homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » human test subjects (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: human test subjects
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 07:56      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/chemical-testing/

This sounds horrible, but I am for the use of human volunteers as “guinea pigs” in pesticide exposure tests.

Really!

Using in-silico and actual lab rats to first test pesticides is a definite first step but if you ban human testing in the laboratories, the first time humans will be exposed to new pesticides will not be in a controlled lab, but in the real world.

This article makes it sound like scientists are doing tests to determine the LD50 level using human subjects.

Rat livers are not human livers (as goes for the rest of anatomy). Livers of different species metabolize chemicals in different ways. While you can get a good idea of what will happen, you cannot guarantee what a safe level of exposure of a chemical for humans is without human testing.

There are many things that have no safe level in humans.

These things shouldn’t be used in pesticides.

The safe level of a pesticide in humans is a must before a product hits the market.

(The safe level of pesticides in children can be extrapolated from the healthy adult data, no dosing of children is necessary.)


What does really disturb me though was that these paid volunteers thought they were in a drug test and not a pesticide test. They should have been told exactly what they were being given and had the opportunity to review the animal trial data first.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 08:13      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Okay Students grab a sheet of paper and number from one to one thousand!!


____ WTF.


____ With full disclosure, and lifetime medical coverage for any misadventure go for it.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 08:24      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ Okay Students grab a sheet of paper and number from one to one thousand!!


____ WTF.


____ With full disclosure, and lifetime medical coverage for any misadventure go for it.

full medical for life, forget it.

this is a risk for any person

I would never do it myself, I have heard horror stories.

but I am arguing it is nessasary.


It would be nice if this worked like a jury duty you couldn't get out of.

But second best is to pay down and out people a few hundred ( here its a few thousand as there are less poor here) to pop a pill and hope they don't go blind.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 08:31      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I favor the Nuremburg Code. I am deeply shocked and horrified that these shenanigans were even allowed in the US, especially if informed consent was violated. But, then again, it was a Bush era decision so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

From wikipedia (bolding mine):
quote:

The ten points are, (all from United States National Institutes of Health) [1]

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.


2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

I am aware that the only difference between a drug and a poison is the dosage. It's one thing to test a drug that might treat or, if you're very lucky, cure a disease. It's another to just give people pesticide and watch for the dose that does them harm. But even if you can square with the bit where you are just poisoning people to see what will happen, there's the still the whole issue of informed consent: you have to tell them you're poisoning them with pesticide just to see what will happen and the follow-up to the result is better information on the MSDS and pretty words for the PR flaks.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 09:48      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
It would be nice if this worked like a jury duty you couldn't get out of.

But second best is to pay down and out people a few hundred ( here its a few thousand as there are less poor here) to pop a pill and hope they don't go blind.

*speechless*

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 11:10      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
It would be nice if this worked like a jury duty you couldn't get out of.

But second best is to pay down and out people a few hundred ( here its a few thousand as there are less poor here) to pop a pill and hope they don't go blind.

*speechless*
Well, what is your solution? How do we test people. I agree entirely with everything xanth posted. but if you pay volunteers to test something, then you will be taking advantage of the down and out who are much more likely to go for somethind like this.

I mean, if you have an idea, I would be very interested.


Don't get me wrong, I believe what the pesticide industry did was horrible and i am not supporting in any way thier deception, but from the artcle, it seemed the authors want to completly ban human testing of pesticides. which I would be against.


And if you do support banning companies from paying people to have pesticides tested on them, I would say you should propose a better solution first.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 12:21      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Two thoughts, Hitlers Final Solution, & Chemical Ali. look at their data and extrapolate.

____ This is too slippery to walk on.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 12:40      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ashitaka wrote:
Well, what is your solution?

We could try something really radical like reducing our reliance on pesticides rather than coming up with new ones to unleash on the world. Who knows... maybe we'd even see a reduction in the increase in autism.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 12:41      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:

And if you do support banning companies from paying people to have pesticides tested on them, I would say you should propose a better solution first.

Make it voluntary. The only compensation is medical coverage, both during the test and for any lingering after-effects. If disability results, compensate for lost earnings. If no one signs up, well, tough shit. You're just going to have to make some guesses and err on the side of caution or just not put that crap on the market to start with.

But all of that side-steps the issue of whether or not testing pesticides on people under any circumstances is up to the Nuremburg Code at all. If we caught The Bad People doing something like this, how would we react? Or, more to the point, how DID we react?

