• NotAPenguin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They didn’t sacrifice their lives, they were abused and killed against their will.

    Calling it sacrifice is pretty disgusting.

    • aeternum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. Those poor mice had all sorts of horrendous stuff done to them. They didn’t sacrifice shit. They had 0 choice in the matter.

    • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hey!! How am I supposed to feel good about my human superiority complex if you come in here all rational like?? Let me be a speciesist in peace!1!1!

      • MildlyArdvark@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s irrelevant. The comment was about the choice of words. It’s simply false to say the mice sacrificed themselves. If anything they were sacrificed by us humans.

      • aeternum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        there is no need to use animal testing anymore. There are supercomputers that are much more realistic than testing this horseshit on defenceless animals that are a completely different species to us.

        • AlolanYoda
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I work in a related field and while I don’t know anything about supercomputers being more realistic, there is a movement to eliminate animal testing and instead use organ-on-chip models - still using cells, but in vitro. The advantage is not only that you eliminate animal suffering, but also that you can use human cells, so your tests are much more quickly applicable to humans. In fact, in a far away future, you could even test with your cells and see how a specific treatment affects you. Super interesting stuff!

          • fossilesqueOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As much as this freaks me out in an imagination-run-wild sci-fi wasteland way, I WISH we had tech like that. It would help so much with preventative medicine.

          • Tomassci@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s also the idea of organoids for studying development without having to study the entire organism.

        • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Computers can run a model…but you have to have real world data to create and improve the model. Plus there’s always the chance the model is wrong or has some inaccuracy in it.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            A model is more accurate than a mouse, when it comes to weather medication is safe for a human. A huge chunks of trials that passed the non-human animal testing stages fail when applied to humans.

            • fossilesqueOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Do you have a source for this? Curious. My impressions were we are trying to get there but have a way to go yet. Brains, etc. have just been mapped in the last year and are far from perfect. This is the ultimate goal, though. My university requires you to go through an ethics board before you can touch living things.