Asklemmy

50286 readers

294 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

What prevailing theory in scientific circles do you think is likely to be replaced with a new understanding by 2050? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 4 days ago by tgirlschierke@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

The idea that human pharmaceuticals should be tested on animals before humans. The only real purpose animals serve is cost (you have to pay people to test your stuff and have insurance in case something goes wrong) and to ensure it's not obviously lethal or has permanent side effects before going to human tests, and even then you can't 100% prove it won't be harmful to humans with just an animal test. Dfferent species have wildly different physiologies and biochemistries so an animal test means very little in the context of effects on humans. It's really frustrating to see news outlets take a mouse test result and immediately assume it will work the same way in humans, not to mention the ethical implications. We're already developing alternatives to animal testing and I'm really hoping it goes obsolete within our lifetime.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago

The only real purpose animals serve is cost (you have to pay people to test your stuff and have insurance in case something goes wrong) and to ensure it's not obviously lethal or has permanent side effects before going to human tests,

Holy incredibly wrong.

[–] MalReynolds@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

or as it goes,

mice lie and monkeys exaggerate

It seems likely that simulated testing (in a computer) will be mature by 2050, it's under development now.