Philosophical Vegan Forum

What are they, how do they work, and what are your sources?
Are pro-veg sites not reliable because they are biased?
Is Wikipedia's article on it accurate?

Wikipedia is usually accurate.

Alternatives for most tests don't exist yet, but they're close.

Organs on a chip are the most promising.

If animal testing were ended, more funding and research would go into developing alternatives, and those alternatives would allow research to progress faster (and more cheaply) in the future.

Wikipedia is usually accurate.

Can anyone edit Wikipedia or do you need a certain thing to do it? I'm asking because I've heard people say that Wikipedia isn't credible because anyone can edit it, but I don't know if that's true or not.

Alternatives for most tests don't exist yet, but they're close.

So it's still necessary for now?

Organs on a chip are the most promising.

Is there a special term for that so I can look it up?
Is it more money than animal testing?

If animal testing were ended, more funding and research would go into developing alternatives, and those alternatives would allow research to progress faster (and more cheaply) in the future.

Oh so it's less?

EquALLity wrote: Can anyone edit Wikipedia or do you need a certain thing to do it? I'm asking because I've heard people say that Wikipedia isn't credible because anyone can edit it, but I don't know if that's true or not.

Anybody can vandalize Wikipedia. The changes will quickly be reverted.

I guess you can try it if you don't believe it.

Add in some opinionated position in that article without facts. Your change will be erased in a couple hours, and you might get your IP blocked from further editing.

EquALLity wrote: So it's still necessary for now?

How do you define necessity?

It's not necessary to continue research without the right tools. If we stopper researching on animals today, and devoted our resources into developing new tools, we could restart research in a couple years at a hundred times the efficiency.

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”
-- Abraham Maslow

Is there a special term for that so I can look it up?
Is it more money than animal testing?

http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/293/
http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/461/

Oh so it's less?

I don't know what you mean.

When every organ is finished, you can create an entire body system on a series of chips that will emulate a full test subject with complete metabolism, etc. It will be superior in every way to the animal model. Much cheaper, more reliable, and 100% applicable to real living humans.

Anybody can vandalize Wikipedia. The changes will quickly be reverted.

I guess you can try it if you don't believe it.

Add in some opinionated position in that article without facts. Your change will be erased in a couple hours, and you might get your IP blocked from further editing.

Ah.
I'm not going to add anything; one day I might want to add things to a Wikipedia article for actual reasons.

How do you define necessity?

I was asking if you were saying that we need to test on animals to develop treatments for health problems.

It's not necessary to continue research without the right tools. If we stopper researching on animals today, and devoted our resources into developing new tools, we could restart research in a couple years at a hundred times the efficiency.

That sounds pretty reasonable. How far off are we currently? Do the links you gave say?
I'm going to read them after I write this response.

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”
-- Abraham Maslow

Great quote, thanks.

I don't know what you mean.

I was adding onto what I was asking before about the cost of the organs and chips method.

Now it's just not done. Just a couple organs have been made.

It's hard to assign a time line to these things. More money and more researchers means faster, but it's not a linear matter.