #12

In what way is it exploitative? Animals are not people, there is no way to exploit them!

That's a viewpoint that's up there with "babies can't feel pain", which was also common until the end of the last century[1], but has completely vanished since then.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#16

Post by tffgg »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #8
hungryforcodes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ... all countries?

Yes, it's safe to say that, in all countries, people are more comfortable with animal testing than with human testing. The quality of results from human testing is many orders of magnitude better; if you're willing to do it, there's no point in doing any animal testing.

1. He refered to countries using humans for testing being a leap

2. Using humans for testing makes no sense bc. animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#18

Post by freddie_mercury »

fabian2k wrote: post #10

There's certainly more that could be done to prevent bad or futile research on animals. But there are areas where there is no reasonable way to replace animal testing. How else would you test the safety of a new drug or other chemical? You can't do this in vitro, and going directly into humans is not an acceptable solution in my view.

The article specifically talks about this and you haven't really made a concrete reply to anything they say.

The quality of discourse on HN goes up when we all meaningfully engage with the content. The goal shouldn't be to see who is fastest to post a dismissal of the headline.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#19

Post by cheschire »

HPsquared wrote: post #3

There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.

Agreed. A lot of testing is already done on poor people who are tempted by the income from clinical trials.

If we remove animals from this process, the first time a lot of products will touch living tissue is during these trials.

Post reply on HN