Which humans?
Is it more ethical to test treatments with potential long-term health complications on research monkeys or... poor people?
Is it more ethical to test treatments with potential long-term health complications on research monkeys or... poor people?
Consenting ones.
It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensation of any kind(besides euthanasia when they're deemed useless), it's also a lot more efficient and reliable, humans aren't 150lbs rats.
People risks their lives and health daily for a salary(or for a greater cause, which would still apply here) , why should this be any different? How is it any different from a firefighter?a bodyguard? a miner? a doctor in an ICU?
No matter how poor you are you have a choice, these animals never got one, there is plenty of times where I would have accepted to be a guinea pig for money.
How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases.
>for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial
Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations
>Why can’t that apply to science on earth?
I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys.
>The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics. >
That's not an actual alternative.
It's like nazis saying they have a good alternative for clinical trials: jews, romanis and gays.
Just because it's affecting a different group of sentient beings doesn't mean it's an actual alternative, it's effectively the same thing: violation of consent, abuse and sequestration at a huge scale.
If we can deliver a potential 1% improvement to the effectiveness of anti-histamines but it requires a dozen monkeys suffering through testing along the way, is that okay… because it’s monkeys?
Your argument is much more applicable to testing on poor people than mine — after all, we need to make progress.
There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal.
If OP and their family AGREE to, then yes, of course, it would be infinitely better than testing on unwilling sentient beings.
Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with.
If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
Are you that bad at contradicting someone?
Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough.
There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.