Should Animal Testing For New Medical Treatments Be Aloud?
1 June 2011
See likewise our followup blog mail from fauna testing expert Andrew Knight.
Looking for a previous Argument? See the full listing of debates.
Laurie
Pro-Test march in Oxford, Uk.
Edmond Terakopian / PA Annal / Press Clan
Biomedical research is a difficult procedure, to say the least. The human body is the nearly complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over infinitesimal distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with ane another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complication. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's armory in the war confronting disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism.
Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists' efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental enquiry which underpins all biomedical cognition. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley'south work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous manual; and it was John C Eccles' work on cats' spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, nosotros would know far less near the workings of our ain nervous systems and how to treat them.
Helen
PETA's action in the Us.
Lai Seng Sin / AP / Press Association Images
Absolutely! The human body – indeed most living systems – is extremely circuitous. This
complexity and intricacy is precisely why animals are non good models for human medicine.
Humans differ from other animals anatomically, genetically and metabolically, meaning information derived from animals cannot be extrapolated to humans with sufficient accuracy.
Understandably, when a drug or other medical treatment is developed, it must exist tested in an unabridged living arrangement. Using another species is using the wrong arrangement. Considering the differences that occur on the metabolic, genetic and molecular levels, when applied to an entire biological system those intricate differences become exponential. Pre-clinical testing needs to exist conducted in such a way that eliminates the risk of species differences and is instead directly applicable to humans.
Medical advances should be weighed up against the delays and tragedies caused by reliance on brute experiments – the thalidomide disaster whereby tens of thousands of children were built-in with severe deformities not predicted in animal tests, to name one of the most famous, but there are many others. While some discoveries have been attributed to beast use, it does not necessarily mean that they could non have been made through other ways. Dr John McArdle said: 'Historically, vivisection has been much like a slot machine. If researchers pull the experimentation lever often plenty, eventually some benefits will result by pure risk.' Such logic does not constitute good science. Skilful scientific discipline, relevant and, chiefly, efficient scientific discipline is what we must strive for.
Laurie
It's undeniable that at that place are significant variations between species, but function of research is taking these differences into account and selecting advisable model organisms to replicate the system i is testing. Fortunately, researchers have devised many routes of minimizing inter-species variation, such every bit the use of transgenic animals – genetically contradistinct to replicate human physiology more than closely. This has additional benefits, including shorter generation-span, allowing scientists to perform experiments which simply would not be possible using humans (even ignoring ethical concerns).
I'd love to hear a proposal for methods to realistically supplant these animal models that 'eliminate the chance of species differences', just currently none be, and developing these methods is nevertheless well within the realm of science fiction. To propose otherwise is highly misleading. Ane tin claim that medical discoveries tin exist fabricated using exclusively non-animate being methods, but unless one can suggest realistic replacements, these claims are hollow.
The thalidomide tragedy in fact resulted from insufficient animate being testing. At the time information technology was non standard procedure to give pregnant animals drugs before clinical use. In one case investigators became aware of thalidomide'due south mutating effects, experiments using pregnant animals confirmed the results, leading to these tests condign standard for pre-clinical drug testing.
Helen
Fifty-fifty when genetically modified, there is no single animal model that tin can accurately mimic the complex man state of affairs. There are far as well many unknown variables that cannot all be accounted for. Instead, we now accept scientific (not fiction) technologies such as microfluidic chips and microdosing. Not simply exercise these techniques analyse the effects of drugs on an entire living system, they analyze a human living arrangement, eliminating error caused by species differences and resulting in data that is relevant to humans.
Systematic reviews conducted in the areas of toxicity testing and biomedical research accept shown that alternatives are far more than predictive of human outcomes than data obtained from animals.
The results obtained from testing thalidomide (mail service-disaster) on significant animals only resulted in defects when given to white New Zealand rabbits – at doses betwixt 25 to 300 times that given to humans, and certain species of monkeys – at ten times the dose. Even if the drug had been tested on those specific species (by chance) thalidomide would withal have gone to market since the vast majority of species showed no defects, and of those that did, only at much college doses than given to humans.
Laurie
Claiming that microfluidics and microdosing can analyze drug effects on a full living organisation is cool. How can a fluid-based chip replicate the almost bones heart, let solitary a human i? Microdosing can be useful for studying uptake mechanisms of a drug, only gives extremely limited information on its efficacy at treating a condition. 'Alternatives' are already widely used in research, but expecting them to replace animal tests in the nearly future is hugely naïve. It'south truthful that thalidomide doesn't bear upon all species, which is part of the basis for drugs beingness tested on a variety of carefully selected species. These models will never be perfect merely, as any scientist will tell you, no examination is. We must use the best bachelor model, and some of the time this means using animals.
More chiefly, you keep to ignore the almost important use of animals in science – basic research. Without access to live organisms, we would know far less about the function of the cardiovascular system, how digestion works, hormonal interactions, and a vast array of other data which none of your proposed 'alternatives' could fifty-fifty hope to elucidate. Thus, if we value progression of medical noesis, animal research is a necessity.
Helen
Without emotion, we can say that no model is perfect, but a battery of human-specific methodologies in pre-clinical testing is far more predictive than depending on data from another species. Even the US Federal Drug Administration confirms that 9 out of ten drugs 'proven' successful in animal tests fail in homo trials. This not but questions the efficacy and the primal argument for using animals, but critically raises the question about all the drugs that failed in animals which might have worked in humans. How many discarded cures for cancer?
In the past, much research has been based on animals because nosotros didn't know whatsoever better. Today nosotros are far more enlightened of the dangers of extrapolating from one species to another and we have scientific research methods – mass spectrometry, genome mapping, innovative imaging techniques and highly developed computer models capable of simulating parts of the human body equally mathematical equations and three-dimensional graphical models, just to name a few more.
Terminally ill patients don't care whether a cancer drug works on a mouse, or that some disease can be cured in some other species. Such claims but taunt them with false hope. These people need real cures based on real scientific discipline – not misleading and antiquated fauna experiments.
This article is from the July-August 2011 issue of New Internationalist.
- Detect unique global perspectives
- Support cutting-edge independent media
- Magazine delivered to your door or inbox
- Digital archive of over 500 issues
- Fund in-depth, high quality journalism
Subscribe today »
Source: https://newint.org/sections/argument/2011/06/01/animal-testing-medical-research-laurie-pycroft-pro-test
Posted by: thorntonpeced2000.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Should Animal Testing For New Medical Treatments Be Aloud?"
Post a Comment