New Technology is More Reliable and Ethical Than Animal Experiments

Originally published on Care2.

If you want to know how to cure diseases in humans, you want to test experimental treatments on whatever else is most similar. For years scientists have tested their hypotheses on non-human animals, like mice and rats. But extrapolating the results of medical and other scientific research from non-human animals to humans is a dubious undertaking at best. Other animals’ biologies are not the same as ours. They have similarities, often more than we like to admit, but not enough to draw reliable conclusions about the safety of medical interventions in human beings.

As reported by the American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Acetaminophen, for example, is poisonous to cats but is a therapeutic in humans; penicillin is toxic in guinea pigs but has been an invaluable tool in human medicine; morphine causes hyper-excitement in cats but has a calming effect in human patients; and oral contraceptives prolong blood-clotting times in dogs but increase a human’s risk of developing blood clots. Many more such examples exist.”

Not only are the results of animal experiments of limited use (if not downright dangerous), they are also cruel, painful and kill most of their subjects. 95% of the over 100 million animals who suffer and die in laboratories — this includes not just medical tests but food, cosmetic, chemical, and purely academic experiments — have no protection from cruelty. The federal Animal Welfare Act, which ostensibly protects animals in laboratories, doesn’t cover mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals. As long as a lab-affiliated committee approves an experiment, the experimenter can do whatever he or she wants to these living, feeling creatures.

Happily, some scientists have turned their attention towards creating more effective and ethical alternatives to vivisection, like computer models and tissue cultures that have more in common with human physiology than any animal does. The Harvard Crimson reports that researchers recently developed a device that “simulates the microenvironment of the human intestine by creating a miniaturized three-dimensional scaffold that supports growth and development of a patient’s own cells—even including microbes essential for digestion and normal physiology.”

The lead researcher, Harvard University Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering Director Donald E. Ingber, said that one motive for his work is “the problem that animal testing really doesn’t accurately predict what happens in humans.” According to The Crimson, Ingber believes the new technology may allow scientists “to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of cellular pathways and medical prognoses.” It could be especially valuable for research into Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Harvard’s Assistant Director for Undergraduate Studies in Biomedical Engineering, Sujata Bhatia, said that the new device “does such a nice job of mimicking the actual environment of the intestine, it could be an amazing tool for both biomedical students and biomedical engineers.”

Ingber anticipates more devices that will improve upon and replace animal research, including technologies replicating human lungs and hearts and even the interactions among multiple organs. This is good news for animals and humans alike.



Tagged , , , ,

2 thoughts on “New Technology is More Reliable and Ethical Than Animal Experiments

  1. Sugel says:

    Is there objective empirical evidence that the use of animals as models for humans in biomedical research is hopelessly flawed and has often worked to the detriment, of human health?

  2. piperhoffman says:

    Take a look at a Slate article written by a supporter of animal experimentation:

    “In 1999, the Health and Environmental Science Institute, a Washington, D.C.,-based group that brings together business, academic, and government experts to assess risks in public health, began a thorough examination. Working with confidential data provided by 12 pharmaceutical companies on 150 compounds that had produced a variety of toxic effects in people, an institute-hosted workshop found that only 43 percent of the drugs produced similar problems in rodents, and 63 percent did so in nonrodents. These are not reassuring numbers. (Though they would look better if the institute’s review had included the 90 percent of drug candidates that are screened out by animal toxicity, and thus never even tested on humans.)

    “Industry, academic, and government scientists agree that science is in need of better animal models for testing drug safety. “Put simply, the inability to predict the human toxicity of drugs is what’s breaking the promise of genomics to drug development,” says Paul Watkins, a North Carolina physician who is advising the institute.”

    The article also includes specific examples of working to the detriment of human health like TGN1412 (it has no catchy name because, despite having no ill effect in mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys, it did horrific things to humans).

    There is plenty more out there — have a look.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *