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

181–190 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#181

Post by amelius »

sweetheart wrote: post #179
amelius wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an alien species came to Earth, and they were FAR more emotionally sensitive than we were, and could suffer MUCH more as a result, would that make your suffering when they start to enslave you any less meaningful? But perhaps they would do so in a way that is appropriate for our level of consciousness. Perhaps we'd not even be aware that someone was experimenting on us, just like animals have no idea that this i…

Oh boy, let me tell you, animals absolutely know what we are doing to them. They suffer immensely. Check this out, it offers just a glimpse into what that suffering includes: https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

The video seems blocked. Is this about monkeys? I was talking about mice (since it is the animal which is used by far the most in experiments).

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#182

Post by eigenket »

ummonk wrote: post #180
eigenket wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, I agree. I hope my comment didn't imply otherwise. Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.

Imagine the two following hypothetical societies (we clearly live in neither society): A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.

The two situations aren't really comparable without more information. Clearly the people in A are still eating a craptonne of plants, and also have access to much more land per person than B, since they can afford to have a lot dedicated to very unproductive pasture.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#183

Post by anonlinear »

The claim that "probability of meaningful transfer between animals to humans can be astoundingly low, far below 50%" requires more scrutiny. Let's say drug b is being tested for treating condition A. Assume that it's found effective in rats. It seems the claim then is that probability of it also being effective in humans is less than 50% and sometimes 0%. But this in itself isn't a good enough argument against animal testing. If one can show that there were drugs c, d, e.. etc that were found ineffective in rats and as a result did not have to be considered for human trials. If there is a good enough probability that not effective in rats A implies not effective in humans, it will still lead to huge benefits to science and clinical trials.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#184

Post by pinky1417 »

nerdponx wrote: post #167
rtkwe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's that weird, they're setting standards for their own behavior and the food source is largely beyond their control. That space probably isn't even directly controlled by them but by the larger university.

An able-bodied person with decent income should have no trouble being at least mostly vegetarian, if not most vegan, in North America.

People often feel differently about food animals than they do about lab animals. Part of it has to do with the kinds of animals. People get very upset about the treatment of beagles, which are used in research for human eye applications, but not cows. The species seems to be a major factor.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#185

Post by eigenket »

sqqqqrly wrote: post #178
nerdponx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An able-bodied person with decent income should have no trouble being at least mostly vegetarian, if not most vegan, in North America.

I don't want to be.

Many people don't want to avoid things that have massive negative externalities but at some point we have to take responsibility for the harm we cause.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#186

Post by miles »

lettergram wrote: post #146
faebi wrote: post #21

Still a better usage of an animal life than eating them. I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally. If you put these numbers in comparison to animal farming, their suffering and their murdering, then it's absolutely worth it. For me it boils down to a simple set of questions. Would you murder 10'000 chickens to save your grandma's life? How about 10'000 cows? How about 10'000 rats? How about 10'000 rabbits? How ab…

I agree with you on medical research. Particularly how many animals you’d be willing to sacrifice. That being said and with respect, I think you are misrepresenting and lack some understanding... some alternatives to consider. 1) humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy (I know some people claim with a lot of work and expense it’s possible to be healthy...…

> humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy

What Science Says About The Health Benefits Of Plant-Based Diets https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-science-says-ab...

"A number of studies have shown that a diet low in meat is linked to longer lifespans. But the matter is far from settled, as some studies haven’t found a significant difference in life expectancy between meat eaters and vegetarians.

"But there is growing evidence that plant-based diets are associated with benefits like lower blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and reduced body weight. These improved health measures often translate to less risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other diseases. Eating more whole, plant-based foods could help lower the risk of some health conditions, and might even help people live longer. But researchers also suspect that vegetarians are more health-conscious overall — so, they’re likely to be drinking and smoking less and moving their bodies more than the general population — which complicates some study results.

"Still, emerging research points to a potentially helpful role of plant-based diets in managing some chronic health conditions. For instance, some studies suggest that plant-based diets — veganism in particular — may help control rheumatoid arthritis."

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#187

Post by sweetheart »

darksaints wrote: post #176
sweetheart wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any diet can be unhealthy. Regardless of whether or not you’re vegan you need to ensure you’re getting your vitamins and minerals. And it’s not very difficult to get those on a vegan diet. There are LOADS of resources to refer to. For example: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/

Yes, actually, it is. Omnivorous diets can be unhealthy, but not due to nutrition deficiency. The problems with those diets are all solved with moderation. Vegan diets have to deal with nutrient deficiency. Filling gaps in nutrition deficiency takes targeted food intake or supplements. Those aren't always available or cheap. People have food allergies that can eliminate them as candidates. They are hard to incorporat…

A diet is not implicitly nutrient complete simply because it contains animal products. You can still easily miss out on nutrients. All diets require ensuring that you have access to important vitamins and minerals. Like I said and showed, you can get all these things without eating animals products.

You’re saying that I have no culture and that I’m a religious extremist (which seems contradictory a bit) for saying that you can get all the vitamins and minerals you need from non-animal sources. That seems a little disingenuous and ad-hominem, no?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#188

Post by sweetheart »

amelius wrote: post #181
sweetheart wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy, let me tell you, animals absolutely know what we are doing to them. They suffer immensely. Check this out, it offers just a glimpse into what that suffering includes: https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

The video seems blocked. Is this about monkeys? I was talking about mice (since it is the animal which is used by far the most in experiments).

No it’s about factory farming. If you were specifically talking about animal testing, the video I linked is irrelevant. I was talking about what we do to animals in general, not just testing.

But to that point, the first chapter of Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” covers what animal testing is, and how horrific it can be, if you’d like to learn more about just how aware these animals are about what we are doing to them.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#189

Post by jpeloquin »

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.

> But there are areas where there is no reasonable way to replace animal testing.

Two specific examples for which animal testing seems essential:

1. Prediction of nanoparticle clearance from in vitro studies does not correlate with clearance in vivo. If you want to know where the particles go (do they hit the target organ/tumor at all? do they ever leave the body?) you need to do in vivo testing.

2. Adolescent idiopathic adolescent scoliosis can now be treated by vertebral tethering and growth modulation, not just bracing or fusion. Zimmer Biomet Spine recently had a device approved to deliver this treatment [0]. Exploratory research to establish cause-effect relationships between tethering and growth modulation depended on large animal models. It's not good to accidentally make a patient's spine worse because you don't understand what's going on.

[0] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-device...

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#190

Post by ummonk »

eigenket wrote: post #182
ummonk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the two following hypothetical societies (we clearly live in neither society): A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.

The two situations aren't really comparable without more information. Clearly the people in A are still eating a craptonne of plants, and also have access to much more land per person than B, since they can afford to have a lot dedicated to very unproductive pasture.

Yeah, it's hard to compare and the greater yields of crops certainly bodes well for A.

Though the productivity differences aren't as large as one would think - protein conversion ratios for smaller animals tend to be 2-3. It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. And it's potentially even better for animals when you consider the quality of protein - e.g. see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362

Post reply on HN