×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

@

science 也不是 perfect 的,它是一个寻求真相的探索过程。

你们的 moral 是如何定义的呢?如果一味谈 moral,那么人类是否本来就不应该踩着其他物种的血肉而登上食物链的顶峰。如果一味谈 moral,你是否同意挺身而出做新药临床前期的试验品。目前实验室里培养的动物(注意,是为了试验而培养的,不是自然界环链里的),在某些生理环境特征上是最接近人类的,毕竟拿它们用来探索,不可能百分百成功。还是我回你另一个帖子里所说的,目前人类科技还没有研制组装出与人类生理环境完全 identical 的生物体,你说你拿什么来做药物试验?只有直接上活人了,这个很 moral 对吗??最后我想说的是,用断章取义的科学论证来支持你们的 moral 观点,实在是装 between A and C.
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 工作学习 / 科技杂谈 / 接着昨天的话题说:人类制药根本无需做动物实验。大家先做些调查研究,不要被先入为主的宣传所欺骗洗脑。
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead in droves. But the most significant trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body.

    Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimenters are often wasting lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge, non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are some statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them.

    “Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.”
    This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • "Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge, non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. " 是怎样的方法?
      • 同问。 +1
      • 同问,老耄回答一下啊,别光发帖子
    • 这个纯粹是强词夺理。哪个动物试验的目的是为了寻找治病的良方?动物试验多数是为了初期观察制定出药物的安全剂量和主要副作用,然后才进入临床期,也就是临床试验。真正的治疗效果是人类自身的临床试验之后才能观察得出。 +5
      • 这篇文章似乎把这个也否定了。认为动物实验的结果和人类没多少关联性。所以我认为通过公开辩论后公投决定少点摩擦。
        • 好吧,如果他们这么认为,只有直接拿活人做实验了。或者停止新药的研制。人类活得也够长够本了。 +1
      • 你这种说法的前提是这个方法是good science...现在越来越多的证据说明other wise...一个immoral的bad science就是另外一个问题了,在维持tradition的同时每年无谓的杀死过亿的动物,不光不人道,也很低效。
        • science 也不是 perfect 的,它是一个寻求真相的探索过程。 +1
          你们的 moral 是如何定义的呢?如果一味谈 moral,那么人类是否本来就不应该踩着其他物种的血肉而登上食物链的顶峰。如果一味谈 moral,你是否同意挺身而出做新药临床前期的试验品。目前实验室里培养的动物(注意,是为了试验而培养的,不是自然界环链里的),在某些生理环境特征上是最接近人类的,毕竟拿它们用来探索,不可能百分百成功。还是我回你另一个帖子里所说的,目前人类科技还没有研制组装出与人类生理环境完全 identical 的生物体,你说你拿什么来做药物试验?只有直接上活人了,这个很 moral 对吗??最后我想说的是,用断章取义的科学论证来支持你们的 moral 观点,实在是装 between A and C.
          • Well, 一个能让一百二十万人装between A and C 的项目,一个能进入欧洲议会被debate的topic, something that has caused enough interests and concerns from either side in the science community, guess it's not something that can be easily dismissed..
            • 如果现在就有了可以替代动物的,与人类结构相同的生物模型,当然百分之一百二欢迎禁止动物实验了。问题是有吗?除了你我这样的大活人?第一个回你帖子的网友问的问题,答案在哪??
              • Animal experiments are bad science Since most human diseases do not occur in animals,
                本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛their symptoms are simulated using »model organisms«. For instance, in order to induce Parkinson’s disease, monkeys, rats or mice are injected with a neurotoxin that destroys brain cells. Cancer is induced in mice by means of genetic engineering or injecting cancer cells. Cerebral strokes are caused in mice by inserting a thread into a cerebral artery. Diabetes in rats is caused by injecting a toxin that destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. Heart attacks are simulated in dogs by constricting a coronary artery with a noose.

                The artificially induced symptoms have nothing in common with the human disorders they are supposed to simulate. Important aspects of the origins of the disorders, such as diet, lifestyle habits, drug consumption, harmful environmental influences, stress, and psychological and social factors, are not taken into consideration. The results of studies using animals are therefore misleading and irrelevant.

                In fact, research based on animal experimentation repeatedly fails all along the line. 92% of potential pharmaceutical drugs that are shown by animal testing to be effective and safe do not pass clinical trials (5), either because of insufficient effectiveness or undesired side effects. Of the 8% of substances that are approved, half are later taken off the market because grave, often even lethal side effects in humans become evident. (6)

                For instance, the »invention« of the cancer mouse was believed to be the long-sought key to combating malignant tumours. In the mid eighties, researchers at the Harvard University succeeded in inserting a human cancer gene into the genome of mice, so that the rodents prematurely developed tumours. This genetically engineered mouse was even the first mammal to be patented, in the USA in 1988 and in Europe in 1992. Since then, tens of thousands of cancer mice have been »cured«, but all the treatments that were »successful« in rodents failed in humans.

                Animal experimental research regularly announces breakthroughs with all kinds of disorders. Animal testing supposedly proved this or the other method of treatment to be successful in combating Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, atherosclerosis, etc.. However, the hopes of the afflicted patients are almost always disappointed, and the celebrated miracle cures are never heard of again. Humans just aren’t mice.

