If anyone reading this does want to start looking into alternatives to animal testing, I'd recommend looking up the work of faculty in Centers for Alternatives to Animal Testing. I know they have them at Brown and Hopkins. Harvard's stem cell institute also has done some work with disease-in-a-tissue modelling. There's also likely some journals that highlight disease modeling and toxicology testing using iPSCs, so that would also be a good place to start.
I was a member of BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) back in the late eighties. I've had many discussions about animal testing. Some of my dad's friends were university lecturers involved in pharmaceutical research. This one man (who is and was lovely) got so angry with me. He berated me about peaches for over an hour (medical students sometimes practiced surgery on peaches) but I was reading articles about exactly what finally seems to be happening - the technological shift from animal testing to what I understood to be algorithms and computer modelling. Thank you, ?Ali, for appearing to have found the most eligible path through, and out the other side of (soon I hope), the darkness. A mutual path. I wonder if my dad's friend is watching all this unfold. I'm glad of the new iteration of researchers.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
Great video! If I may add something to it, it's the use of non-rodent models in basic research (e.g. zebrafish, worms, etc)! Some questions that can't be tackled with cell research can be answered using those 'in vivo' models too. They are more cost-efficient and can generate faster results. Dealing less pain/suffering can also be an advantage but that is a subject for a whole other video, I guess.
Takeaway: We should all stop supporting factory farming / animal agriculture though. Excellent video and comprehensive discussion around the use of animals for laboratory research, their significance, and the stringent standards implemented.
I have one question: Why aren't the three R's applied to other animals like pigs, cows etc. as well? I mean, I can accept that there is good justification for animal testing, but following from that, it is very much obviously the case that buying meat should be reduced to an absolute minimum, ideally 0 (which is possible most of the time).
Honestly, probably the biggest reason is that there's no real regulation of this issue for the meat industry as compared to the research industry! I do think that individual people/households can use the "Three R's" when considering their own dietary decisions, however - for example, in our house, we eat meat a couple of times a week and eat eggs and dairy products more frequently, but we often look for non-meat protein alternatives when we can.
One of the best solutions for that is to heavily regulate use of antibiotics. Then they'll be forced to keep conditions much better in order to avoid disease.
@@NiHaoMike64 Yeah, I agree, those regulations should be in place, but you'll still have the violence part to deal with, namely the avoidable and unnecessary throatslitting of unconscious animals. In the long run the only way to avoid this unnecessary violence is to basically disallow the slaughter of dogs, pigs, cows etc. unless there are rare exceptions that warrant it (like for example a person with certain diseases and allergies who can only eat meat to survive healthily, then the state should provide that person with nourishment (by slaughtering when no alternatives work), but for virtually everybody else, it's then prohibited and will be prosecuted if somebody slaughters an animal, because it's not necessary to do so). I'm in favor of such measures because what's important for me is: _reducing unnecessary violence toward animals to an absolute minimum._
@@neurotransmissionscan regulations make unnecessary murder however painless humane? It's easy to be vegan in our world. There's no excuses unlike for animal testing
They do though. I actually just did a paper on this. Not only do they have to provide clean and humane living conditions they also have to provide environmental enrichment, including things that promote the animals natural behaviors like play and socialization(so toys, places to dig, etc.) They've actually added a fourth R (responsibility) which covers quality of life for the animals.
I feel it might be off, aside from calling out contradictions in certain people, to follow up concerns about something like euthanasia with what boils down to "They are pests-" "People don't like them anyway", separating it from say, US norms or differing levels of intelligence, many monkey species are pests to villages near their natrual habitat, they are incredibly intelligent, raccoons are often pests here, yet they are fairly complex and intelligent, while pointing out how often there is a waste of life of these animals outside of testing is fair, boiling it down to "they are pests" "they aren't popular", to me, is incredibly off. I don't think the testing you did is bad, yet on the same side of things, I dont believe those arguments are good justifications, maybe I'm off in my thinking, but needless to say, an animals level of intelligence, pain, etc, isn't dictated by if it's a pest in your personal life or if it's not currently a trendy or cute animal in certain cultures, so outside of things like pointing out contradictions or waste of life, bringing it up seems... Pointless, other than trying to convince people it's ok on the basis not of ethics, but on the basis of disgust or dislike of the animal(s) in question.
