To reduce animal suffering is a legitimate reason to support F@H. I have no doubt that it will. The more petaflops available the more in depth simulations can be done, perhaps simulating entire organelles or cells at some point in the not too distant future.
Unfortunately modern science takes this compartamental approach, where the study of one subsystem is extrapolated through known pathways to other systems. It is very likely that scientists do not truly understand how ANYTHING works in the body, but are using models with very high deviations from actual interaction. If physics had the margin of error that health-sciences have, we'd be more or less unable to make catapults never mind anything beyond 400BC tech. It is very difficult to predict the actual effects of medications on whole-systems. That is why in vivo studies are necessary. In fact, not enough in vivo longitudal studies are done. It would probably be necessary to come up with a human cloning system, where clones are treated like livestock, tested upon for donec mors (30-40 years). Of course that is tremendously unethical, but still somehow the issue of whole-system long term effects must be addressed. I doubt that any computer within the next 200 years will be able to completely model a human being. At best this kind of research will help to create better targets, and reduce the # of trials needed for a satisfactory short-term studies.
Basically what I'm saying is that your assertion that knowing the activity of a single cell, or even an entire organ, will help stem the need for animal studies is fallacious. It will do little to cull the need for in vivo studies. We already have the ability to model effects on simple tissues through in vitro studies, but the resulsts of such studies rarely translate to accurate living whole-system results; and furthermore short term in vivo studies do not show what happens when you believe the medicine is working, what happens when it is metabolized within the realm of your lifestyle, mindframe, karma. These things are better understood through cultural medicine, tradition. But that is not available for pharmaceuticals.
It is of course inevitable that B-pharma will produce the immortal human. The question is, between now and cure, how many people will die, or be maimed, physically, mentally, or in the whole.
Of course the most important consideration is the corporate interest. WWBPD? What will the pharmaceutical companies do to make sure they stay relevant. They will not give us everlasting life. The will create artificial demand for medicine ad infinitum, like DeBeers for diamonds, like politicians for war. The corporate growth model prevents single product solutions. The political growth model prevents this. We need to, as in all crysis points in history, expand the people's knowledge, treat them to the truth, and help them grow power within their own bodies and minds. As always scientia eruditus veritatem indagas.
Edited by AlexK, 14 November 2009 - 10:57 PM.
