Advertisement

Avoiding Animal Testing

Advances in cell-culture technologies are paving the way to the complete elimination of animals from the laboratory.

By | December 1, 2011

WIKICOMMONS

The US National Academy of Sciences released a report in 2007 envisioning a future in which animals would largely disappear from toxicity testing programs. The report, drafted by a panel of experts, proposed that toxicity induced by drugs, food additives, pesticides, and other chemicals be assessed not by observing overt clinical signs in animals but by monitoring perturbations to biological pathways in cultured human cells. Sophisticated bioinformatic technologies could then provide risk predictions that overcome the limitations of animal-based methods, such as low throughput and the questionable relevance of animal results to human physiology. Initially, the report was greeted with skepticism, but that skepticism is giving way to guarded excitement.

In response to the NAS report, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the National Toxicology Program, and the US Food and Drug Administration are cooperating to develop new technologies to modernize chemical testing. Former NIH director Elias Zerhouni characterized this effort as the beginning of the end of animal testing.

We at The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International helped establish a consortium in 2009 to promote the need for a coordinated international program of research and development (akin to the Human Genome Project) to implement the NAS vision. We believe that within the next decade or so, we will reach a point where safety testing and risk evaluation of chemicals will be conducted in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost, and with greater predictive relevance for human and environmental safety compared to current, cumbersome animal-based approaches. The initiative has already attracted the attention of many industry partners, including Dow, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Since the mid-seventies, the use of animals has fallen by around 50 percent....By 2050, we might finally see the last of animal use in the laboratory.

The advantages of nonanimal testing methods were illustrated in connection with the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon rig began spewing billions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, US political leaders asked the EPA to determine the relative safety of eight different commercially available oil dispersants. Within 6 weeks, the agency tested the eight substances in a number of high-throughput assays that probed a variety of biological pathways, including endocrine disruption and cytotoxicity, and produced a report identifying the toxicity profiles of the dispersants (fortunately, the dispersant being most widely used at the time compared favorably to the others). If these studies had been conducted in animals, the testing and reporting would have taken years, and would likely have produced results no more conclusive than those obtained from the cell systems in a matter of weeks.

For the moment, regulators are reluctant to rely solely on tests based on cell and tissue systems, but as high-throughput systems data become better understood, the speed and cost advantages of these systems will inevitably drive researchers away from whole-animal studies. Current NIH director Francis Collins was an early champion of modernizing toxicity testing, and is now seeking to do the same in efficacy testing. In a recent perspective piece published this past July in Science Translational Medicine, Collins characterized the use of animals in developing new therapies as “time consuming” and “costly,” adding that such tests “may not accurately predict efficacy in humans.” He continued, “With earlier and more rigorous target validation in human tissues, it may be justifiable to skip the animal model assessment of efficacy altogether.”

Indeed, the movement away from animal experimentation is already underway. Since the mid-seventies, the use of animals in experimentation has fallen by around 50 percent. The number of animals held in laboratories of universities and research institutes declined dramatically until around the mid-1990s and then began to climb again as facilities began producing and maintaining genetically modified mouse strains. However, data from Great Britain indicate that the actual use of mice (by far the most-used laboratory species) for research projects has plateaued in the last decade despite a large increase in the size of breeding colonies.

This overall decline in animal use can be attributed to the advent of novel technologies such as improved cell-culture systems and microanalytic techniques; more sophisticated model systems; improved understanding of signaling and metabolic pathways; and a host of other new methods that allow scientists to answer important questions about the functioning of healthy and diseased tissues without subjecting whole animals to harmful procedures. With a 50 percent decline in animal research since 1975, we are roughly at the halfway point towards the complete elimination of animal research. Thus, we argue that, by 2050, we might finally see the last of animal use in the laboratory, particularly if all stakeholders put their minds to it.