Agreed, her argument about not wanting to work with cats but having no problem working with mice based on emotional attachment to them essentially just says "well the ethics we abide by are basically all arbitrary anyway, so we should just do what we're each okay with". It completely negates the rest of her argument about how we should seek to minimize the suffering in these lab animals, and nullifies her critique against old scientists performing vivisection. If her views of ethics is that it's a bunch of arbitrary rules we as a society has made up, she has lost any grounding to critique the past treatment of animals, the current treatment of animals in the meat industry, or to justify the valuing of humans over animals since all ethical statements are essentially meaningless.
As far as other people can tell, us with developmental disabilities are always "children". Because "children" aren't REALLY people. People-adjacent, so the REAL can decide what's best for them (which somehow conveniently is always what's better for their superiors). And that's okay, because everyone who went through that as a child definitely hasn't been degraded by the experience. They're totally fine. Better for it, even! ...Right?
It's a cell extarcted from an animal/human and treated in a way that can divide infinitly just like a cancer would do. If you don't treat that cell, it will be unable to divide, and it will die out in a day or so outside of the body.
"Some of these lab animals are treated better than our pets" Ok, if that's the case, would you put your cat through this testing? If it's so much better than how we treat pet animals like dogs and cats, there really shouldn't be any problem with it. Or is it the case that maybe we don't want to subject our pets to these small, mind-numbing environments to get injected with whatever toxic chemical needs to be tested, only to have them be euthanized and discarded when they've outlived their usefulness.
This is awesome how she mentions animal rights and really puts the whole thing into perspective . Ideally maybe we won’t need to use Animal testing one day ..my self who worked in an Animal Lab previously and others are 100% in agreement . It’s a tough field seeing animals getting euthanized after Experiments so constantly and potentially getting attached .
very informative! thank you for sharing your experience and for offering a well constructed vision of the issues whilst allowing the viewer to make up their own mind
Animal research is unfortunately still essential in developing new cancer drugs. I personally put more weight on human life than animal life. And by the way, human cancer drugs are also used by veterinarians to treat cancer in e.g. dogs.
@@ShlongMaster5000 Why? Is it inherently any more valuable than a lion, a dog or an orca? I naturally assume that all of the above are animals that humans have an affinity for.
@@tobbs5410 Yes, a Human life is far more valuable. There is no doubt about it. We Humans have power over all animals because we have escaped the food chain and because WE are Humans. If you really want a rational answer, here it is - We are just better in every way and we have to use everything we have to lead happier lives.
@@ShlongMaster5000 But we aren't "better in every way." An eagle has better eyesight than us. Fish can swim better than us. So what metric are we using here? Is it power? Are those more powerful considered more valuable morally? That doesn't seem right.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
@@train_xc no one's telling you to stop. Just evolve! Obviously it's all changing. Especially with AI. Are you still listening to music with an 8 track tape? Again , Dr. Shiva Ayadurai explains it all in his videos of Cytosolve. Too bad for people like you who don't want to listen. Most importantly too bad for the animals who are needlessly suffering.
@@declanmurphy417 not really in my eyes but humans do play an important role your right it’s just that we can like maybe that humanity can put a little more empathy to the stuff they do to the animals
Overall a great video, but that passage with the bible quote was very strange. You presented that as if it would hold any weight, and not as a citation of the argument from a neutral position. (you may have intended to, but it did not seem neutral). That part just seemed a little bit misplaced since you didn't go anywhere with it.
It was also unclear if she intended that verse to be seen a defense or critique of animal testing. She talks about how a lot of these scientists did horrific testing on animals and even human children, then said a lot of them held to a judeo-Christian worldview, but then stated that a literal reading of the verse implies we have a moral responsibility to use and treat animals well. So what's the point of the verse then? Is she saying these scientists were influenced by the bible to be abusive towards animals or that they were abusive towards animals in spite of what their bible taught?
This is a great take, thank you. It seems like there’s so much misinformation about using animals for research. I blindly supported such sentiments before becoming a biology student. Cosmetics are one thing but cancer research or vaccine development is a different story. Wish technology would move faster so we could fully switch to non animal methods but that’s just not the world we’re in yet 😕
Before anyone reads this, I'm talking about live animals here, not cell cultures or anything. I have a big problem with the unreflective arrogance humans have to think themselves worth more than non-human animals. There is no coherent or logical argument that can be made proving or even suggesting this. For this reason alone, animal research, animal testing and animal farming should not exist. We as a species are stuck in a "might makes right" morality. We have dominion over other animals and therefore we use the power we have to torture and kill them, for the purpose of entertainment, sensory pleasure (food) or (medical) research. While medical research is the least bad of those option, it still leaves the question why other sentient beings should have to suffer and die for us. What makes us worth more? Until anyone can give a trait that has actual moral value which makes us morally different from non-human animals, we should not be allowed to kill or harm them in any way, even if their "involuntary sacrifice" might save human lives. After all, people don't steal toddler or small kids who can't defend themselves and inject potentially dangerous substances into them. Violating the rights of an individual for the (potential) gain of another individual can never be morally justified. Saving yourself from a disease is not a basic right, but not being physically abused and killed is, as well as your freedom. Despite this pretty important ethical argument, there are several medical organisations that say animal testing is not needed and should be fazed out due to the ethics of it. While I do think that your discussion about ethics is important, I don't agree with you. So I would want to ask you this question: Do you think that humans are worth more than other animals? And if yes, why? If you think that and want it to become a maxim of action, you need to be able to state at least one morally relevant difference.
It is essentially group dynamics, we value those of our own group above others, in this case those of the same species, and as thus use power to decide what we do based on what is convenient first and foremost for us, which is a selfish self serving act, that's the problem with how we make our rights, they are born out of a need for exclusion, and as thus they are at its core discriminatory This is extends all the way in the hierarchy of relation which in turn makes up the basis of privilege, so then after getting the species grouping out of the way you will have nationality, then income, then age, then ethnicity, and then gender In this pyramid of rights where do non mammalian animals enter? what about plants? We can extent the question, and ask if there are some humans worth more than others? and while the ideal answer is no, in practice we all know that answer would be a lie For example, lets take a trans woman, that is of African descent, that is old, that is poor, that lives in a developing country, and ask ourselves if she even has the same rights as every other human, chances are she doesn't, hell other humans probable don't even acknowledge her as a woman And that's withing our same species, but for someone that is in a minority group, with little power and as thus outside the sphere of privilege that is having access to legal rights And this hypothetical human, should not be in that position, nor should be the animals we use for sustenance and research I think that when we cover these topics the very least we should do is to be honest all the things we do to animals are barbaric, we certainly would not be doing it to other humans, and we do, it is always the ones least privileged, we don't really need to wait 2 centuries for someone to look back and say it, we can say it now, and start working towards moving away from it, so that at least we can reduce the discussion to "yes we know it is bad, but at the moment we don't have other options, and it all boils down to survival and us vs them"
@@Doomroar While you do a pretty good job at describing a problem I'm seeing, I want to add two things to this. 1) We do have other options. We have the option to not break or try to not brake ethical rights. 2) In my initial comment I was talking about certain aspects of an entity which are important for moral consideration. Most humans would agree that those would include: ability to feel pain, general sentience, a will to live, etc... Those do not exist in plants. I'm quite able to find a difference between animals and plants that is important for moral consideration, but yes, the further we look into this topic, the more fuzzy the lines become. But we know that the lines are not dividing humans and other mammals, fish or birds for example.
What are you doing? Saying that it’s hard to get funding our tax dollars are funneled directly, into These college and other studies all they gotta do is write the paperwork
Save the animals!! Dr. Shiva Ayadurai invented technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Thank you Dr. Do you have stop animal testing Cytosolve bumper stickers?
How can she in good conscience sit and talk about killing mice like it’s no big deal? So many researchers like this only care about their work and doesen’t give a s.. about the animals. However I do acknowledge that animal research has contributed greatly to science through the years, but now it’s 2023 and we do know better. Better options are available. And it says a great deal about your ethics and intergrity as a scientist. Oh, and I do not think that the one mice killed cares that «the lowest number possible was used».
There is not enough money in research as it is. Science has enough problems with funding, corporations skewing the reaserch results and scientifically illiterate people. And this is not one of them. There are not so many better techniques and most of them are really expensive. These sacrifices are necessary for the betterment of science. Also, why there aren't enough talks about how cigarettes are tested on animals? Like really, suffering for the sake of a useless things, that creates pollution and suffering to humans too. But a lot of pretentious criteria have arised for science. It is nonsensical.
@@isakristiansen7977 Wow, that was a easy way to Say: "I cannot understand nuance, therefore, I think there are feelings involved". I don't hate animals. I have saved and helped significantly more than you think. I really cared about them and I think they are another field of understudied science. I was surrounded them growing up and participated in their care more the most people ever happen to be. How about letting your feelings aside and use arguments? As you demonstrated, you are not capable of realizing your bias in this matter. You just assumed I am an animal hater because I do not fit your criteria of ”animal-loving opinion”.
Do you follow a vegan lifestyle? Debating against animal research is tricky unless one embraces veganism because both meat enthusiasts and researchers use animals for distinct reasons - the former for enjoyment and sustenance, and the latter for scientific progress. In essence, treating animals as a means to an end isn't exclusive to researchers; it also applies to meat eaters.
