Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Animal research/experimentation is a misleading, conglomerate driven force that makes us all believe it is the only/best way to do biological and medical research for the benefit of humans. The reason it is conglomerate/pharmaceutical driven is because these organizations must rely on animal experimentation to get funding.

What affects an animal has for the most part no relationship to how it affects a human

Yes, there are relatively few instances where how something affects humans is the same as how it affects an animal, but leaving that up to chance as we do research is absolutely not the way to do this!

PCP, which has a violence inducing affect on humans is sometimes used as a horse tranquilizer.

Not only are humans biologically, physiologically different than animals, but each animal is biological/physiologically different from one another.

Due to the fact that animal experimentation/research for the most part (relatively speaking) has not had positive results, researchers started to rely on more extreme methods, such as injecting human DNA into animals so that the animals become more human when they do their research. This causes bacteria/virii which normally would not have been able to penetrate a human, to learn through animals being used as a human DNA surrogate, and therefore becoming stronger and knowing how to attack human cells. Hence the topic of this article and antibiotics becoming less and less effective.

edit, references:

1. Lethal Medicine (Documentary)

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYOTH_krTk

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF3yn4-9obw

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Rp9xxW2yc

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld8F9yhUb4M

2. http://www.livescience.com/7962-human-dna-injected-animals.h...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7681252/ns/health-cloning_and_stem...

-In 2004, researchers looking to study viral infections injected human blood stem cells into pigs. The unexpected result: pig cells, human cells and some that combined bits of both developed in the pigs' blood.

-In 2005, researchers created a flock of sheep with bits of human organs growing inside of them, part of an effort (alson carried out in pigs) to eventually create human organ factories.

-Some lab monkeys pack a human form of the Huntington's gene which allow scientists to investigate the development of the disease.

-There are mice with human-like livers that allow studying the effects of drugs.



Everybody should know there is way more to animal research than what you talk about here. Your first sentence makes it sound like there is no independent animal research whatsoever and that everything is driven by money, which is blatantly false. Lots of neurophysiological research for instance has nothing to do with pharmaceutics at all, and is purely done to figure out how brains work. Moreover experiments done both with macaques and humans show there are relatively lots of brain areas that do the same task, which is exactly one of the reasons it actually makes sense using macaques for such research.

"PCP, which has a violence inducing affect on humans is sometimes used as a horse tranquilizer."

First of all, PCP _can_ have a violence inducing effect, you make it sound like it always does. Second, so what? This doesn't prove that animal research is misleading. If you give a human the same dosage per weight as you'd use to tranquilize a horse, the human would be tranquilized as well. Just like with ketamine which is used as an animal tranquillizer a lot and at the same time in lower doses has all kinds of effects on humans. And the other way around works as well btw: if you give animals less than the dosage needed to tranquillize them, you see similar effects like dizziness.


I'm an anti-vivisectionist, but I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to the article.

I do wish there was a scientifically-literate anti-vivisection group.


It's tangentially related because it's animal experimentation that has/could have led (at least in part) to bacteria being able to resist antibiotics.

Watch the documentary I linked, it includes a bunch of scientifically-literate people.


Do you have a reference for the "injecting human DNA into animals" claim you make? It would be extremely disturbing, if true.


Why is it extremely disturbing?

Researchers can take human cancerous (cells) and transplant them into an animal to study. So the animal has human cancerous cells growing on it.

The human DNA doesn't change the animal, it grows on top of it.

See: http://emice.nci.nih.gov/aam/mouse/transplantation-mouse-mod...





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: