41–50 of 104 posts
Again mice models...
...as if some sort of future rodent time travelers went back in earth's pre-history and tasked countless human-filled labs with unlocking the secrets of rodent medical science so they could, in their own time, mine the wisdom of the ancients and ensure their immortality.
Do I want to know how they get mice with severe spinal cord injuries to test on? I'm guessing it's exactly what I think it is, but I'm wondering if there's another way that it happens.
I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for…
What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for…
I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?". What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
No, because I'm not saying that is a position I personally hold. I'm merely presenting it as a position that I know that (some) people do hold.
My position here is, roughly speaking, "this (intentionally injuring mice or other animals) is an issue where there is a legit discussion to be had around the ethics of same." Of course I have my own opinion, but I don't really care to get into it. I just didn't think that the parent poster needed to be downvoted for raising the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for…
I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?". What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
Obviously the phrase "they're living creatures" is a bit vague on this; bacteria and molds (and arguably viruses) are also living creatures but I don't think anyone considers it genocide to disinfect your counter with alcohol or something. I think we generally start drawing lines with animals.
Even within the scope of animals, I think we can still make reasonable concessions on things that are of sufficiently low intelligence to where we're not even 100% sure they feel pain in the same way that we do. Do I care if a mosquito suffers? No, not really, they're annoying dangerous little critters who aren't really having a lot of intelligent thought.
However, when we start getting into mammals (and possibly birds), I think it starts getting into more questionable territory. Most mammals (as far as I know) do have enough neural development to feel pain, to feel fear, and actually suffer in ways not completely dissimilar to humans. Since mice are mammals, there is an argument to be made that if we're hurting them, it's adding a lot of pain to the world.
-------
To be clear, I'm somewhat in the camp of "they're just mice, I care about helping humans more". I just wanted to play devil's advocate for a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for…
I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?". What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you were downvoted for asking that. I think it's a fair issue to raise. Assuming the mice are intentionally injured to allow testing, it seems reasonable, to me, to question the ethics of that. Of course it's easy to say "they're just mice, who cares?" but it's not wrong to ask "they're living creatures as well, shouldn't we care?" I expect the response to be "it's justified given the benefits we derive for…
I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?". What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
Since your question implies some, are there reasons that we shouldn’t care about animals or other living creatures?
Based on this stimulating Axon growth, it sounds like it might help to repair the damage caused by MS. That would be amazing news. Not a cure per se, but a way to actually treat symptoms rather than just surpressing. Worryingly, they mention a few neurodegenerative diseases but not MS.
BioNTech is working on a vaccine against MS that is supposed to untrain the immune system to no longer attack own tissue. It should at least slow progress of the disease and even seems to have allowed to reverse early damages in mice. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29305956
It's now available generically: Rituximab. There's another hack that Genentech was able to patent and approve for MS to produce Ocrelizumab, which does the same thing as Rituximab but costs an order of magnitude more. Because that's how the world of big pharma works.
In essence, wiping out your plasma cells (a.k.a. B cells or lymphocytes) seems to stop MS in its tracks. Where my neurologist would typically see 2 or 3 new lesions in any given patient per year, instead now my neurologist is seeing 2 or 3 new lesions per year in the population of all their RRMS patients who are on Rituximab (or Ocrelizumab). And it turns out the immune system can get along pretty well with all the other cells types it has, such as T cells.
It's sort of like making food and having someone at the table try to discuss the morality of the meat you're using.... Except it's every. single. time.
Lab mice are killed off everyday after experiments end even if there's nothing wrong with them. Excuse me if I don't lose any sleep over this experiment.
Do I want to know how they get mice with severe spinal cord injuries to test on? I'm guessing it's exactly what I think it is, but I'm wondering if there's another way that it happens.
It’s what you think it is, and it happens to more than just mice. I toured a bioengineering lab where they were actively severing the spines of chimpanzees to perform fiber rerouting experiments. I think the normal citizen never thinks much if at all about this kind of thing because they’re never exposed to it. A few researchers have opened up to me personally about their personal psychological trauma caused by invol…
Do I want to know how they get mice with severe spinal cord injuries to test on? I'm guessing it's exactly what I think it is, but I'm wondering if there's another way that it happens.
It’s what you think it is, and it happens to more than just mice. I toured a bioengineering lab where they were actively severing the spines of chimpanzees to perform fiber rerouting experiments. I think the normal citizen never thinks much if at all about this kind of thing because they’re never exposed to it. A few researchers have opened up to me personally about their personal psychological trauma caused by invol…
I had a family member involved in a cancer research that used mice and although he admitted it was sad, he did call them heroes. Understandably, I don't think that satisfies anyone strongly aligned with animal rights. In many other sciences we've been able to use simulation as a first step, but that is still out of our reach for biological systems.