What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
77 Comments
- ASSASSYN360, on 09/21/2009, -1/+58Rats have better health care than everyone.
- dillhole, on 09/21/2009, -0/+38wherever they land.
- DimensionalPunk, on 09/21/2009, -0/+20I'm quadriplegic, this is like putting a brick on your cars gas pedal and saying, "Look, our cars can drive themselves!". Thanks but no thanks. Find a way to bridge the gap between my severed spinal cord.
- MarkBrent, on 09/20/2009, -2/+21HOPE! FINALLY! This article really makes me have faith that there is a way to bring the paraplegics to walk again!
- DivisibleByZero, on 09/21/2009, -0/+16My pet rat has been sitting on the edge of his wheelchair ever since he heard this news. They really need to hurry up.
- jizizthename, on 09/21/2009, -0/+14you make them of course :D
- DimensionalPunk, on 09/21/2009, -0/+13http://www.quadjoy.com/
- textuality, on 09/21/2009, -1/+14Where exactly do you get paralyzed rats?
- unknownpoltroon, on 09/21/2009, -0/+12I saw an article that said the exact thing in 1994. When the ***** are these things gonna get to the public?
- digjam, on 09/21/2009, -1/+12You paralyze them.
- Rain12913, on 09/21/2009, -0/+9I'm sure you're joking, but they essentially induce whatever condition they're trying to study (whether it's paralysis or brain damage that resembles Alzheimer's).
- matthewkg, on 09/21/2009, -0/+8Just curious, how do you type?
- spriggig, on 09/21/2009, -0/+8That sounds kinda mean. They didn't make Superman walk, they gave him a wheelchair.
- NikoKun, on 09/21/2009, -2/+9Plato, it's a rat.. Most people kill them with horrible snap traps or sticky paper, and wouldn't think twice.. @_@
If we can learn medical stuff from them, I double ethics should even be factored in to using rats. - macmcraeart, on 09/21/2009, -0/+6idk it's pretty harsh to force them to walk right after a spinal cord injury and *****.
- Rain12913, on 09/21/2009, -0/+6I'm a vegetarian (for ethical reasons, among others) and an animal lover, but this sort of research is simply necessary. There is currently no other way that we could possibly conduct these trials, so the only alternative would be to not do them, thus making the development of new medication and medical procedures much more difficult, and at times impossible. I wouldn't have somebody kill an animal for me to eat, but I'd have somebody kill an animal to potentially save human lives in an instant.
- uncleosbert, on 09/21/2009, -0/+5"There are plenty of paralyzed people whom I'm sure would be glad to volunteer for this research... after all, what have they got to lose?"
their lives. i do think that some of the testing we do on animals is awful and cruel and unnecessary.
but not all of it. already we have legislators writing bills to propose testing insecticides on poor children in exchange for some payment and goods. it's not the only example.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_8 ... - bluddystool, on 09/21/2009, -0/+5Well, the ones that achieve the desired results anyway..
- inflation, on 09/21/2009, -1/+6It ***** sucks to be a rat these days.
- eir574, on 09/21/2009, -0/+5" I'm not saying it's always different, but history has shown us that using things on humans because they worked on rats/mice/baboons/etc. can be a bad idea."
So, let me see if I understand. You're against testing on animals because it may lead you to believe that something is safe for humans when it's really not. However, you're in favor of skipping straight to testing on humans?
"Testing on non-human animals is bad science when you're making things for people."
No, testing *only* on animals is bad science. - diggydougie, on 09/21/2009, -0/+4They never report the "oops" results later on. Usually turns out that they can't get a good replication of the initial results and abandon it. Or there are some deadly side effects.
- inactive, on 09/21/2009, -0/+4It's like those cure for cancer stories.Always just around the corner.
- hereticoftruth, on 09/21/2009, -0/+4Oh! If only "Superman" lived long enough to take advantage of that technology! I liked that guy!
- yoshemitzu, on 09/21/2009, -0/+4"I'm not saying it's always different, but history has shown us that using things on humans because they worked on rats/mice/baboons/etc. can be a bad idea."
You seem to suffer from the confused idea that the medical process goes straight from animal testing to the store shelves. Clinical trials are much more involved than that. After months and sometimes years of testing on animals, the drug or treatment must undergo months and sometimes years of controlled, small scale trials, and in many cases, dozens of trials. And then, only after sufficient evidence has been shown that it doesn't cause people to drop dead, it's released as a viable treatment strategy.
And I sympathize with those who think testing on rats is inhumane, but the alternative is not testing at all. Frankly, the rat has a relatively short life cycle, and that's going to be even shorter in the wild, when it's being predated on by everything up the food tree, or it's exposed to any manner of potential natural deaths, including disease. At least this way, we can benefit from the suffering it's going to undergo anyway. - Amnesia10, on 09/21/2009, -1/+5Well they have better health care than most Americans.
- nemojonze, on 09/21/2009, -1/+5Scientists are so mean!
- diggydougie, on 09/21/2009, -0/+3I was going to say UCLA is a private institution but....
UCLA - the University of California, Los Angeles - is a public research university and a member of the Association of American Universities
So unless they used private money for this you are right. - Rain12913, on 09/21/2009, -0/+3We're not talking about product testing on animals, we're talking about testing on animals in order to develop medication and medical procedures, or to perform research that will lead to a better understanding of the human body. This testing IS saving lives. I guarantee that most of the medications you've been on or treatments that you've benefited from wouldn't have been developed without animal testing. The bodies of animals and humans are very similar in certain ways, and this is why the research is successful. If you can think of other options, please enlighten us. Someday we'll be able to do all this testing on computers, but until that day, animals (or humans, of which there are simply not enough of who are willing to consent) are the only option.
- Sewermutt, on 09/21/2009, -0/+3Shocking news!
- Oppie15, on 09/21/2009, -1/+4And I'm sure you could have free health care too if you let the government snap your back, then attempt to repair it. I'm all for science, and they are just rats, but I can't help but wonder how they go about paralyzing them.
- marciot, on 09/21/2009, -0/+3The wording of that title makes it seem a bit cruel. Researcher to paralyzed rat: "Walk, damn it, or I'll waterboard you again!" Couldn't it have read "Scientists Allow Paralyzed Rats Walk After Spinal-Cord Injury" instead?
- verb0s, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2They've been doing it in Ecuador for the past year with Adult Stem Cells.
http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/story/davinci ... - bromac, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2It may, but this is a totally unrelated article. We have an election upcoming in Canada as well, but I won't bore people with it in a thread about walking paraplegic rats.
Maybe you could discuss medical research instead of conspiracy theories? - dchaosdx, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2at some point, UCLA had to put an advertisement on craigslist: "UCLA Lab looking for qualified individual to break the spines of rats. Pay negotiable based on experience."
- demiz23, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2wtf...some constructive criticism at least.
It wasn't supposed to be some stupid pun just a valid point.....
at least refute something I said....
Or does corporate bashing get you buried now?
Maybe it was the sympathy for tortured rats?? - anonymousmedic, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Use a Pithing Needle. :)
- salculd, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2the paralyzed rat factory
- duke, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Spock's Brain - ST-TOS.
- HouseofEl, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Yeah we make jokes but seriously I wish Christopher Reeve had lasted a little longer. There is hope. http://www.christopherreeve.org
- HouseofEl, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2All he could do was try and outlast the red tape and low funding. If you want to turn it into a joke to get diggs, that's your problem.
- captspaulding, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2BUT YOU'RE PLAYING GOD!@@@@!@@!!!!!!!!!!!
/s - Shenaniganer, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Better late than never.
Think about it: If thousands of scientists, engineers, and inventors didn't contribute to progress decades ago, we'd never have the modern lifestyle that we enjoy (and take for granted) today. - mknawabi, on 09/21/2009, -0/+2Rats have better health care than everyone because unlike humans, rats actually live a simple life. They don't willingly eat carcinogens, smoke, drink, or expose themselves to electronic devices that emit (dangerous when prolonged) radio waves.
You guys make it seem like peoples' choices have nothing to do with their health. - ASSASSYN360, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1LMFAO!
- uclaftw, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1the spines were carefully severed during intricate surgeries
- sporkman, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1In the As-Is bin at Love-A-Pet?
- demiz23, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1No one made it seem like choices don't effect health.
The fact that they obviously do is the nature of animal experimentation. - Gareth321, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1My God, that unit is exceedingly basic. The parts should cost no more than $5 to manufacture, and they're asking $750. I suppose you don't have much choice, but that seems criminal.
- diggydougie, on 09/21/2009, -0/+1Rats only live a few years anyway. My condolences.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is