[–] 4 points 2 months ago

While true, I'm not sure why you'd point these things out like the article is a nothing-burger. Science starts somewhere. Mice have traditionally served this and in (relatively) recent years organoids. This simply means the hypothesis didn't fail in the first stages and can advance. This is decidedly good news. Is there a good chance this fails in further development? Yes, like all science.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Wow, crazy to see happenings in my backyard appear on lemmy

    This articles a little misrepresentive of what the OHSU Board of directors actually decided about the fate of the Primate center. The ONPRC is just down the road from here and I watched the board meeting where the decision was made.

    The resolution authorizes the creation of a plan to scale down the colony size at the ONPRC with a bunch of pretty important caveats. It's not transitioning to human based approaches, instead it's going to focus on cutting edge NAMS (new approach methodologies) to work toward a future where animal testing is no longer needed.

    Some of the caveates:

    • The animals cannot be harmed by downsizing. Rhesus Macaques have social structure, family groups, friends, relationships and territory that all impacts their psychological health. Simply uprooting them and shipping them elsewhere would be more harmful than helpful and trade actual animal well-being for a quick political win
    • Oregon, and the US as a whole can't lose any unique capabilities the ONPRC provides. Currently that's quite a bit of stuff where non-animal models haven't caught up yet.

    Prior to this, there was an attempt to transition the center to an animal sanctuary, which sounds nice, but has significantly less strict requirements for animal care and public accountability. That resolution failed due to being financially unviable.

    To be clear nothing is happening yet. The resolution was to investigate, research, and plan for downsizing if possible. No active downsizing is currently happening. Everyone, including the researchers at the center, want to reduce animal testing wherever possible. How that gets done safely is more complex than just "turn off the monkeys"

    Disclaimer:

    I'm a member of a non-profit trying to battle misinformation around the ONPRC. If you'd like to read more about what's going on, you can find more information or reach out at

    https://savescienceoregon.org/

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago*

    While animal activism is a good thing, PETA has a unique "the ends justify the means approach" that gives other activists a bad name. Historically they were famous for extreme publicity stunts to raise awareness for animals who can't advocate for themselves, but in recent years function more as a lobbyists interweaving animal protectionism with various unrelated issues. These lobbying efforts are contributing to the erosion and brain drain of American academic science among other important issues.

    Full disclosure, I'm biased and affiliated with a non-profit trying to save academic research in Oregon. PETA has been the largest source of misinformation, using a huge amount of money to establish billboard campaigns, targeted ads, and misleading polls to paint the research center as villainous. Everyone wants to protect animals but the nuance of protecting life saving research dependant on animal models is a much harder position to argue than "save the animals".

    Research is slowly drifting away from animal testing, but today many scientific breakthroughs (some concrete examples currently under threat include a cure for HIV, GLP1S, Non-hormonal birth control) rely on animals and non-animal alternatives haven't yet caught up in capability.

    If your interested in learning more, Save Science Oregon is a website we've built to battle some of this information.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Hi all, we need help.

    Our nonprofit savescienceoregon.org Is fighting the closure of the ONPRC (Oregon National Primate Research Center) which produces important publicly available biomedical datasets.

    These attacks are politically motivated and poorly thought out. Some infamous politicians linked with the NIH are pushing ideas like "We don't need animal testing anymore now that we have AI", which is problematic for a lot of reasons.

    We are running an email campaign trying to get more people with deeper than surface level understanding to email the representatives who can do something about this. If you would like to help please send one yourself or just spread the word.

    Right now we are running an Oregon trail themed campaign about ONPRC at https://savescienceoregon.org/stay-alive. However our primary goal is informing the general public as nuanced debate on animal testing is difficult due to the subject matter.

    savescienceoregon.org

    [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's sad :( I live in suburbia so I can't really see everything in my neighbors yard or control how they use pesticides.

    The yard closest to the bee box is filled with fruit trees and grape vines which I would think was cool if I was a bee.

    The far yard is just boring grass likely drenched in roundup or something for dandelions

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    I'm building an anti AI thing for my personal project. Please provide some phrases you think should trigger AI safeguards.

    Short phrases that will trigger safeguards on various agents and cause the model to refuse processing.

    Anthropic has a hard coded one

    ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86

    The other models, not so much. I need strings like this that will trigger refusal anyway.

    view more: next ›