I personally have some very hard ethical lines. Producing and testing things designed only to kill is on the wrong side of one of my lines. Testing on humans just to see if you'll hurt them, with no further follow-up (these pesticide tests are roughly equivalent to a Phase I clinical trial, but there's no Phase II "Will it make a patient better" for pesticide experiments) is another line. If you're that concerned about the human toxicity, then just don't produce the molecule.

Needless to say, I've plotted my career path so that I don't even have to approach these lines.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 23, 2010 15:48      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Now is when I drop the Bomb. In 1967 I found out that two years prior every recruit that passed through the Great Lakes Navy Boot Camp had been part of a Voluntary Medical test. It states in my medical file that I was told that I was participating in live virus studies. The testing was using the Measles strain to see if it could be used in BioWarFare. So much for informed consent.

____ ASH, go do things to your self. Oh yeah I trust the Government.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 00:42      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if it is the correct course of action to develop an agricultural path which requires no or much less pesticides, I have two problems.

1) What about people in third world countries, who requrie teh larger yields harsh pesticides give to feed thier families.

2)If we start down the path to not using pesticides, a first step would be to start using less harsh or biologically engineered pesticides. That would mean we need new, less harsh pesticides, and they need to be tested before entering the real world.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 00:49      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
It would be nice if this worked like a jury duty you couldn't get out of.

But second best is to pay down and out people a few hundred ( here its a few thousand as there are less poor here) to pop a pill and hope they don't go blind.

*speechless*
I feel I must explain.

Of the two methods I have mentioned here, one is the way things are currently done. The poor bear the burden of this method, but it is voluntary.

The other is paramount to a military Draft. which has the benifit that the rich as well as the poor bear the burden, but it is not voluntary.

Xanth's method, is is voluntry and the poor would not bear an undo burden, but as she mentioned, maybe very little would get done.


There are no easy choices in this. That is why I brought it up for discussion.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 00:59      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ Two thoughts, Hitlers Final Solution, & Chemical Ali. look at their data and extrapolate.

____ This is too slippery to walk on.

Don't pull the H bomb out here please. I am only speaking of legitamate scientific tests that would absolutely need to be done before a new chemical enters our food chain.


Do we not alow any new pesticides and gfrandfather all the old ones in?

If we do tsing on humans, how do we do it so it is fair?

Would more people suffer from doing nothing?


I chose pesticides because the answers are not as clear cut as say oncology research.

For every penis pill on the market they did the same thing, paying people to take it and see what happens.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 03:07      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Yeah and some A-----e thought it was legitament to test every Sailor that passed through boot camp, don't try and justify the reason.

____It was done, without informed consent


____ So go take your high and mighty good for humanity reason and shove them where the SUN doesn't shine.

____ I was hoping that this thread would die quickly, but no some clown has to try to justify an immoral action.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 03:46      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who is trying to justify uninformed testing on people?


The argument that because people in the past who did testing on humans were horribly unethical therefor we should never do testing on humans ever again is in my opinion untenable.

Should every pharma company and any other company that develops chemicals for human use just close thier R&D labs now? Or should a civil informed discusion take place on what needed and what is ethical?

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 04:04      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Look in a mirror

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 04:24      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ Look in a mirror

from my first post
quote:
What does really disturb me though was that these paid volunteers thought they were in a drug test and not a pesticide test. They should have been told exactly what they were being given and had the opportunity to review the animal trial data first.

from my second reply
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I believe what the pesticide industry did was horrible and i am not supporting in any way thier deception
I have also stated I agree entirely with the nurnberg code.

And for good measure, I will state it again. No tests on humans should ever be done without full disclosure of what is being done. It is unethical

now, I respect and appreciate the views of people who disagree with me.

If you want to go after my views, go after my views. Attack what I have actually written. Attack my reasoning.

Calling someone a clown and telling them to shove thier agrument up thier @$$ will not sway an opinion. Not that I mind, I knew I was playing with gasoline and matches.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 04:39      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ People in Dire Straits may do many things for food, housing, things you and I may not even consider. So compensated testing is also unfair.

____ Because you have never stated that you were part of a non-disclosed test, your points hold no water. I WAS, I have a different frame of reference, joining a branch of the military should not subject someone to medical testing PERIOD. Every swinging penis at that boot camp was part of medical testing with out their knowledge, thats crap.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 05:03      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ People in Dire Straits may do many things for food, housing, things you and I may not even consider. So compensated testing is also unfair.

____ Because you have never stated that you were part of a non-disclosed test, your points hold no water. I WAS, I have a different frame of reference, joining a branch of the military should not subject someone to medical testing PERIOD. Every swinging penis at that boot camp was part of medical testing with out their knowledge, thats crap.

