Nov 6, 2006
Alternatives to animal testing
Despite the claims of extremist animal protesters, scientists do not in fact relish the use of animals in tests of new pharmaceutical and other chemical products and are continually searching for valid alternatives that might reduce the numbers of small mammals, for instance used in pesticide safety tests.
According to Jennifer Rohn writing in this week’s issue of Chemistry & Industry magazine, the thousands of test animals currently need for pesticide evaluation might be replaced by tricking ticks into setting up home on a faux cowhide. The hide, developed by Swiss researchers consists of a skin-like silicone membrane, complete with hair that rests over a layer of cow’s blood. The insects are so comfortable with the faux-cow that they set up home, mate and lay eggs.
Currently, some 10,000 animals are used annually to test new tick-fighting chemicals because pesticides to kill Lyme-disease carrying ticks and other insects are constantly being updated.
Thomas Kröber and Patrick Guerin at the University of Neuchâtel confirmed the effectiveness of their test bed using a standard tick pesticide, firponil, and observing central nervous system damage revealed by leg trembling in the ticks. They report details in the journal Pest Management Science.
Vicky Robinson, chief executive of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, said: This research takes a simple idea and applies it to great effect, resulting in a potentially significant impact on animal use. Most importantly, it demonstrates that finding ways to reduce the use of animals in research and testing is as much about improving the science as it is about considering the welfare of animals.’
Obviously, the tick test avoids the need to test on rodents or other laboratory mammals, but it remains a devastating blow to tick lovers everywhere.
David Bradley
Site FAQ
Contact me
Web 2.0 stuff
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Email updates
Podcast
My recent reading
Join my LinkedIn network
Connect on StumbleUpon
Poke me on Facebook
Follow my Plurks
My Flickr gallery
Sciencebase on Twitter
Be my Feed Friend
Paul West said,
November 7, 2006 at 3:06 pm
The only reason efforts are being made to find alternatives to in vivo animal tests is because of the selfless dedication of those of us who are willing to speak up on behalf of abused and exploited animals. As a scientist, I know all too well the pressure to publish leads to looking for quick ways to obtain publishable results. Animals provide the easiest way for researchers to come up with publishable results, even if the data are poorly suited for the problem being studied. The vivisection industry is the sorriest example of our society’s acceptance of that uncivilized creed, “the ends justify the means”.
sciencebase said,
November 7, 2006 at 3:18 pm
The majority of animal testing is not carried out with the aim of obtaining publishable results at all but rather because regulations insist on animal results before pharmaceutical and other products can be brought to market. This is set to be grow right across the EU as regulations aimed at ensuring chemical product safety are extended so that every single molecule has to be tested on animals. The underlying pressure for this testing certainly doesn’t come from scientists but has emerged because of lobbying pressure from activist groups that see every chemical as somehow intrinsically “evil” and seem to have no grasp of how to assess risk when it comes to exposure to these evil entities.
This latest research into alternatives for animal testing seems to offer an escape route for much of the obligatory testing (rather than research investigations) that have to be carried out on mammals and other “higher” species by offering in this case, the pest to be exterminated as its own safety test.
On a slightly different note, are those who are selflessly dedicated to that cause the same individuals who physically abused individual members of staff at a UK research centre of the last few years, threatened their families, and vandalised their vehivles and homes all in the name of animal liberation? Just wondering.
ashley said,
January 28, 2007 at 8:02 pm
You know, I don’t have a problem with animal testing. Don’t get me wrong I love animals and everything it’s just that a couple days ago I told my dad I was doing a report about animal testing and then he asked me what I thought about it. I told him I didn’t know. Then he told me he doesn’t have a problem about it. He said that if his child was sick with a disease that he would won’t them to find a medicine to cure it and if it means testing on animals that’s fine just as long as it would save lives. And then I thought about it and that’s what I think now. But that’s only my opinion. just as long as it saves lives then it’s fine to me.
tiffany said,
March 15, 2007 at 12:31 am
i think animal testing is a cruel and horrible thing to do to an animal. i just saw a video that said that the so called, ” scientists, ” cut out the dogs vocal chords so that the dogs can’t bark and wont disturb their studies. they also don’t give any of the animals pain killers, so the poor animals have to stand the pain at its worst. the animals are defenceless. so we need to stand up for what is right and protect the animals.
David Bradley said,
March 15, 2007 at 9:06 am
Tiffany, that’s certainly one argument against animal testing, but there are rules and regulations that govern the use of animals in experiments, they are not subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering despite what the animal rights lobbyist videos claim. Moreover, until there is a viable alternative that can help us produce drugs to save lives without the use of animals what are our options? I could not bear the thought of losing one of my children for the sake of a lab rat and if ultimately faced with such a dilemma I think most parents would agree.