Animal Experiments could End in a Generation

[Quantess]

"The use of animal experiments could be replaced by research on 'virtual human beings' and tests on banks of living cells within a generation, scientists say.

Computer modelling and advances in cell biology will allow researchers to assess new drugs far more precisely and without the involvement of animals. One innovation is the development of “micro-lungs” — lung cells extracted from transplant tissue, grown in a laboratory culture and then tested with drops of toxicants such as cosmetics to assess the response.

By recreating tissue environments, we will improve understanding of many aspects of cell behaviour including wound healing and responses to therapeutic drugs without the use of animal models.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6433170.ece

[I Have A Dream]

1. I hope so. nt

[Quantess]

3. I really hope so, too.

But, those fluorescent monkeys and fluorescent beagle dogs that have recently been created, are intended to be used for animal experiments. So, while new technologies are making the need for animal research obsolete, (such as MRIs, instead of invasive brain surgery on primates) the scientists have come up with new ways to ensure fluorescent lab animals are a marketable commodity.

Animal testing still goes on, despite the redundancy of the tests being performed, and despite the limited usefulness of the results.

[TZ]

6. Ummm no animal research is postitively NECESSARY in the biomedical field

Or perhaps you think its a good idea to test new drugs and vaccines for potential toxic effects on people?
Toxicology is a big part of new drug/vaccine development. You must have animal models for this currently

[stray cat]

2. Maybe doctors can train on computers instead of learning in surgery under supervision

Who needs a surgeon who has done surgery before if he has learned or trained on a computer simulation. I think we will be able to gradually reduce the numbers but we don't understand the intricacies and interactions in the human system all that well - a computer isn't something magic but is only as good as the data it gets from programmers.

[Hanse]

4. No, it won't.

It'll just lead to more animal testing to test the computer models.

[caraher]

5. This is wishful thinking at best

As Hanse said, validation alone would demand extensive testing on real animals.

And I think the computer model fans vastly overestimate the power of modeling. Organisms are incredibly complex systems, and scientists have a long history of missing some crucial aspect of systems they think they understand in all relevant respects.

That said, it's equally true that not all research using animals is good research. One can easily botch animal studies because of blind spots in experimental design. But the bottom line is that something like an airliner - which these days can be tested primarily via software in lieu of test flights - is a much simpler system than your typical vertebrate.

Added on edit: simulated tissue is still a good idea, though, and vastly better than the pure computer model approach. I'm sure that for certain limited purposes we could eliminate animal testing on that sort of time scale. But certainly not all animal research, and probably not even most such research.

[TZ]

7. I'm not so sure about computer modeling

but yes, cell based testing has the potential to eliminate a lot of animal testing.