In what circumstances is it ethical and/or effective to use animals for testing and research?

Or someone practising blood doping for the next Olympics. The text suggests this is from China.

this but unironically. people who fight against animal testing shouldn't be allowed medicine obtained from animal testing.

Ethics and morals are not involved when dealing with animals. You only use ethics and morals when dealing with humans and only when those humans are in your own family or those persons directly involved with your family.

We shouldn't test anything on animals, they're so cuuuuute and innocent, we should test everything on human, be it new drug likely to be lethal, some substance that can be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful in long or short term, who gives a fuck about people anyway? They're assholes, so it's good if some of them will suffer or die

>we should test everything on human
Prisoners?

Oh look, it's a brainwashed neonazi being a barely-sentient sociopath. This is new and exciting.

>In what circumstances is it ethical

when you need it and that's the case.

Is makeup necessary?

>Is attracting a mate necessary
yes

No, it's not science, but I think it's forbidden now in many countries, in Europe and the USA

>Ethics and morals are not involved when dealing with animals.
correct
>You only use ethics and morals when dealing with humans and only when those humans are in your own family or those persons directly involved with your family.
incorrect

you're either a woman or borderline retarded

That's a good question and has been bothering me. Philosophically I would say never, practically I would say it depends on a number of factors including what is done and what is it done to, what the cost/benefit is, if the research actually has a direct application which is moral verses simply funding for funding, etc.

I would put much greater restrictions on what could be done than the current lax standards. If this means I have a higher chance of dying to something I am fine with that, we all die eventually.

On the two extremes, feeding a rat fast food and then euthanizing it isn't really that bad, on the other end is cutting a monkeys head off and putting it onto another monkey is simply unacceptable to me.

Something inbetween is giving a rat a carcinogen and testing some type of cancer treatment. I think something like this could be justified if there is really good supporting evidence the cancer treatment does what it is supposed to do and doesn't cause damage.

The Nazis actually had pretty good animal rights laws.

>making implications this hard

>You only use ethics and morals when dealing with humans
We are dealing with humans, brainlet. It's about human action. You're just too stupid to realize that because you're a /pol/tard with an IQ of 37.

No, it's bad to run experiments on prisoners. I mean like average Joe Schmoe off the street should be the subject to the tests

Seeing as humans are literally the only chance any of these species have of ultimately surviving i would say by the most logical judgement it is ethical in any circumstance that ultimately serves humanity.

By a more comprehensive judgement invoking their qualia and own lives: any circumstance in which alternative means are not easily available and where the research is medically or scientifically important.

We don't use rats and monkeys for experiments because we think we are superior to them, but rather, because we respect them greatly. It's comparable to dog fighting or cock fighting, we don't make them fight because we think we're better but because we respect them enough to put on a good show and make money.

more than that, they shouldn't be allowed to reap the benefits of a medicine-accessing society (less sickness, for one).

>incorrect
literally no point in considering "ethics" then, given that nothing will satisfy the fact that dealing with your family and people you know, is different to strangers that you don't know exist- but you are perfectly capable of seeking out and helping.

>Seeing as humans are literally the only chance any of these species have of ultimately surviving
>Thinking that the earth wouldn't continue without us.

Oh yeah, that's why they outsource the dirtyjob. Yay, we saved rats that live close to us, now the chinese can test it in endangered monkey species!

Well, we still have alternatives like graduates of "gender studies" and "social sciences" as well as other telephone sanitisers.

The justification for animal use is that they aren't sentient but if you believe human sentience is purely a byproduct of physical processes it's hard to argue the distinction in so far as all the biological processes exist in primates and mammals to various extents.

Humans managed to rationalize a position that puts animals similar enough to be used for research for humans but different enough for it to be morally acceptable, very convenient.

Everyone's a utilitarian until the government decides to flood their ancestral homeland to provide power for a few million people.

Some of the things done in the name of "the greater good" are pretty heinous. Murder is murder whether its for the greater good or not.

That aside, I think most of the meaningful experiments have already been done, and their results have been in papers and textbooks for decades. I think people doing these kinds of experiments in the modern age are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, in a scientific sense, especially when words like "efficacy" come into play. These people really ought to take a step back and ask themselves if they are doing this for humanity, for their pay check, or for some other much darker psychological reasons.

> Implying you must test cosmetics in animals
> Implying you must use cosmetics to attract a mate

This is not a picture of legitimate research, it's on a dirty tile floor - this is some psychopath torturing them in an abstract way most likely

If you gave me a gun and told me murdering 100 people would save 10,000 I would shoot. It's just math

which humans do they depend on?

hunters? loggers? fishermen? miners? Which humans specifically do these species depend on for long term survival?

You seem a little mixed up.

you shoot 100 children to save 10,000 terrorists?

pretty fucked up... but I guess whatever keeps you in your black and white world

testing on rats vs testing on humans

you make it sound like the testing absolutely has to be done, and if not on rats then on humans.