No it isn't. They have full emotions and families and rights to fulfill their God given purpose. We can use some common sense. Example. My daughter caught 2 mice in a jar. They held each others hand and put one hand on the glass. Fear was in their face and pleading toward assume device. She took a picture then set them free outside where escape seem safe.
@zykotek3091 plants have emotions too and interpret their life differently. Research about plant life. For instance it’s scientific claim that the grass screams when you cut it and houseplants indicate they have favor people with recognition. Any idea how to live in this world full of life?
@zykotek3091 how trees talk to each other/ Susanne simard - ted talk. Plus there’s more scientific research about plants be very much alive and yes feeling even though different from us in our limited humble state.
@@ShlongMaster5000 human being play a special role in the order of life especially when focusing on balance which it seems a difficult task through lack of...
@@dlp4462 Survival of the fittest bruh. Humans are out of the food chain and we now control it. For that reason, we need to make human life better. A human life is worth a lot more than that of some emotional meat
unsubscribed so fast. no animal should have to live in a lab. they deserve to be free. just because you had a good experience with animal testing doesnt mean that the bad testing is an exception, or just a few bad apples. anima testing is inherently cruel.
Though I agree there are bigger issues when it comes to animal rights, like the already mentioned meat industry (also dairy and eggs), I still fundamentally disagree with you that it's ok to use animals in research. Because if we wouldn't do it to a human, why is it ok to do to an animal? I have to ask, what is true of animals that if true of humans would make it permissible to subject those humans to the same experiments. If perhaps inteligence is the factor, would it be ok to experiment on mentally disabled humans with similar levels of inteligence as those animals? And if there is nothing we can come up with, then we simply discriminate based on species, which is just as arbitrary as discriminating based on race. There has to be something more to it than the fact that the individual belongs to my own species, right? I can recommend the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, if you find this topic interesting.
The meat industry stuff is the platonic ideal of whataboutism Like yeah, we might be doing something bad, but look! Someone is doing something that might be worse! Go busy yourself with them and come back when you're done. Nevermind the fact that it's a lot less plausible than you'll be able to stop those people anytime soon.
This is like when companies try to explain that they can't get you an affordable product without slave labor Like, if I was willing to sacrifice ethics for economics I'd be a career criminal. Or a CEO. Or a politician.
@@ShlongMaster5000 Both practices involve exploitation of sentient beings, discrimination based on morally irrelevant traits, and an oppressor mindset that views one group as superior to the other. Grapes was comparing the injustice, not the victims. What's your issue with the comparison? Be specific.
@@sensationbillion Slavery worsens the quality of human life and leads to the suffering of a lot of innocent people. Animal testing on the other hand, helps us develop better drugs and improve the quality of human life. Not the same. Yes, the animals are sentient too but I have no reason to care about them. If sacrifice of an animal can help save the life of a human, its worth it. Let me tell you one thing. I do not like discussing morality because it is subjective while facts are not. The goal of every species is to survive for as long as it can. The final stage of evolution is extinction anyway. Slavery limits potential and weakens the human race while animal testing works in our favor.
If anyone reading this does want to start looking into alternatives to animal testing, I'd recommend looking up the work of faculty in Centers for Alternatives to Animal Testing. I know they have them at Brown and Hopkins. Harvard's stem cell institute also has done some work with disease-in-a-tissue modelling. There's also likely some journals that highlight disease modeling and toxicology testing using iPSCs, so that would also be a good place to start.
I was a member of BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) back in the late eighties. I've had many discussions about animal testing. Some of my dad's friends were university lecturers involved in pharmaceutical research. This one man (who is and was lovely) got so angry with me. He berated me about peaches for over an hour (medical students sometimes practiced surgery on peaches) but I was reading articles about exactly what finally seems to be happening - the technological shift from animal testing to what I understood to be algorithms and computer modelling. Thank you, ?Ali, for appearing to have found the most eligible path through, and out the other side of (soon I hope), the darkness. A mutual path. I wonder if my dad's friend is watching all this unfold. I'm glad of the new iteration of researchers.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
Great video! If I may add something to it, it's the use of non-rodent models in basic research (e.g. zebrafish, worms, etc)! Some questions that can't be tackled with cell research can be answered using those 'in vivo' models too. They are more cost-efficient and can generate faster results. Dealing less pain/suffering can also be an advantage but that is a subject for a whole other video, I guess.
Fish and invertebrates don't feel less pain, they have nervous systems and sensations too.
