End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
Thank you so much for an awesome video on lab animals and their importance!!! I work for a company that makes heart valves and I was an animal husbandry technician, now I’m a surgical technician in the same department (working with lab animals). I love my job! And I love giving the animals a high quality of care while helping advance important heart valve research
Love to meet another person working with lab animals! I work in an immunology lab looking into the immunology of transplant rejection. I too feel the pain of animal research as I too love animals but I understand the importance of my research. I feel that because I care, I can conduct my research with the highest quality and take care to minimise discomfort to the animals.
Peonelli I agree completely! Caring for our animals leads to better quality science and research. Also immunology transplant research sounds super interesting to work on!
Then we just lost out until it might get trialed again using different tests. No doubt there are thousands of missed potential drugs out there..just needing more and better testing.
Then you have to live with that, I think that's a reasonable price to pay compared to the alternatives: subjecting actual humans to untested treatments.
There are a ton of volunteer testing programs where scientists reach out to patients and ask them if they would like to try an unverified treatment option
You should've mention how cruelly free products still use animal testing during the development process. They can use the label because the final product that is released to the public isn't tested on animals like prior formulations of that same product were
It doesn't need to get tested on animals if all the ingredients are on GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list. A company isn't going to waste money on testing it is not required to do.
End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
Very good video! How far away do you think we are from making high quality, artificial human tissue so we can do these in vivo measurements on (fake) real human cells?
I depends on what level you mean. many labs are using 3D printing and other techniques, to develop organoids(miniature organs with all the cell types and basic structures) and have shown than when connected with microfluidics then can send and sense chemical messages. I am not sure how far it way been developed price, complexity wise, but I know there was a test with heart liver and lungs cells that show similar result to toxicity study found in a heart drug that wasn't found when testing on just cardiac cells. that was developed a couple years ago. the problem is that is stem cell based, and doesn't count for genetic variance. maybe with induced multipotent stem cells it might have moved further.
@Please Complete All Fields Not so. Mice were used to demonstrate penicillin's effectiveness 'Florey H (1953) Conquest 41, 4'. Did you have another species in mind?
That's a big 'if'. More likely we'd miss something useful for 2 reasons. 1. It affected the two species chosen for the tests badly - the effects would have been seen in another species but we didn't happen to use that species and 2. We were testing a drug for a specific purpose when it could be used for other things. An example is thalidomide - an effecitve but dangerous (to foetuses) anti-emetic, hence a 'failed' drug which can nevertheless be used to treat some cancers and leprosy. What constitutes 'failure' can be what target effect was chosen to be tested.
Hi Olivia. Consider some of the gibberish that is being spread over butter vs margarine. What is butter? Butter is a suspension of milk solids in fat. what is margarine? Margarine is a suspension of milk solids in fat. So what's the difference? By law since 1943 (US) butter must contain animal fat, specifically dairy fat. margarine is a more general, generic term and butter is a form of margarine. so margarine can contain any type of fat, including walrus fat, should you so choose. To be realistic, heart-healthy margarines such as Promise or ICBINB are made with plant fats. Plant fats are liquid at room temperature so we call them oils. To make them more solid they are partially hydrogenated. However even after hydrogenation they still contain less than 1/3 the saturated fat of butter. And, like butter, they contain zero trans fat (read the friggin' labels!). So, bottom line, is that heart-healthy margarines are much better for your health than butter and neither is "one molecule away from being a plastic".
The social needs of primates are greater, and their natural lives are longer. Rodents can be perfectly happy in conditions that are distressing for primates. Killing a rat after a year is not taking the same percentage of its life that it is in a primate.
I believe it also has something to do with cognitive ability (primates have much more emotional range than rodents, are capable of learning a lot more, etc), and also, just how society views the creatures. Society places a lot higher value on primates and cats and dogs, than rodents or other farm animals.You can probably find more information if you look up IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) laws/regulations.
You forgot the most import step: Secure funding. Most research dies at the animal testing phase simply because of a lack of funding to progress onto human trials. Step one really should be selecting an area of research where you can demonstrate that there's a potential for huge profits in the future. i.e. obesity research gets about $20 billion in funding annually. Not sure what they're researching though, not a whole lot of mystery in that area.
I think lots of funding are invested to produce research that supports the idea that not eating breakfast is linked to obesity, which is conspiracy of food companies.
Matter of fact there's a lot of mystery. Gut microbiota, for instance, vary from person to person and people who were normal weight can become overweight following a faecal transplant even if they keep the same diet they had before. This too has numerous mechanisms, including the gut flora influencing appetite or conversely the absorption of nutrients from food. This means, for instance, that individuals can have a spike in blood sugar or fat absorption from different foods to one another - one person might be fine eating biscuits and bacon, but not ice cream, and the next otherwise comperable person might be the exact opposite.
0:00 "Rats aren't people. It's nothing against them personally." I don't know, that sounds pretty specist to me. It's accurate to say they aren't humans but that doesn't mean they aren't people.
I want to study one herbal drug for contraceptive efficacy. For effect on ovulation and menstruation. Please guide me for this and suggest suitable animal model for this study??
I doubt I will get the answer her but why do a lot of drugs on the market right now seem to have more side effects the the drug it self. I’m manly talking about the ones a see on tv some of the possable side effects seem worse then what the drug is trying to do, so how to they get approval with all the side effects
Havioc Darkmoon generally it would fall into the case of the side effects possibly being worse but rare. In a very straight forward way it is like saying I could go through a terminal illness (assured death within a small span of time), or go through a dangerous procedure that would cure me if I survive (say 30% survival rate, + other possible side effects, but a normal lifespan is expected). Let’s not forget that some medications are being made to be more aggressive due to misuse in the past resulting in more severe illnesses... not a good combination for our bodies, at least until an easier to process treatment comes along.
They have to list every known and likely side effect that appears in clinical trials, even the really uncommon ones. Some of my medications have quite a few listed side effects, but I get very few, and they’re minor.
Possible side effect doesn't mean side effect you might get, it means might be a side effect. The % of people that had a possible side effect during testing is generally related to the chance that the drug caused it after other causes are factored in such as a disease meant to be treated.
Animal testing will always be needed. We mayn't like it, but animal testing will always be needed. I do think we need to treat the animals more humanely, but yes animal testing is still needed.
There are A LOT of rules and regulations regarding how test animals are treated, along with a lot of oversight. Look up IACUC regulations. it's not lax by any means.
This is morally wrong and has been abolished a long time ago. The prison population is considered a vulnerable group, along with children and pregnant women. Experimenting on prisoners when they cannot give 100% informed consent because there is a question of power over their decisions is wrong. Also, the fact that there are people on a death sentence that get released at a later date due to being found innocent (or found innocent after death), should be enough to negate any possibility of experimentation. What if we did experiment on these people, without their consent, only to find that some of them were innocent and we've done irreparable damage? (The fact that some are found innocent later is also my sole reason why I think the death penalty should be abolished, but that is a different discussion all together.)
We'll probably never know, but the current system for drug testing is the best we have right now, and we are improving all the time. Hopefully one day we'll be able to produce accurate enough computer models and use them to predict effects of drugs, but right now we're still struggling to say if and how only two known molecules will interact, so it'll be a while...
The thing is there aren't really many inmates on the Fritzl, Breivik, Dahmer, Yousef scale of evil compared to the large number of medical research projects out there. Also, many of them have health problems which make them unsuitable as a medical test subject. And more importantly, it is highly unethical, especially for countries where cruel & unusual punishment has been outlawed.
