Animal Experimentaion

[steve_bank]

T0 me this is an ugly side of science.

Wealthy James Bond villains come to mind.

Elon Musk's Neuralink confirms monkeys died in project, denies animal cruelty claims

Elon Musk's implant company Neuralink, which aims to enable brains to connect and communicate with computers, has acknowledged that monkeys died as part of its testing procedures, but denies allegations of animal cruelty.

www.cnn.com

n a blog post on its website, Neuralink addressed the "recent articles" that have "raised questions around Neuralink's use of research animals at the University of California, Davis Primate Center" (UC Davis) and said that "all novel medical devices and treatments must be tested in animals before they can be ethically trialed in humans."
Macaque monkeys have been used in testing by Neuralink as the company has been developing Bluetooth-enabled implantable chips -- inserted into the monkey's brains -- that the company says can communicate with computers via a small receiver.
In April last year, Neuralink claimed monkeys can play Pong -- a computer game - using just their minds when it released a video of Pager, a male macaque, moving a cursor onscreen without using a joystick to do so.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm more worried about controlling the constraints on what the chip can download and play into the neural stream.

I would want to have tight, gnostic control over what messages are allowed into the thing at all and what has messaging rights.

If you can export data with a chip, you can probably import it, too, and I want my head to be sacrosanct and have no 'noisy' bits in it that I can't shut off or escape.

More than anything else, this seems dark on that front.

I wonder if they can get the macaque to decide it wants a "Cuke". That seems more to the end of Cruelty than anything else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm more worried about controlling the constraints on what the chip can download and play into the neural stream.

I would want to have tight, gnostic control over what messages are allowed into the thing at all and what has messaging rights.

If you can export data with a chip, you can probably import it, too, and I want my head to be sacrosanct and have no 'noisy' bits in it that I can't shut off or escape.

More than anything else, this seems dark on that front.

I wonder if they can get the macaque to decide it wants a "Cuke". That seems more to the end of Cruelty than anything else.

The issue of control has been discussed in the media. A technology that can have serious unforeseen consequences.

 

[The AntiChris]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

No animal experimentation = no new drugs.

 

[The AntiChris]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

No animal experimentation = no new drugs.

Non sequitur.

 

[Bronzeage]

I remember a chemistry class where the instructor explained that "LD50" meant lethal dose 50%. This is not a particularly useful number which indicates the amount of a toxic substance required to kill half to the test subjects. I can't imagine the other half came out of it feeling well.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

No animal experimentation = no new drugs.

Non sequitur.

Really? How do you propose to select the humans used to test new drug formulations? Or are you suggesting that new experimental drugs be released for general human consumption without testing?

 

[The AntiChris]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

No animal experimentation = no new drugs.

Non sequitur.

Really? How do you propose to select the humans used to test new drug formulations? Or are you suggesting that new experimental drugs be released for general human consumption without testing?

The fact that you can't imagine how non-harmful animal testing can be avoided in order to produce new drug formulations doesn't mean that animal testing must therefore inevitably follow logically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember a chemistry class where the instructor explained that "LD50" meant lethal dose 50%. This is not a particularly useful number which indicates the amount of a toxic substance required to kill half to the test subjects. I can't imagine the other half came out of it feeling well.

It is useful because it gives a good general guideline for the safety precautions you need when dealing with the material.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can't very well do things on humans without doing them on animals first.

Of course you can.

The implied question raised by the OP is "should we do potentially harmful animal experimentation?".

No animal experimentation = no new drugs.

Non sequitur.

Really? How do you propose to select the humans used to test new drug formulations? Or are you suggesting that new experimental drugs be released for general human consumption without testing?

The fact that you can't imagine how non-harmful animal testing can be avoided in order to produce new drug formulations doesn't mean that animal testing must therefore inevitably follow logically.

You didn't answer either question. If new drugs are not tested for effectiveness and side effects then releasing them for general use is stupid.

 

[The AntiChris]

You didn't answer either question. If new drugs are not tested for effectiveness and side effects then releasing them for general use is stupid.

You're right, I didn't answer your questions because they were totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[skepticalbip]

You didn't answer either question. If new drugs are not tested for effectiveness and side effects then releasing them for general use is stupid.