Well, the testing does not need to be done. There is no requirement that the testing has to be done.

How did you come to think that way?

testing on rats is good
people would die otherwise
closest model organism to people (mammal)

Poor example. Are the 10,000 terrorists going to murder 50,000 people? The word terrorist has a lot of meaning I don't think you want to accept.

Would I murder 100 healthy children to save 10,000 terminally ill patients for a few hours or days? Probably not, but again it's just math. The value of 100 children is higher than the value of 10,000 people for a small amount of time but that's extreme. You can put people's lives through formulas if you want but it would get silly really fast. Just take it at face value I would murder 100 people to save 10,000 people of equivalent value per person. All your fluff to confuse the point doesn't make a difference then.

fair enough. of equivalent value then. its all hypothetical either way.

There has never been a case of kill 100 to save 10000.

And in this case, its more like kill 100, and there is a chance you will save 10,000. It all gets very "fluffy" very quickly, and my point is that it's not black and white.

In fact, the only thing that is entirely black and white is your choice to either kill 100 innocent people, or not.

I used to think that way. I would be a much happier person if I still believed in that things were so simple.

Sometimes I wish I could go back.

and dont even try to equate this with some kind of battle type scenario.

experiments are different. experiments fail more often than not. most of this shit is just trying to test some nerds hypothesis to further his career.

And then there's the pain aspect. Should 1 person suffer horribly for decades to prevent 10 people from dying instantly?

Its all totally fucked up. Definitely not black and white.

I will say even though its not black and white, there's a line somewhere. But imo, it was crossed decades ago. Fuck experimenting on animals.

there's a line somewhere??

Anyone who experiments on animals, and uses the word "efficacy"

... not fucking cool

Ya

where the benefits of continually doing something no longer outweigh the downsides.

A point of diminishing returns.

values are subjective

whats your point?

if it's subjective there can't be a line

>brainwashed neonazi
>new and exciting
I wish.

If its subjective then the line is at different places for different people.

so there's no absolute line
which is my point

However there could be a small group of people whose line would be considered pretty extreme by most people (if most people understood what those people were actually doing).

wait up let me edit that to say (if most people understood what the small group was actually doing).

I am OK with people dying. In fact everyone will die eventually.

you'd have to quantify peoples' lines to do statistics on them
How do you do that accurately?

Another aspect is that as the population grows to 8 billion, we are more and more inadvertently making life miserable for eachother. There really is only so much to go around. Only the most sheltered people would disagree with that.

killing 100 to save 10000... totally not black and white.

Life is not simple, no matter how much you want it to be.

you can't do it. Because most people will never understand the science well enough to know where their line is.

My opinion is that most of the meaningful experiments have been done. Some mysteries will never be solved. But that doesn't mean there isn't 1 absolute madman out there (out of 8 billion) that isn't willing to throw us all under the bus to try.

Suppose your experiments actually work (doubtful, in this day in age) and you make a technology that allows a million extra people to be born, exist, and thrive for a while.

Then times get harder due to other challenges and no technology comes along to save them this time. So their animal instincts return and they massacre eachother.

Was it a good idea to give them that technology? They wouldn't have been born without it, but they wouldn't have eventually suffered either.

There is no difference between you and them
family is a spook btw

How's that for science blasphemy, lol.

I think we should experiment on murderers. Fuck them.

>there has never been a case
What? Every war fought ever has this exact scenario. Decapitate their command structure and you win the war by default.

So you would kill 100 people to save 10000. But would you kill 100 do save 9999? 9998? When is killing 100 not worth it? Would you kill 1 person to save 2 people? 2 to save 3? 1000 to save 1001? So if you decide 4 to save 5 isn't worth it, why? Is the person being saved with less than the others being saved? Or is the cost of killing just too big at that point? So you must agree there is a cost. It's really not just math.

You can call me an autist but these are valid questions.

>ethical
This is a spook.

what's the difference

This, this, this.

When killing 100 people only saves 100 people.

My boy Fan Zhendong would never use such tricks.

>IACUC
> I A CUC
>I'm a cuck
Scientists we're cucks all along? Possible Jew psyop

He failed to comprehend what you wrote.

>My opinion is that most of the meaningful experiments have been done.
What is your technical background to make such a sweeping and dramatic statement??
>Some mysteries will never be solved.
With that attitude I wold guess so. Still, in other countries it is more free for all. And the potential benefits are enormous.
>But that doesn't mean there isn't 1 absolute madman out there (out of 8 billion) that isn't willing to throw us all under the bus to try.
The Chinese have stated they are willing to engage in genetic research that will never be allowed in the West and that they want to eliminate insanity by all means. In a country like China that means all barriers are gone.

We should use niggers instead

Why are you sharing a picture of child abuse user?

nice Nier cosplay

>Ethics and morals are not involved when dealing with animals.

Yes they are.