• MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Would be more apt if animals’ physiology was even remotely similar to humans though. Test environments in programming can at least be exact replicas of production environments.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 day ago

      But but it worked on my machine

      In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market.More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4594046/

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s actually really good to hear. It really sucks that the animal component is almost pointless, and it seems to be more unethical to include them in the testing process, but it’s good to hear that at least the safety guardrails were working in the past.

        Seems we just need to rethink how to ethically test on humans from the start, though I worry about letting the current people in charge execute that plan.

        • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Hopefully it also means animal testing isn’t actually that important and can be easily phased out for alternatives.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The good news is that some progress has been made in the US. The semi-recent (2022) FDA modernization act 2.0 removes mandates for animal testing in law and allows other testing methods to be used instead

          There’s another bill (FDA modernization act 3.0) that was just reintroduced a few days ago to not just allow the FDA to use non-animal testing, but to require that the FDA start actually working to allow it and setup pathways, rules, requirements, etc. And prioritize the review of drugs done via approved non-animal testing

          It includes various reporting, safety, etc. requirements laid out so it wouldn’t just be handing it blindly to the current admin

          The 2.0 act was suprisingly bipartisan, so it’s not a given that the 3.0 act would be doomed. Call your house representative and senators to make sure it gets through!

      • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        There’s actual medication that was tested on animals that was completely fine then when it got approved it was given to human women and caused crazy amounts of miscarriages. Different species are not comparable when it comes to medication, testing on animals is almost completely pointless.

        • ReCursing@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Yes they’re not the same. Do you think scientist are unaware of that? It is most certainly not almost completely pointless. Are you?

          • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            You’d be surprised how stubborn some people can be in keeping with older ways of doing things, even more so in academia and the like.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It sometimes feels as if the medical and scientific knowledge of people who are hardline against animal testing at all is exactly that and only that thinking, yes.