I’m curious how beneficial surviving off air. I heard there are people who don’t eat. They just live off air. I admit I find that hard to believe
Takeaway: We should all stop supporting factory farming / animal agriculture though.
Excellent video and comprehensive discussion around the use of animals for laboratory research, their significance, and the stringent standards implemented.
I have one question: Why aren't the three R's applied to other animals like pigs, cows etc. as well? I mean, I can accept that there is good justification for animal testing, but following from that, it is very much obviously the case that buying meat should be reduced to an absolute minimum, ideally 0 (which is possible most of the time).
I think I can answer that. Lobbyism, corruption and money. And potentially and possibly Christian fundamentalists being angry.
Honestly, probably the biggest reason is that there's no real regulation of this issue for the meat industry as compared to the research industry! I do think that individual people/households can use the "Three R's" when considering their own dietary decisions, however - for example, in our house, we eat meat a couple of times a week and eat eggs and dairy products more frequently, but we often look for non-meat protein alternatives when we can.
One of the best solutions for that is to heavily regulate use of antibiotics. Then they'll be forced to keep conditions much better in order to avoid disease.
@@NiHaoMike64
Yeah, I agree, those regulations should be in place, but you'll still have the violence part to deal with, namely the avoidable and unnecessary throatslitting of unconscious animals. In the long run the only way to avoid this unnecessary violence is to basically disallow the slaughter of dogs, pigs, cows etc. unless there are rare exceptions that warrant it (like for example a person with certain diseases and allergies who can only eat meat to survive healthily, then the state should provide that person with nourishment (by slaughtering when no alternatives work), but for virtually everybody else, it's then prohibited and will be prosecuted if somebody slaughters an animal, because it's not necessary to do so). I'm in favor of such measures because what's important for me is: _reducing unnecessary violence toward animals to an absolute minimum._
@@neurotransmissionscan regulations make unnecessary murder however painless humane? It's easy to be vegan in our world. There's no excuses unlike for animal testing
If they cared so much about these lab animals mental stimulation and decently size cages would be a must
They do though. I actually just did a paper on this. Not only do they have to provide clean and humane living conditions they also have to provide environmental enrichment, including things that promote the animals natural behaviors like play and socialization(so toys, places to dig, etc.) They've actually added a fourth R (responsibility) which covers quality of life for the animals.
I feel it might be off, aside from calling out contradictions in certain people, to follow up concerns about something like euthanasia with what boils down to "They are pests-" "People don't like them anyway", separating it from say, US norms or differing levels of intelligence, many monkey species are pests to villages near their natrual habitat, they are incredibly intelligent, raccoons are often pests here, yet they are fairly complex and intelligent, while pointing out how often there is a waste of life of these animals outside of testing is fair, boiling it down to "they are pests" "they aren't popular", to me, is incredibly off. I don't think the testing you did is bad, yet on the same side of things, I dont believe those arguments are good justifications, maybe I'm off in my thinking, but needless to say, an animals level of intelligence, pain, etc, isn't dictated by if it's a pest in your personal life or if it's not currently a trendy or cute animal in certain cultures, so outside of things like pointing out contradictions or waste of life, bringing it up seems... Pointless, other than trying to convince people it's ok on the basis not of ethics, but on the basis of disgust or dislike of the animal(s) in question.
Agreed, her argument about not wanting to work with cats but having no problem working with mice based on emotional attachment to them essentially just says "well the ethics we abide by are basically all arbitrary anyway, so we should just do what we're each okay with". It completely negates the rest of her argument about how we should seek to minimize the suffering in these lab animals, and nullifies her critique against old scientists performing vivisection. If her views of ethics is that it's a bunch of arbitrary rules we as a society has made up, she has lost any grounding to critique the past treatment of animals, the current treatment of animals in the meat industry, or to justify the valuing of humans over animals since all ethical statements are essentially meaningless.
Great video, I learned a lot
Btw there's some flickering a few pixels wide in the bottom and right edges in the parts recorded on your camera
I saw it too. I thought it was just my computer.
8:18 AND ADULTS
And have they asked you to prevent it? Do they want that themselves?
As far as other people can tell, us with developmental disabilities are always "children".
Because "children" aren't REALLY people. People-adjacent, so the REAL can decide what's best for them (which somehow conveniently is always what's better for their superiors). And that's okay, because everyone who went through that as a child definitely hasn't been degraded by the experience. They're totally fine. Better for it, even!
...Right?
You can't drop all those cool names without explaining them. What is an immortal cell line?