While you may have the most interesting perspective of anyone here because of your experiences, it doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong. It doesn't change facts. Arguments are based on facts and valid logical resoning.

You have very strong feelings on this matter becuase it occured to you personaly.

I assume you never want dangerous chemicals to be unknownly exposed to people; ever. This is what I want.

So if a company has a new chemical, how do you know if it is safe to be used on food ( for some goal).

If you don't test it on people ( with thier knowledge), then the first time this chemical will be exposed to humans is when someone buys the friut and consumes the apple with the new chemical on it; without thier knowledge.

Since we both agree this is horrible and wrong, there are a few basic options.

Never develop a new chemical agent.

Test it on humans before it goes public.

As I am sure you know, there are times when people are faced with only bad options, and they have to choose.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 05:17      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ Please equate this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 05:45      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ Please equate this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Ah yes, First, do no harm

But, your responce of a link is cryptic. And at this point I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Because, testing on humans could cause harm, and I would only have a doctor/toxicologist run studies which we are discussing, and therefore, with this strict interpretation of first cause no harm, no testing on humans, Of anything,be it pesticide or new malaria drugs ect, could be done.

and so I must disagree, and say this testing must be done, in some ethical manner, and the manner in which it is currently done is less than ethical in my mind.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 06:53      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____ What is informed consent? We do not know how much duress the subject is facing, how well the subject understands the ramifications of the documents, what s/he understands about the testing. You are asking people to take poison there is no other way to state the fact.

____ We are going to give you various doses of poison to see how much is a safe dose??



____ I used to have fruit trees, I had to learn the half life of the sprays I used, the precautions to take while using them on the trees and surrounding ground. What I had to do to keep from killing myself, and family the pets. Finally I just sold the land and moved on.

____ My Exwifes father killed the family pet while trying to kill fleas, turns out the dog had dry skin.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5835 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 07:29      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
____ What is informed consent? We do not know how much duress the subject is facing, how well the subject understands the ramifications of the documents, what s/he understands about the testing. You are asking people to take poison there is no other way to state the fact.

____ We are going to give you various doses of poison to see how much is a safe dose??




I agree that a definition of what informed consent is is very difficult

As for dosing in humans, before any of this happens, usually years of characterizing a compound takes place.

They will already know things like how many mg of chemical per kilogram of animal (say rat) it takes to kill 50% of a population. They extrapulate this to humans and know not to go anywhere near this dosing.

They will also know for instance how many mg substance per kilo animal ( say a beagle dog) it takes before there are visible effects (loose stool, increased heart rate ect.) and they won't dose human to even have these results.

But they need to know if a lower dose is safe. You cannot ask a dog if it feels totally fine. and you cannot correlate something being safe in animals to humans. ( lab rats livers' have an uncanny ability to protect the rat.)

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted June 24, 2010 08:19      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ashitaka wrote:
Even if it is the correct course of action to develop an agricultural path which requires no or much less pesticides, I have two problems.

1) What about people in third world countries, who requrie teh larger yields harsh pesticides give to feed thier families.

2)If we start down the path to not using pesticides, a first step would be to start using less harsh or biologically engineered pesticides. That would mean we need new, less harsh pesticides, and they need to be tested before entering the real world.


I'm not sure why you think that reducing our pesticide use would require new pesticides. "Reducing" does not mean "using a different one", it means using less. The development of new pesticides is also largely due to companies looking for new ways to make profits*. It's not like we don't have huge numbers of household and agricutural pesticides available, all of which are already in use and have known effects.

As far as crop yields are concerned, using pesticides can increase crop yields, but it may not be by as much as you'd think and there's both scientific and anecdotal evidence that long-term usage can actually reduce crop yields (1, 2, 3). Unfortunately, finding a clear answer isn't easy because the people on either side of the argument have too much self-interest and the people in the middle have little incentive or ability to find the answers for themselves.

*Yes, I'm aware of pesticide resistance. Show me a pest that is resistant to every one of the hundreds and hundreds of pesticides that already have available and then this will be a valid point. Until then, it really isn't.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted July 01, 2010 07:53      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
And for good measure, I will state it again. No tests on humans should ever be done without full disclosure of what is being done. It is unethical

...

If you want to go after my views, go after my views. Attack what I have actually written. Attack my reasoning.

So basically, your argument is that it's ethical to draft human test subjects (against their will) as long as you clearly explain what you're going to do to them?

I guess your brilliant plan also eliminates the problem of companies skirting full-disclosure because any sane person would walk away from eating cyanide Cheerios or whatever they want to test--now it's compulsory!

Yay for corporatocracy!

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam