User:Ashleynicole11/sandbox

In 1980, the use of animals such as bears and pigs were tested in car stimulation crashes. This led to moral dilemmas and was not the first time that animals were used in car crashes. In 1978, The University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute used baboons to be tested as a substitute for humans in car crashes. Although there was objection of animal cruelty that arose, there was also controversy of how they are similar to humans and can be used as a sufficient testing substitution for us. The researchers did not end up stopping the use of baboons because of moral objections, but instead stopped because they found sufficient data. The moral inputs from other people and organizations were inconsistent, which caused implications when deciding to ban healthy animals from research testing. The animals were put under anesthesia, so there was no pain put upon them, but the after effects can not justify this. The General Motors corporation used animals for testing, and also suggested that they put the animals under anesthesia and then would kill the animals after the testing is complete. Although the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute did get bad publicity and experienced social anxiety, it was suggested that this was not the reason why they stopped using baboons. The University of Michigan's mission was to create safer cars for human use. In order to reach this goal, research and testing is inevitable. The cruelty and the moral dilemmas of animal testing did not trump researchers still using them as subjects due to a scientific explanation that the researchers had come up with. They reasoned that biomechanics data is needed for an experiment like this, which will lead to safer cars. Years later animal testing ceased and instead an instrumental dummy was created for replacement. In 1978, animals were their only source of subject that would be a reliable subsitution to the human being. The disadvantage though to using an instrumental dummy or a human cadaver, is that the tissue is not alive and will not elicit the same response as, for an example, an alive animal. Today, it is not prevelant to see animals being tested upon for automobile accidents because of the advance in computers and technology. It is although difficult to use cadavers instead of animals because of human rights, and it is difficult to obtain permission especially with children. On the contrary, an advantage to using a human cadaver is they are anatomically and physiologically identical to us, where animals can differ. Researchers are still confident in the fact that these differences are small enough to still obtain reliable and accurate data for safer cars. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Very little attention has been paid to obesity and car crash studies, and it is hard to obtain an obese dummy for the experiment so human cadavers were used. Body weight is a vital factor when it comes to automobile accidents, and body mass is distributed differently in an obese person verses a non-obese person. At the University of Michigan, obese cadavers were tested and compared to non-obese cadavers, and they found that the obese cadavers had more injuries in their lower extremities. The researchers also suggested that an obese person could be protected by their fat almost causing a "cushioning effect." Ashleynicole11 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My lead: The Crash Test Dummy is widely used by researchers and automobile companies to predict the biomechanics, force, impact, and injury of a human being in an automobile crash. There are many specialized dummies used for obesity, children, rib impact, and spinal impact. THOR is a very advanced dummy because it uses sensors and has a more human like spine and pelvis. Special classes of dummies called Hybrid IIIs are designed to research the effects of frontal impacts, and are less useful in assessing the effects of other types of impact, such as side impacts, rear impacts, or rollovers. Hybrid IIIs use dummies that are meant to be a certain age, for example, a typical ten year old, six year old, three year old, and a grown man. There is a certain testing procedure that goes along with Hybrid IIIs to make sure that they have correct neck flexure, and to make sure that they will react to a crash the way a human would. Using cadavers for these topics of research are more realistic than using a dummy, but it arises many moral dilemmas. Going across a more moral ethics line, automobile companies have also used a human cadaver, a pig, and people have volunteered to be tested upon impact. There are studies that use obese cadavers, children cadavers, and how cadavers have been used to modify different parts of a car such as the seatbelt. Each new car that is made provides a different structural impact which provides the conclusion that cadavers and crash test dummies will be useful forever. A pig was used specifically for steering wheel impact because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly and sit up right in the vehicle. Human cadavers along with animals are not personally able to give consent to certain methods and ways of using them during studies. Human Cadavers have went under trial to see if it would be a good idea to use them, and today animals are not widely used for testing. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)