It's a cell extarcted from an animal/human and treated in a way that can divide infinitly just like a cancer would do. If you don't treat that cell, it will be unable to divide, and it will die out in a day or so outside of the body.
Your videos are always a pleasure to watch. Thank you, and props to you for tackling this hard topic.
Shit
"Some of these lab animals are treated better than our pets" Ok, if that's the case, would you put your cat through this testing? If it's so much better than how we treat pet animals like dogs and cats, there really shouldn't be any problem with it. Or is it the case that maybe we don't want to subject our pets to these small, mind-numbing environments to get injected with whatever toxic chemical needs to be tested, only to have them be euthanized and discarded when they've outlived their usefulness.
Many people would give up their cats for research tho.
This is awesome how she mentions animal rights and really puts the whole thing into perspective .
Ideally maybe we won’t need to use Animal testing one day ..my self who worked in an Animal Lab previously and others are 100% in agreement .
It’s a tough field seeing animals getting euthanized after Experiments so constantly and potentially getting attached .
very informative! thank you for sharing your experience and for offering a well constructed vision of the issues whilst allowing the viewer to make up their own mind
Amazing video thank you 🫶🏻.
“Free access to water”.
As if in other instances, they have to pay for it. Lol.
Do you think a tiny mice in nature get free access to water all the time?
Animal research is unfortunately still essential in developing new cancer drugs. I personally put more weight on human life than animal life. And by the way, human cancer drugs are also used by veterinarians to treat cancer in e.g. dogs.
All animal life? Even dogs? Or lions?
@@tobbs5410 A human life is far more valuable. Yes
@@ShlongMaster5000 Why? Is it inherently any more valuable than a lion, a dog or an orca? I naturally assume that all of the above are animals that humans have an affinity for.
@@tobbs5410 Yes, a Human life is far more valuable. There is no doubt about it. We Humans have power over all animals because we have escaped the food chain and because WE are Humans. If you really want a rational answer, here it is - We are just better in every way and we have to use everything we have to lead happier lives.
@@ShlongMaster5000 But we aren't "better in every way." An eagle has better eyesight than us. Fish can swim better than us. So what metric are we using here? Is it power? Are those more powerful considered more valuable morally? That doesn't seem right.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
The problem is the knowledge to create computational model comes from animal testing
@@train_xc the knowledge is already there - so stop the animal testing already. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai extensively explains this in his videos.
@@MM-qp4pd the knowledge is ever changing. If we stop today, there will be no more effective cancer drug or other drugs
@@train_xc no one's telling you to stop. Just evolve! Obviously it's all changing. Especially with AI. Are you still listening to music with an 8 track tape? Again , Dr. Shiva Ayadurai explains it all in his videos of Cytosolve. Too bad for people like you who don't want to listen. Most importantly too bad for the animals who are needlessly suffering.
@@MM-qp4pd well I guess you’re specialist in drug research
Animals matter😢
people matter more
@@declanmurphy417 not really in my eyes but humans do play an important role your right it’s just that we can like maybe that humanity can put a little more empathy to the stuff they do to the animals
Not as much as Humans.
@@janiegregory834 Does not benefit the human race
This is my new favorite channel ❤
Overall a great video, but that passage with the bible quote was very strange.
You presented that as if it would hold any weight, and not as a citation of the argument from a neutral position.
(you may have intended to, but it did not seem neutral).
That part just seemed a little bit misplaced since you didn't go anywhere with it.
It was also unclear if she intended that verse to be seen a defense or critique of animal testing. She talks about how a lot of these scientists did horrific testing on animals and even human children, then said a lot of them held to a judeo-Christian worldview, but then stated that a literal reading of the verse implies we have a moral responsibility to use and treat animals well. So what's the point of the verse then? Is she saying these scientists were influenced by the bible to be abusive towards animals or that they were abusive towards animals in spite of what their bible taught?
what a lovely lady excellent presentation
This is a great take, thank you. It seems like there’s so much misinformation about using animals for research. I blindly supported such sentiments before becoming a biology student. Cosmetics are one thing but cancer research or vaccine development is a different story. Wish technology would move faster so we could fully switch to non animal methods but that’s just not the world we’re in yet 😕
0:05 UR NOT BRILLIANT UR MONSTERS
A great scientist of today!
Put very well.
Not right, but responsibility.
It's good we need to stop with testing on animals
Then test on what???
Before anyone reads this, I'm talking about live animals here, not cell cultures or anything.
I have a big problem with the unreflective arrogance humans have to think themselves worth more than non-human animals. There is no coherent or logical argument that can be made proving or even suggesting this. For this reason alone, animal research, animal testing and animal farming should not exist. We as a species are stuck in a "might makes right" morality. We have dominion over other animals and therefore we use the power we have to torture and kill them, for the purpose of entertainment, sensory pleasure (food) or (medical) research. While medical research is the least bad of those option, it still leaves the question why other sentient beings should have to suffer and die for us. What makes us worth more? Until anyone can give a trait that has actual moral value which makes us morally different from non-human animals, we should not be allowed to kill or harm them in any way, even if their "involuntary sacrifice" might save human lives. After all, people don't steal toddler or small kids who can't defend themselves and inject potentially dangerous substances into them. Violating the rights of an individual for the (potential) gain of another individual can never be morally justified. Saving yourself from a disease is not a basic right, but not being physically abused and killed is, as well as your freedom.
Despite this pretty important ethical argument, there are several medical organisations that say animal testing is not needed and should be fazed out due to the ethics of it.
While I do think that your discussion about ethics is important, I don't agree with you. So I would want to ask you this question: Do you think that humans are worth more than other animals? And if yes, why? If you think that and want it to become a maxim of action, you need to be able to state at least one morally relevant difference.
It is essentially group dynamics, we value those of our own group above others, in this case those of the same species, and as thus use power to decide what we do based on what is convenient first and foremost for us, which is a selfish self serving act, that's the problem with how we make our rights, they are born out of a need for exclusion, and as thus they are at its core discriminatory
This is extends all the way in the hierarchy of relation which in turn makes up the basis of privilege, so then after getting the species grouping out of the way you will have nationality, then income, then age, then ethnicity, and then gender
In this pyramid of rights where do non mammalian animals enter? what about plants?
We can extent the question, and ask if there are some humans worth more than others? and while the ideal answer is no, in practice we all know that answer would be a lie
For example, lets take a trans woman, that is of African descent, that is old, that is poor, that lives in a developing country, and ask ourselves if she even has the same rights as every other human, chances are she doesn't, hell other humans probable don't even acknowledge her as a woman
And that's withing our same species, but for someone that is in a minority group, with little power and as thus outside the sphere of privilege that is having access to legal rights
And this hypothetical human, should not be in that position, nor should be the animals we use for sustenance and research
I think that when we cover these topics the very least we should do is to be honest all the things we do to animals are barbaric, we certainly would not be doing it to other humans, and we do, it is always the ones least privileged, we don't really need to wait 2 centuries for someone to look back and say it, we can say it now, and start working towards moving away from it, so that at least we can reduce the discussion to "yes we know it is bad, but at the moment we don't have other options, and it all boils down to survival and us vs them"
@@Doomroar While you do a pretty good job at describing a problem I'm seeing, I want to add two things to this.
1) We do have other options. We have the option to not break or try to not brake ethical rights.
2) In my initial comment I was talking about certain aspects of an entity which are important for moral consideration. Most humans would agree that those would include: ability to feel pain, general sentience, a will to live, etc... Those do not exist in plants. I'm quite able to find a difference between animals and plants that is important for moral consideration, but yes, the further we look into this topic, the more fuzzy the lines become. But we know that the lines are not dividing humans and other mammals, fish or birds for example.
Yeah human more worth than animal.
@@toobskuiks116 then prove it, should be easy
@@feedback1204 yup: human hav soul, animal do not
What are you doing? Saying that it’s hard to get funding our tax dollars are funneled directly, into
These college and other studies all they gotta do is write the paperwork
Save the animals!! Dr. Shiva Ayadurai invented technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Thank you Dr. Do you have stop animal testing Cytosolve bumper stickers?
How can she in good conscience sit and talk about killing mice like it’s no big deal? So many researchers like this only care about their work and doesen’t give a s.. about the animals. However I do acknowledge that animal research has contributed greatly to science through the years, but now it’s 2023 and we do know better. Better options are available. And it says a great deal about your ethics and intergrity as a scientist.
Oh, and I do not think that the one mice killed cares that «the lowest number possible was used».
There is not enough money in research as it is. Science has enough problems with funding, corporations skewing the reaserch results and scientifically illiterate people. And this is not one of them. There are not so many better techniques and most of them are really expensive.
These sacrifices are necessary for the betterment of science.
Also, why there aren't enough talks about how cigarettes are tested on animals? Like really, suffering for the sake of a useless things, that creates pollution and suffering to humans too. But a lot of pretentious criteria have arised for science. It is nonsensical.
@@SannaJankarin Wow, that was a lot of words for «I hate animals».
@@isakristiansen7977 Wow, that was a easy way to Say: "I cannot understand nuance, therefore, I think there are feelings involved".
I don't hate animals. I have saved and helped significantly more than you think. I really cared about them and I think they are another field of understudied science.
I was surrounded them growing up and participated in their care more the most people ever happen to be.
How about letting your feelings aside and use arguments? As you demonstrated, you are not capable of realizing your bias in this matter. You just assumed I am an animal hater because I do not fit your criteria of ”animal-loving opinion”.
Do you follow a vegan lifestyle? Debating against animal research is tricky unless one embraces veganism because both meat enthusiasts and researchers use animals for distinct reasons - the former for enjoyment and sustenance, and the latter for scientific progress. In essence, treating animals as a means to an end isn't exclusive to researchers; it also applies to meat eaters.
Argument to emotion+Ad hominem+argument without merit
No it isn't. They have full emotions and families and rights to fulfill their God given purpose. We can use some common sense. Example. My daughter caught 2 mice in a jar. They held each others hand and put one hand on the glass. Fear was in their face and pleading toward assume device. She took a picture then set them free outside where escape seem safe.
@zykotek3091 plants have emotions too and interpret their life differently. Research about plant life. For instance it’s scientific claim that the grass screams when you cut it and houseplants indicate they have favor people with recognition. Any idea how to live in this world full of life?
@zykotek3091 how trees talk to each other/ Susanne simard - ted talk. Plus there’s more scientific research about plants be very much alive and yes feeling even though different from us in our limited humble state.
But a human life is worth more
@@ShlongMaster5000 human being play a special role in the order of life especially when focusing on balance which it seems a difficult task through lack of...
@@dlp4462 Survival of the fittest bruh. Humans are out of the food chain and we now control it. For that reason, we need to make human life better. A human life is worth a lot more than that of some emotional meat
unsubscribed so fast. no animal should have to live in a lab. they deserve to be free. just because you had a good experience with animal testing doesnt mean that the bad testing is an exception, or just a few bad apples. anima testing is inherently cruel.
How would you like your medication to be tested for toxicity then?
Girl, bye. No animal should be living in anyone's house either, yet here we are where 1/4 of America has a pet.
Plenty evil people in prisons. Use them for research instead of innocent animals who have no voice.
say sike right now holy shit
Human rights is a thing ma lady.
Falsely Imprisoned people:
Though I agree there are bigger issues when it comes to animal rights, like the already mentioned meat industry (also dairy and eggs), I still fundamentally disagree with you that it's ok to use animals in research.
Because if we wouldn't do it to a human, why is it ok to do to an animal?
I have to ask, what is true of animals that if true of humans would make it permissible to subject those humans to the same experiments.
If perhaps inteligence is the factor, would it be ok to experiment on mentally disabled humans with similar levels of inteligence as those animals?
And if there is nothing we can come up with, then we simply discriminate based on species, which is just as arbitrary as discriminating based on race. There has to be something more to it than the fact that the individual belongs to my own species, right?
I can recommend the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, if you find this topic interesting.
The meat industry stuff is the platonic ideal of whataboutism
Like yeah, we might be doing something bad, but look! Someone is doing something that might be worse! Go busy yourself with them and come back when you're done. Nevermind the fact that it's a lot less plausible than you'll be able to stop those people anytime soon.
Do you want new cancer drugs?
That is because that is how the world works. The purpose of a species is to care for itself and nothing else.
Would you say the same about humans?
Human lives matter
This is like when companies try to explain that they can't get you an affordable product without slave labor
Like, if I was willing to sacrifice ethics for economics I'd be a career criminal. Or a CEO. Or a politician.
@@amazinggrapes3045 Did you seriously just compare animal testing to slave labor ?
@@ShlongMaster5000 Both practices involve exploitation of sentient beings, discrimination based on morally irrelevant traits, and an oppressor mindset that views one group as superior to the other. Grapes was comparing the injustice, not the victims. What's your issue with the comparison? Be specific.
@@sensationbillion Slavery worsens the quality of human life and leads to the suffering of a lot of innocent people. Animal testing on the other hand, helps us develop better drugs and improve the quality of human life. Not the same. Yes, the animals are sentient too but I have no reason to care about them. If sacrifice of an animal can help save the life of a human, its worth it.
Let me tell you one thing. I do not like discussing morality because it is subjective while facts are not. The goal of every species is to survive for as long as it can. The final stage of evolution is extinction anyway. Slavery limits potential and weakens the human race while animal testing works in our favor.