I’m a fan of this channel and took some useful information from this video but I was disappointed there was no mention of how ineffective and unnecessary most animal research really is, the incredibly large industry around animal testing (breeding, equipment etc) and the harm to the animals. The reality is that a very small fraction of research is unique and translates to essential medical outcomes for humans
I just watched it again. A really uncritical video on multiple fronts, including with respect to the non-human animals involved and what constitutes quality research more generally
Editor messed up the audio! Several syllables at the beginning or end of her lines are blatantly missing or notched. Was this made by an intern using Audacity?
I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none. I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none. I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none. I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none.
I actually don't like how her pitch goes up and down and it irritates me. But she does speak slower and pronounce her words better than Hank. I enjoy listening to Hank more myself tho
I still speed up Hank to 150% because I think he doesn't speak fast enough. The only youtuber that I don't speed up is yatzee from zero punctuation, he reviews games and speaks fast.
Never quite understood why it's ethically wrong to experiment on a monkey or ape, but ok to experiment on rats and mice. I understand that the latter breed and produce at a much faster rate, but what's really the difference. Still an animal. Not human. Does it really matter if there's similarities with us, and other primates? Still, very much not human.
Different animals have different levels of affection and compassion. Also different levels of intelligence and social skills. Some animals are also harder to give a higher quality of life than others. And then of course larger animals will be more expensive.
And it's not that it's ethically wrong for one than the other, but one has more rules and restrictions than the other. Life expectancy is also a major player in determining use.
@@Ian.langford823 We're learning all the time that animals have more compassion, intelligence, social skills, and affection than many humans once expected. I don't feel like we're on very stable footing by assuming they don't have those things, and experimenting on them, even though we know they feel pain and are living individuals.
We really should just stick to human trials and give people adequate compensation for any troubles. Oh wait, that's right. We can't give people healthcare in this country!
I mean, on a lot of stuff, that'd actually be quite an unnecessary risk, and it'd probably disincentivise people from volunteering in the first place. Animal tests help us rule out stuff way before you have to compensate the family of someone who died in a test, which I'd guess not inly involves less suffering for human,s, but is also cheaper
Howiw much compensation do you pay someone who you have just had to dissect all the nerves out of their legs? Such studies have been and beesed to be done to study diabetic neuropathy..which dissolves part of the nerve sheath. Some testung and trials just cannot be done on live subjects..sorry.
@@Paul-A01 Because it would be exploitation. Nobody would ever put their own health and safety at risk for a previously untested clinical trial, except people who desperately need money.
#t=5m37s "We still need their help to keep people safe". Yeah, the mice must be really glad to help being tested and killed for our needs. Very bad phrasing in this video. If you want to defend animal testing at least admit how unethical and cruel they are.
I agree, though as long as we're not listening to a 20 minute monologue, it's not terrible. On a somewhat related note, I wonder how they choose the people to put on the camera for their channel?
I really struggle to get past it. It really is a noticeable trait and it makes it difficult for me to pay attention to what she's saying. Annoying because she otherwise seems like a nice, charismatic girl.
Why not just use convicted criminals in prison for trials? They've made the choice to be a criminal and therefor should not be considered a part of our society.
Because criminals are constantly being exonerated all the time and the punishment is the time incarcerated. Effects of medical testing can easily impact the individual long after they've served their time and rejoined society.
@@mycelia_ow Death row is 5% wrongfully convicted. They reckon there's been about 350 innocent people killed since 1973. Life sentence I'm not sure, but the wrongful conviction rate in all other categories is about 4-5%
Always respect the science boys and girls (rats and mice) for their continued huge contribution to humans.
Humans do not receive contributions from other species, humans take what they want with force
End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
Thank you so much for an awesome video on lab animals and their importance!!! I work for a company that makes heart valves and I was an animal husbandry technician, now I’m a surgical technician in the same department (working with lab animals). I love my job! And I love giving the animals a high quality of care while helping advance important heart valve research
Love to meet another person working with lab animals! I work in an immunology lab looking into the immunology of transplant rejection. I too feel the pain of animal research as I too love animals but I understand the importance of my research. I feel that because I care, I can conduct my research with the highest quality and take care to minimise discomfort to the animals.
Peonelli I agree completely! Caring for our animals leads to better quality science and research. Also immunology transplant research sounds super interesting to work on!
Thank you both for your work!
I'm in 2nd year of B. Pharm. And this is very useful information.
Thank you SciShow😍
What if it does not work in animals but would have in humans?
Then we just lost out until it might get trialed again using different tests. No doubt there are thousands of missed potential drugs out there..just needing more and better testing.
This severely irritates me.
Then you have to live with that, I think that's a reasonable price to pay compared to the alternatives: subjecting actual humans to untested treatments.
There are a ton of volunteer testing programs where scientists reach out to patients and ask them if they would like to try an unverified treatment option
Catherine Vo May have anger management issues
1:40 Those mice are called "knock out" because they are so attractive to researchers as animal models.
"Wow, look at that model, she's a knock out."
Heh..heh...Dad joke.
Uncle joke
Nah, we give the mice so much drugs they are always drunk, thus calling them knocked out
You should've mention how cruelly free products still use animal testing during the development process. They can use the label because the final product that is released to the public isn't tested on animals like prior formulations of that same product were
It doesn't need to get tested on animals if all the ingredients are on GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list. A company isn't going to waste money on testing it is not required to do.
End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
0:11 Rats may not be people, but Soylent Green is
End animal testing with Cytosolve technology by Dr. Shiva Ayadurai.He is the only hopeful who takes this extremely important and urgent issue on. And he is the only one knowledgeable and has the ability to invent this. It says a lot about a person or a nation by the way they treat the innocents especially children and animals. Thank you Dr. Shiva!!!
Very good video! How far away do you think we are from making high quality, artificial human tissue so we can do these in vivo measurements on (fake) real human cells?
I depends on what level you mean. many labs are using 3D printing and other techniques, to develop organoids(miniature organs with all the cell types and basic structures) and have shown than when connected with microfluidics then can send and sense chemical messages. I am not sure how far it way been developed price, complexity wise, but I know there was a test with heart liver and lungs cells that show similar result to toxicity study found in a heart drug that wasn't found when testing on just cardiac cells. that was developed a couple years ago. the problem is that is stem cell based, and doesn't count for genetic variance. maybe with induced multipotent stem cells it might have moved further.
I'm curious if there were a drug that could save human lives but was deadly to every other animal would we ever be able to discover it?
@Please Complete All Fields Not so. Mice were used to demonstrate penicillin's effectiveness 'Florey H (1953) Conquest 41, 4'. Did you have another species in mind?
That's a big 'if'. More likely we'd miss something useful for 2 reasons. 1. It affected the two species chosen for the tests badly - the effects would have been seen in another species but we didn't happen to use that species and 2. We were testing a drug for a specific purpose when it could be used for other things. An example is thalidomide - an effecitve but dangerous (to foetuses) anti-emetic, hence a 'failed' drug which can nevertheless be used to treat some cancers and leprosy. What constitutes 'failure' can be what target effect was chosen to be tested.
We could by accident. There are lots of things we consume that are toxic to loads of other species.
@@beth8775 That's usually a dosing issue though.
I remember an old joke from Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"
...and this just in: "White mice cause cancer!"
Hi Olivia. Consider some of the gibberish that is being spread over butter vs margarine. What is butter? Butter is a suspension of milk solids in fat. what is margarine? Margarine is a suspension of milk solids in fat. So what's the difference? By law since 1943 (US) butter must contain animal fat, specifically dairy fat. margarine is a more general, generic term and butter is a form of margarine. so margarine can contain any type of fat, including walrus fat, should you so choose. To be realistic, heart-healthy margarines such as Promise or ICBINB are made with plant fats. Plant fats are liquid at room temperature so we call them oils. To make them more solid they are partially hydrogenated. However even after hydrogenation they still contain less than 1/3 the saturated fat of butter. And, like butter, they contain zero trans fat (read the friggin' labels!). So, bottom line, is that heart-healthy margarines are much better for your health than butter and neither is "one molecule away from being a plastic".
Also what is the ethical difference between experimenting on one animal versus another if neither is worthy of personhood?
We should experiment on men's rights activists
The social needs of primates are greater, and their natural lives are longer. Rodents can be perfectly happy in conditions that are distressing for primates. Killing a rat after a year is not taking the same percentage of its life that it is in a primate.
@@mumbairay As soon as we erradicate all the feminazis.
I believe it also has something to do with cognitive ability (primates have much more emotional range than rodents, are capable of learning a lot more, etc), and also, just how society views the creatures. Society places a lot higher value on primates and cats and dogs, than rodents or other farm animals.You can probably find more information if you look up IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) laws/regulations.
@@evilsharkey8954 Since rats & mice mature much faster than primates (2 months vs. 5 years), new genetic varieties can be developed much sooner.
great informative and detailed presentation!
You forgot the most import step: Secure funding. Most research dies at the animal testing phase simply because of a lack of funding to progress onto human trials. Step one really should be selecting an area of research where you can demonstrate that there's a potential for huge profits in the future. i.e. obesity research gets about $20 billion in funding annually. Not sure what they're researching though, not a whole lot of mystery in that area.
I think lots of funding are invested to produce research that supports the idea that not eating breakfast is linked to obesity, which is conspiracy of food companies.
Matter of fact there's a lot of mystery. Gut microbiota, for instance, vary from person to person and people who were normal weight can become overweight following a faecal transplant even if they keep the same diet they had before. This too has numerous mechanisms, including the gut flora influencing appetite or conversely the absorption of nutrients from food. This means, for instance, that individuals can have a spike in blood sugar or fat absorption from different foods to one another - one person might be fine eating biscuits and bacon, but not ice cream, and the next otherwise comperable person might be the exact opposite.
Thank you for the update.
That's why vet medicine is of urge importance in research
0:00
"Rats aren't people. It's nothing against them personally."
I don't know, that sounds pretty specist to me. It's accurate to say they aren't humans but that doesn't mean they aren't people.
I want to study one herbal drug for contraceptive efficacy. For effect on ovulation and menstruation.
Please guide me for this and suggest suitable animal model for this study??
Scishow is the first channel i ever subbed to... I dont even know how long ago... So long lol
I doubt I will get the answer her but why do a lot of drugs on the market right now seem to have more side effects the the drug it self. I’m manly talking about the ones a see on tv some of the possable side effects seem worse then what the drug is trying to do, so how to they get approval with all the side effects
Havioc Darkmoon generally it would fall into the case of the side effects possibly being worse but rare. In a very straight forward way it is like saying I could go through a terminal illness (assured death within a small span of time), or go through a dangerous procedure that would cure me if I survive (say 30% survival rate, + other possible side effects, but a normal lifespan is expected).
Let’s not forget that some medications are being made to be more aggressive due to misuse in the past resulting in more severe illnesses... not a good combination for our bodies, at least until an easier to process treatment comes along.
They have to list every known and likely side effect that appears in clinical trials, even the really uncommon ones. Some of my medications have quite a few listed side effects, but I get very few, and they’re minor.
Possible side effect doesn't mean side effect you might get, it means might be a side effect. The % of people that had a possible side effect during testing is generally related to the chance that the drug caused it after other causes are factored in such as a disease meant to be treated.
Because they want to make sure you can't sue them if you happen to be the 1 person who gets a severe side effect.
Pigs are closely related to humans, hence the swine flu.
What's the Time in your country ???
In my country 5:42 am😉😉
3:36 am. I really should be sleepint right now. 😄
9:36 pm
Animal testing will always be needed. We mayn't like it, but animal testing will always be needed. I do think we need to treat the animals more humanely, but yes animal testing is still needed.
There are A LOT of rules and regulations regarding how test animals are treated, along with a lot of oversight. Look up IACUC regulations. it's not lax by any means.
