Scientists build a depressing rat robot to terrorize rodents

[Hum]

Lab rats have a new companion, but it's not friendly. Researchers at Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan, have developed a robotic rat called WR-3 whose job is to induce stress and depression in lab animals, creating models of psychological conditions on which new drugs can be tested.

Animal are used throughout medicine as models to test treatments for human conditions, including mental disorders like depression. Rats and mice get their sense of smell severed to induce something like depression, or are forced to swim for long periods, for instance. Other methods rely on genetic modification and environmental stress, but none is entirely satisfactory in recreating a human-like version of depression for treatment. Hiroyuki Ishii and his team aim to do better with WR-3.

The researchers tested WR-3's ability to depress two groups of 12 rats, measured by the somewhat crude assumption that a depressed rat moves around less. Rats in group A were constantly harassed by their robot counterpart, while the other rats were attacked intermittently and automatically by WR-3, whenever they moved. Ishii's team found that the deepest depression was triggered by intermittent attacks on a mature rat that had been constantly harassed in its youth.

more

[Torolol]

thats why schools bully win

[ashpowell]

Hate **** like this, we'll never be the humans we're capable of being whilst still being cruel and running tests on animals

[nekkidtruth]

Hate **** like this, we'll never be the humans we're capable of being whilst still being cruel and running tests on animals

I don't agree with cruelty to animals but I'm curious, how do you propose we move past tests such as these? At some point tests have to be performed in order to deduce something is viable. Again, I don't agree we should be testing on animals, I'm just curious as to what alternatives there are.

[psionicinversion]

wow the robot from A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is around in my life time! hahaha

[XerXis]

Hate **** like this, we'll never be the humans we're capable of being whilst still being cruel and running tests on animals

Yet you reap the benefits of those kinds of tests every day. It's always easy to say that we should stop doing animal tests, it's cruel and goes against our sense of justice. But if you get placed in a situation where one of your relatives is suffering from some disease which might be curable if animal tests are successfull, than I think most people would prefer those animal tests to continue.

[Torolol]

better test are consented test on human, but thats very costly.

and even the testee are totaly know about the consequences of failed test , AND still agree to conduct the test,

the other human-right group will make their political protest.

[ashpowell]

I don't agree with cruelty to animals but I'm curious, how do you propose we move past tests such as these? At some point tests have to be performed in order to deduce something is viable. Again, I don't agree we should be testing on animals, I'm just curious as to what alternatives there are.

At the moment there are no such alternatives, so it is needed to advance medicine. I just don't agree with animal testing

[nekkidtruth]

At the moment there are no such alternatives, so it is needed to advance medicine. I just don't agree with animal testing

I agree 100%. There are some alternatives at the moment, but they're still not entirely reliable/feasible. It is extremely unfortunate because, you would think in this day and age we'd be able to move past something like animal cruelty. However, there are a lot of things we should/shouldn't be doing in this day and age.

[remixedcat]

Chuck e cheese on meth

[Hum]

I don't particularly like rats, but this is animal cruelty.

They need better alternatives.

[Growled Member]

^ I bet they would be open to suggestions. :p

[nekkidtruth]

^ I bet they would be open to suggestions. :p

[

That's the problem we face. Who is working on a solution? :/

[Growled Member]

^ Probably no one.

[remixedcat]

chuck e cheese has got that covered

[Azusa]

Alternative ---> world prison population just saying.

[Hum]

^ Drug company executives :shifty:

[nekkidtruth]

Alternative ---> world prison population just saying.

Ok, I'll bite.

At which point do you determine a human being is no longer a human being and can start testing? I mean, there are obviously some crimes I'm sure some people feel would easily justify putting a prisoner in this type of a position (Murderer comes to mind). But who sets the line? Where does the line go? There are plenty of psychological reasons some criminals do the things they do and can be rehabilitated to a certain degree (aka. Even something as simple as getting them to understand what they did was wrong), do they still have to endure these tests?

It isn't as clear cut as it sounds. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree or disagree. Just that it isn't so black and white.