Comment on Maybe there was a cure for human cancer, but it didn't work at all in mice.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days agoI don’t think that follows logically…
Comment on Maybe there was a cure for human cancer, but it didn't work at all in mice.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days agoI don’t think that follows logically…
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
The fact that we are not the animals they test on so they can never guarantee it’ll react to humans the same way it does to the animals? That doesn’t follow logically?
echindod@programming.dev 5 days ago
It is theoretically possible that we are basal in such away that mice are derived given a certain ailment, that a treatment doesn’t work on mice. However we are so damn closely related to mice that probability is vanishingly small, and in such cases where it is known about, they actually genetically modify the mouse to account for it.
They used to do fertility tests on hamster ovum to see if a human male’s sperm was viable. We are fucking close enough to hamsters a human sperm can cause a hamster ovum to start to divide.
Granted, I will agree with you: much animal testing is fucking horrific and deplorable. But it is generally reliable.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
No, it does not. Saying we might not find x treatment because it didn’t work on mice says absolutely nothing about the actual efficacy of testing on mice.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
It does if it diverts attention away from other potential cures, not to mention making the animals’ sacrifices even more in vain
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 5 days ago
How can we develop therapeutics without animal testing? Genuinely asking your thoughts.