@@kcallamajaji ::
I completely agree, it shouldn't be lax. In fact, there should be more regulations, in my opinion.
Rats aren't people.
But a lot of people...
With the number of clinical trials going on, this video illustrates the number of potential risks for the volunteers. Thank you. Excellent content.
Any thought on experimenting on prisoners on death sentence?
This is morally wrong and has been abolished a long time ago. The prison population is considered a vulnerable group, along with children and pregnant women. Experimenting on prisoners when they cannot give 100% informed consent because there is a question of power over their decisions is wrong. Also, the fact that there are people on a death sentence that get released at a later date due to being found innocent (or found innocent after death), should be enough to negate any possibility of experimentation. What if we did experiment on these people, without their consent, only to find that some of them were innocent and we've done irreparable damage? (The fact that some are found innocent later is also my sole reason why I think the death penalty should be abolished, but that is a different discussion all together.)
Interesting!
I wonder how many drugs werent developed further, because they did not help in mice, but would have worked in humans.
We'll probably never know, but the current system for drug testing is the best we have right now, and we are improving all the time. Hopefully one day we'll be able to produce accurate enough computer models and use them to predict effects of drugs, but right now we're still struggling to say if and how only two known molecules will interact, so it'll be a while...
Did someone get some speech coaching? I think so.
Animal are not people
It’s nothing personal
Darn it I thought you had personal beef with mice
BAHAAAHAAA, you said "Beef"!
Person al.
Except people are animals though. One could ssy animals are not rodents.
Psilocybins We are disambiguating human trials from animal models and managing to make it amusing too. No ped ant.
Not all animals are people.
There.
How many drugs go from successful animal models to successful clinical trials
I think Josef Fritzl and such people could be used instead of testing on animals.
The thing is there aren't really many inmates on the Fritzl, Breivik, Dahmer, Yousef scale of evil compared to the large number of medical research projects out there. Also, many of them have health problems which make them unsuitable as a medical test subject. And more importantly, it is highly unethical, especially for countries where cruel & unusual punishment has been outlawed.
I’m a fan of this channel and took some useful information from this video but I was disappointed there was no mention of how ineffective and unnecessary most animal research really is, the incredibly large industry around animal testing (breeding, equipment etc) and the harm to the animals. The reality is that a very small fraction of research is unique and translates to essential medical outcomes for humans
I just watched it again. A really uncritical video on multiple fronts, including with respect to the non-human animals involved and what constitutes quality research more generally
Cue the PETA frenzy!
Cats are people too!
Editor messed up the audio! Several syllables at the beginning or end of her lines are blatantly missing or notched. Was this made by an intern using Audacity?
_folds proteins_
when i think Mabel
grappling hook!!
Animal testing is lit
Not really about how to get from A to B...
They should use chomos for science experiments
Rats aren't people, but some people sure are rats.
I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none.
I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none.
I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none.
I did a couple clinical trials when I was younger people worry about side effects but I had none.
Why not do testing on cucumbers if we share 98% common DNA with them?
nattygsbord um. Organs. And brains. And blood. When cutting up a cuke you’re not doing an autopsy.
A cucumber is not s living thing. It's a byproduct of a plant, which is living.
@@oliviasvanity, moreso the fact that it's not even a creature/living
Rats, cats and baseball bats
It's just my my idea, Olivia Gordon speaks better than Hank Green, I like him he's awesome but he's speaking very very fast.
I actually don't like how her pitch goes up and down and it irritates me. But she does speak slower and pronounce her words better than Hank. I enjoy listening to Hank more myself tho
I still speed up Hank to 150% because I think he doesn't speak fast enough. The only youtuber that I don't speed up is yatzee from zero punctuation, he reviews games and speaks fast.
Hank appears... cleaner... less shiny boogers to distract from the presentation. Blow your nose Ol.