                Scientific studies are increasingly casting doubt on the benefits of animal experiments. They prove that the results of animal tests often do not correlate to the insights gained from humans, and that animal experiments are often irrelevant to the clinical application for humans.

                In an English meta-study the results of different treatment methods on experimental animals and patients based on the relevant scientific publications were compared. Only three of the six disorders investigated delivered correlations, the remaining half did not. (7)

                In a further comparative study a British research team determined that the results of studies conducted on both animals and humans often differ quite considerably. According to the study, the inexact results of animal experiments can endanger patients and are also a waste of research funding. (8)

                In a German study, 51 applications for animal experiments that were approved in Bavaria were analysed with regard to their clinical implementation. The research team discovered that even ten years later not one single project had been demonstrably implemented in human medicine. (9)

                Animal experimentation is not only useless, it is even harmful. It implies security that does not exist, and the false results it delivers only impede medical progress.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
                • I'm afraid that even the first sentence is wrong. The diseases I know are all applicable to animals. Famous examples are bird flu and swine flu.
              • Probably it's regarded as immoral to create that kind of bio-model. Cloning human beings are prohibited.
          • Thanks for the information. Since the animals are raised specifically for lab experiments, I don't see there is any moral difference compared to farming animals for meat purpose.
    • 不是这个专业的不要瞎说,瞎引用。
    • 先把你家的猫扔了再说动物保护吧。 +5
      • 同意。更准确的说, 先让动物回到它们自己的家去, 不是待在那里, 娱乐人类, 再来谈动物保护。
        • 在人类把地球几乎全部资源都已经占据的情况下说这话,不是比我还装 ?
          • 人类永远是第一
            • 占据全部资源而不知节制的后果,最终会是自掘坟墓。 +1
              • 这就是轮回
          • 人活着是为什么? 喂动物? 动物和动物之间的残杀, 又是什么?
            • 我从不反对有效的利用资源,物种的生存需要天经地义。问题是人类的贪欲+无知+先进的科技这个组合在急剧的无谓的加速度的以所有其它物种为代价拼命消耗地球资源。这是我反对的。
              • 物竞天择, 这就是自然规律。没有存在的需求, 就不会有相应数量的对资源的需求。饿死几个人, 解决动物的温饱, 也是逆天的。
                • 物竞天择,哈,举个例子吧
                  地球被先进外星物种所占,其实人类就是它们五十万年前种的粮食,现在来收割。

                  它们只爱吃人类的手掌和脚掌。为了方便运输和冷藏,节省能源,它们只切下人的手脚拿回去,任由人在旷野活上几天惨叫连连被别的物种消耗掉。

                  Follow most rolian 's logic, this is a totally acceptable behaviour, it's a cultural heritage....物竞天择。
          • 所以你就找一只猫把它养起来,给她好吃好喝给他洗澡梳毛。。。总之你以为你对她很好很人道。可是你想过没有,你有一个很幸福的家庭,举一个不恰当的例子, +1
            现在依然是恐龙时代,你有幸被一个很人道的恐龙当作宠物,你的主恐龙(恩,不是主人)每天给你好吃好喝给你洗澡梳头甚至和你同吃同睡称兄道弟。可是你没有机会也没有欲望遇到你现在的太太,更不会有聪明漂亮的孩子,因为你很早就被X了。每天除了主恐龙在家的时候跑过去撒撒娇以外绝大部分时间除了吃就是睡。如果你有选择,你是愿意这样舒舒服服的过一辈子还是愿意做一个完整的男人,有自己的爱人有自己的家庭,哪怕是去种田去打猎但是完全靠自己养活自己一家老小?回答之前好好想想,别忘了,主恐龙对你很人道哦
            • Compare this life to : 在恐龙的实验室里给肢解了?worse still, 看到几乎全部人类都在恐龙手里是这下场?
          • 你不会清新到没听说过肉鸡肉牛肉狗吧?那些动物born to be killed and eaten。就像那些医用动物,就是被繁殖来做实验的。不要说那些动物,就是现实世界里的人 +1
            有几个能够主宰自己的命运,绝大多数都是人为刀俎我为鱼肉而已。
    • 跟你说了,以你现在的江湖地位原本无需再装,再装就过/露馅了。果不其然,看来人们对装的忍耐都是有限度的。。。
      • 我这个ID要是不能说我想说的,还有什么存在的意义?
        • 你当然可以说你想说的,可是在这个问题上你说的那些有意义吗?成千上万的人居无定所食不果腹或者因病童生不如死你在这谈动物的人道
    • 很全面的一片文章: Animal experimentation not only stands for cruel and therefore unethical methods, but also unscientific methods that have no right to a place in modern 21st century medicine and science.
      • 什么都不比走火入魔可怕
      • 同意其中的一个观点, 就是有些药, 因为没有通过动物试验, 而可能不能造福人类, 但是它对人类的伤害, 有已证明的吗? 没有。但是格格举的那个没有经过动物试验, 就被应用而造成的伤害, 却是以实实在在的人的健康和生命为代价的。 +1
        • 对这个老猫选择视而不见, LOL +1
        • 那个事故是因为没有进行足够的测试呢,还是没有拿足够多的动物来做实验呢? that is a question... +1
    • 这个问题和中年人有关系吗?
    • Do “Alternatives” Exist? +1
      • 老猫看不见的