You're right, I didn't answer your questions because they were totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

I haven't seen any point other than you think animals should not be harmed. So I'll try a different question since you don't seem to be capable of extrapolating what your position would lead to. Not harming animals does sound all warm and fuzzy but there are consequences to anything we do or refrain from doing. The question is do we desire the consequences?

Is it your position that, in order to prevent harm to animals, people should either suffer from lack of effective new drugs or be the test subjects to test new drugs?

 

[The AntiChris]

I haven't seen any point other than you think animals should not be harmed.

No, that wasn't my point. I haven't ventured an opinion on animal testing on this thread.

My point was simply that in post #6 Loren's conclusion ("no new drugs") did not logically follow from "No animal experimentation". He presented an unargued opinion as fact.

 

[skepticalbip]

I haven't seen any point other than you think animals should not be harmed.

No, that wasn't my point. I haven't ventured an opinion on animal testing on this thread.

My point was simply that in post #6 Loren's conclusion ("no new drugs") did not logically follow from "No animal experimentation". He presented as fact a statement that was an unargued opinion.

I don't follow your "reasoning". Currently, the only way to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of new drugs in development is animal testing (experimentation) since we do not currently allow human testing at that stage of drug development. In drug development testing, animals are harmed. So Loren was quiet logical in his conclusion that no experimenting on animals means no new drugs unless we replace the experimentation on animals with experimentation on humans.

 

[The AntiChris]

So Loren was quiet logical in his conclusion that no experimenting on animals means no new drugs unless we replace the experimentation on animals with experimentation on humans.

But this isn't what Loren wrote.

Even if Loren had included the italicised section above, his conclusion would still not have followed logically - human experimentation is not the only alternative to animal experimentation.

Edited to add:

For Loren's statement ("No animal experimentation = no new drugs.") to make sense he would have to show that all alternatives to animal testing would be unacceptable/unworkable.

 

[Bronzeage]

I remember a chemistry class where the instructor explained that "LD50" meant lethal dose 50%. This is not a particularly useful number which indicates the amount of a toxic substance required to kill half to the test subjects. I can't imagine the other half came out of it feeling well.

It is useful because it gives a good general guideline for the safety precautions you need when dealing with the material.

That is the reason they kill half the rats in the lab. It's always good to know that 1 mg of the blue stuff will kill more rats than 1 mg of the green stuff. It's not a particularly useful number if you want to determine the level of safe exposure, or the time of the exposure, for humans.

 

[southernhybrid]

I"m going to post a link that explains in very simple terms the problems with using animals for experimenting and testing new drugs. For example, some of the drugs that are safe in certain animals, aren't safe for humans. The link gives two examples. It also mentions new ways of testing drugs without using animals. Hopefully, this will be what happens in the future.

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-animal-testing-bad/

• The registration of a single pesticide requires over 50 experiments and studies on up to 12,000 animals.
• According to the National Institutes of Health, 95 percent of drugs tested on animals ultimately fail in human trials.
• Of all the animals forced into animal testing, 60 percent are used in biomedical research and product safety testing.

Why Should We Stop Animal Testing?​

Animal testing is unsafe for humans and nonhuman animals, unreliable, inefficient, and outdated. The suffering that animals unwillingly endure in our experiments and tests is unnecessary and cruel.

How to Stop Animal Testing​

The first step toward stopping animal testing is spreading awareness of what it really entails. Many people are unaware of the pain that animals go through. Animal testing is not the only option for testing chemicals and medicines, so alternative options should be considered and used.

In addition to spreading the word, you can avoid purchasing household cleaners, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, or makeup that has been tested on animals. There are so many brands (especially when it comes to makeup) that are cruelty-free and reject animal testing.

Alternative Ways of Experimenting​

Scientists are now able to use human cells and tissues, computer modeling, 3D printing, robots, and more for experiments. These technologies are better for everyone and typically more accurate, less expensive, and faster than animal testing.

So, we really don't need to and shouldn't be using animals who can't consent to develop drugs for humans. It has a high failure rate and it's cruel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't answer either question. If new drugs are not tested for effectiveness and side effects then releasing them for general use is stupid.

You're right, I didn't answer your questions because they were totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

But you're not addressing the problem. You can't do safety testing without risk. If you know it's safe you don't need to do the test in the first place. No animal testing = nothing new for human use.