@@seanpeacock4290Probably you're an English native speaker or very fluent in English
Never quite understood why it's ethically wrong to experiment on a monkey or ape, but ok to experiment on rats and mice. I understand that the latter breed and produce at a much faster rate, but what's really the difference. Still an animal. Not human.
Does it really matter if there's similarities with us, and other primates? Still, very much not human.
Different animals have different levels of affection and compassion. Also different levels of intelligence and social skills. Some animals are also harder to give a higher quality of life than others. And then of course larger animals will be more expensive.
And it's not that it's ethically wrong for one than the other, but one has more rules and restrictions than the other. Life expectancy is also a major player in determining use.
@@Ian.langford823 We're learning all the time that animals have more compassion, intelligence, social skills, and affection than many humans once expected. I don't feel like we're on very stable footing by assuming they don't have those things, and experimenting on them, even though we know they feel pain and are living individuals.
You make me voracious ... :)))
We really should just stick to human trials and give people adequate compensation for any troubles. Oh wait, that's right. We can't give people healthcare in this country!
I mean, on a lot of stuff, that'd actually be quite an unnecessary risk, and it'd probably disincentivise people from volunteering in the first place. Animal tests help us rule out stuff way before you have to compensate the family of someone who died in a test, which I'd guess not inly involves less suffering for human,s, but is also cheaper
Howiw much compensation do you pay someone who you have just had to dissect all the nerves out of their legs? Such studies have been and beesed to be done to study diabetic neuropathy..which dissolves part of the nerve sheath. Some testung and trials just cannot be done on live subjects..sorry.
You would be accused of targeting the poor for human experimentation. Even if they consented, and were well paid for it, people would get upset.
@@Paul-A01 Because it would be exploitation. Nobody would ever put their own health and safety at risk for a previously untested clinical trial, except people who desperately need money.
Not everyone lives in the US
Let those animals being treated in a human way.
Poor animals...being treated as humans treat themselves.
I hope that machine learning will eventually eleminate the use for animal testing. Edit: Nothing against it, but better if we dont need to.
Wow i am so early it is my first time i am second
Rats arent people.... but some people are rats... (mafia accent)
human trials should be done on heinous convicts, be their only way to truly benefit humanity aside from their deaths.
1st
There are lots of monsters on death-row that would make excellent model organisms. May as well get _some_ good from them. ¬_¬
People on death row are exonerated all the time.
543th!
Humanized mice in so many products! How tragic -- anti-Christian.
But rats are people imo! They're just not human.
#t=5m37s "We still need their help to keep people safe". Yeah, the mice must be really glad to help being tested and killed for our needs. Very bad phrasing in this video. If you want to defend animal testing at least admit how unethical and cruel they are.
First
@Frances Snowflake I see what you're doing
Zzzz...
@Nature * I see everything. It is both a gift and a curse.
she makes me click
She seriously doesn't have a narrator's voice. The downward, raspy inflection at the end of every sentence she says is so distracting.
I agree, though as long as we're not listening to a 20 minute monologue, it's not terrible. On a somewhat related note, I wonder how they choose the people to put on the camera for their channel?
I really struggle to get past it. It really is a noticeable trait and it makes it difficult for me to pay attention to what she's saying. Annoying because she otherwise seems like a nice, charismatic girl.
Why not just use convicted criminals in prison for trials? They've made the choice to be a criminal and therefor should not be considered a part of our society.
Because criminals are constantly being exonerated all the time and the punishment is the time incarcerated. Effects of medical testing can easily impact the individual long after they've served their time and rejoined society.
@@anthonyscott2020, life sentence/death row? He really should've said that.
Around 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted each year in the US alone.
@@chrismagee333, ok what about life sentences/death row. I don't think anyone would agree to use just mundane criminals.
@@mycelia_ow Death row is 5% wrongfully convicted. They reckon there's been about 350 innocent people killed since 1973. Life sentence I'm not sure, but the wrongful conviction rate in all other categories is about 4-5%
This host...you really need to learn to stop upspeaking, everything sounding like a question is like nails on a chalk board?