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.
I’ve discussed the creeping medicalisation of the human condition several times here and elsewhere and so am well aware of that issue. But, I think you’d see a lot of blue faces if you were to argue with a parent whose kid seriously has ADHD that it’s nothing more than Bobby Joe being rambunctious.
Yes, of course, there’s a difference between drugs animal testing and driving your car, but what about drinking milk, buying hardwood, expecting a decent steak at your local restaurant, leaving people to die in slums of malaria, plague, TB, AIDS, they have a much greater impact, surely? And, I’m not quite yet sky-coloured.
I don’t take kindly to your ad hominem attacks on me regarding my compassion…
Well, I’m not an anything-ist either, lol.
Saves lives? What illnesses are you referring to exactly?
Nearly 50 percent of Americans are on prescription drugs, and nearly 20 percent of school children are on mind-altering amphetamines like Ritalin or antidepressants like Prozac.
It’s ridiculous how many prescription drugs are available and questionable how many people actually have illnesses.
For instance, kids who are hyper-active with ADHD. Oh, mom and dad don’t want to deal with their rambunctious child, little Bobby Joe. So let’s pop him a pill. Schwew, that was easy. Even though their son has transformed into a zombie, he’s well mannered now-so problem solved. Watch TV lately? Consider how fast one screen moves to the next, even with video games. Could this play a part at all in why kids have a shorter attention span; too much TV and video games these days?
Most medications these days, in my opinion, provide a quick fix.
Did you know that there use to be a diagnoses for black people who would escape from slavery? I can’t recall its titlement, but it was in fact considered an illness. Go figure. Something must be wrong with a person going after their freedom, huh?
Homosexuals use to be considered mentally ill as well and were diagnosed, but we kind of scratched that one off the list as it’s become more accepted within our society.
Yes, I know prescription drugs have to follow FDA requirements. Cosmetics and personal care products that help treat and prevent disease, such as, sun blocks, anti-dandruff shampoos, or acne treatments, must comply with FDA requirements as well. That’s what animals languish with pain and die for!
It isn’t scientists choice? Who is twisting their arm? If more scientists stopped being so conventional and just went along with standard procedures, no matter how wrong it is to test on innocent animals, maybe we could move on from methods practiced since the 17th century.
Many scientists will say that they don’t believe we’ll ever completely replace animals used in experiments, and it’s that exact attitude that prevents progress!
Thank you, thank you for all the researchers out there who are actually STEPPING OUT OF THE BOX!
I don’t care of you talk to plants or not. I can be a bit sarcatic sometimes.
I agree. We do have a significant impact on the enviorment. Look, you can try all you want to compare me eating, or hopping into my car-and so forth- to testing animals for pharmaceutical drugs until you are blue in the face. You are not going to convince me that the two are even remotely similiar. Hmm, taking a bite to eat to shoving toxins through a tube up a monkeys nostril. No, I’m not getting it.
Either I am incredibly stupid, or you need to seriously take a look at your moral lackness. Where is your compassion? It’s got to be in there somewhere…you had a dog, right? You know, some kind of actual relationship with an animal before you started seeing them as resources? Uck.
And I do care about the enviornment. What gave you the impression that I didn’t? I care about many things that go beyond myself or my humanity.
I’ll address your points in reverse. I am not an anything-ist. I am a science writer.
The issue of adverse drug reactions is a serious one, but what is often never mentioned is that the vast majority occur in patients who are seriously ill or present complex multiple symptoms and diseases, there are no panaceas but conventional pharmaceutical intervention saves many more lives than it takes.
I too hope you never have to take serious medication, but if you do, it will have been tested on animals, see next point.
I don’t know any scientists who *want* to use animals in testing, it’s not their choice either way, regulations insist on animal testing for pharmaceuticals.
I don’t talk to plants, that was not what I meant. We, as a species, have a significant impact on the environment and other species in everything we do. Yes, you can try to live a “greener” life, but there is no escaping the fact that every time you eat, hop in your car, or even flush the toilet you are affecting the environment detrimentally because of the significant resources used to live your life day to day. The direct use of animals in pharma testing is just such a tiny part of that and certainly relatively small numbers compared to the loss of life caused by oil refining, the burning of fossil fuels, the farming of cattle, and the slash and burn of rainforests.
By the way, going back to your last point, why wouldn’t you want to care about the environment? In the absence of light-speed space travel, it’s really all we have, we should try to look after it better.
I never said you were inhumane. I mean, maybe you’re the type of person who arrives home from a long day of work and talks to his plants. On the other hand, you could be one of those people who hides dead bodies within the walls of his home. I just don’t know (perhaps, I should be a little more nicer).
Yeah, we all take part. I see your point there, but well…I drink water to live, first of all. I have a house because it provides shelter for me and my loved ones. I am fortunate enough to have heating to keep me warm, but I do try to use it efficiently. And I do eat plants. I admit to be a lover of salad, and I even feed my kids vegetables that were violently pulled and torn from the earth’s surface. At the rate you’re going, I am afaid to move-I may step on a leaf (let alone, eat one)!
Thank you for posting about the new alternatives to animal testing that are becoming available. I did attempt to read you’re entire blog but apparently scanned it over instead without taking a serious look after the first sentence. I have been doing much research on animal testing and its grusomeness, so my mind was set to respond in a quick fashion. I do apologize and am just slightly embarrassed.
Some scientists do put forth a strong dedication to establish and examine new alternatives, whereas, others remain stuck using conventional methods, much of which has a great deal to do with job security and prestige.
I hope that if I ever am required to take medication, that it is not reliant on the basis of animal data. Did you know the 4th leading cause of death is from adverse drug reactions? And 100, 000 lives are taken each year by LEGAL drugs (more than the amount of all illegal drugs combined)?
You’re an enviornmentalist, are you?
@Kelly I’m inhumane because I reported on the development of alternatives to animal testing? Did you actually read the article or did you just decide to post your malicious comment on the basis of what you thought I’d said. I was defending no one. I was reporting.
Moreover, unless you somehow exist outside common society (which you obviously don’t as you’re posting on blogs) then you are just as guilty as the next person of exploiting the natural world. Everything we do results in what you term inhumanity. You wear leather shoes? Eat dairy products? Meat? Plants? Drink water? Drive? Fly? Live in a house? Use electricity? Heat your home? Ultimately, all these things come at a price to natural ecosystems, just because you don’t see those creatures and their habitats destroyed to make way for factories, homes, schools, doesn’t mean it ain’t happening.
Meanwhile, I just hope you can bring yourself to take your medication next time you’re seriously ill.