Andrew Rowan is President & Chief Executive Officer of Humane Society International (HSI) and Chief Scientific Officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Rowan, a Rhodes Scholar, has a doctorate in biochemistry.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Dario Ringach

Dario Ringach

Posts: 1457

December 1, 2011

Dr. Rowan ought to differentiate between toxicology testing and biomedical research. It may be the case that we are on our way to replace animals in toxicology testing and, if so, that would be a welcome development for everyone involved.  Scientists also seek to develop and adopt alternatives when they become available.  But there is no scientific basis whatsoever for the claim that by 2050 we could see a complete elimination of animal research in all areas of medical research at our Universities.  This is nonsense.  A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".   It will remain so for the foreseeable future. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

Dr. Rowan ought to differentiate between toxicology testing and biomedical research. It may be the case that we are on our way to replace animals in toxicology testing and, if so, that would be a welcome development for everyone involved.  Scientists also seek to develop and adopt alternatives when they become available.  But there is no scientific basis whatsoever for the claim that by 2050 we could see a complete elimination of animal research in all areas of medical research at our Universities.  This is nonsense.  A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".   It will remain so for the foreseeable future. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 1, 2011

Dr. Rowan ought to differentiate between toxicology testing and biomedical research. It may be the case that we are on our way to replace animals in toxicology testing and, if so, that would be a welcome development for everyone involved.  Scientists also seek to develop and adopt alternatives when they become available.  But there is no scientific basis whatsoever for the claim that by 2050 we could see a complete elimination of animal research in all areas of medical research at our Universities.  This is nonsense.  A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".   It will remain so for the foreseeable future. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

A slightly odd article, the general thrust of which seems reasonable, butwhich seems to assume that the reduction in animal use is some sort of linear process. Whatever else the data from the UK shows  it is that the changes in numbers of animals used certainly isn't predictable.  It is highly dependent on scientific and technological changes, these drove the decrease in the 1970's and 80's, and also drove the more recent increases (though increases in science funding in the UK also played a major roll). Why say by 2050? One could just as easily say by 2035 or by 2100. Looking at the huge changes in technologies available to medical researchers over the past two decades, all I think anyone can predict is that the future directions will be unpredictable.

I agree with Dario on the need to separate out preclinical testing (particularly toxicology testing) and biomedical research in general, as animal research continues to play a fundamental role in providing a large part of the knowledge base that supports the development of new therapies.  This is one are in which GM model organisms (including the GM mice mentioned above) play a very important role contributing a large proportion of the information that supports the emerging science of  systems biology. It's interesting to note that in his Science Translational Medicine article Francis Collins cites the example of the identification of the PCSK9 gene as having a role in heart disease as a triumph of genetic analysis, but the scientists who conducted that study then turned to studies in GM mice to obtain crucial information on the function of that gene (Horten, Cohen and Hobbs, 2007, PMID:17215125). It must be recognized that analysis of many GM organaisms, particularly those produced by the large scale knockout and mutagenesis programs, is still in it's early stages - they need to be produced before you can study them, and my guess is that the number of GM organisms produced and studied will continue to increase (assuming that a worsening  global economic crisis doesn't slash science funding) over the next decade. At some stage though (2030? 2040? 2050?), the amount of new information that these organisms yield will decline, and I'd expect the numbers used to also decline...job done!!

It is somewhat ironic that stem cell based assays and tissue engineering, which Fransic Collins (correctly IMHO) states may replace animal in many aspects of preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation in coming deacades, were developed through animal research, and to a large extent progress in these fields is still very reliant on animal studies. This is particularly true where medical applications such as those developed by scientists such as Anthony Atala and Joseph Vacanti are concerned.

Is animal research producing the knowledge and technologies to replace itself within a few decades? Possibly. Is continued support of animal researh crucial to advancing medicine? Definitely!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Why is a radical animal rights activist group that viciously opposes research on live vertebrates at the cost of advancements to human health allowed to post their propaganda here? A group that directly funds domestic terrorism (see also: Alex Pacheco) and employs many convicted domestic terrorists who enjoy firebombing research facilities? A group intimately affiliated with the heinously anti-science (and misnamed) "PCRM" group whose entire mission is to eliminate live-vertebrate research under the Animal Rights banner?

DeepBlue and Dario have said it all very nicely.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Seriously? The Scientist (ostensibly with a straight face) published a piece written by  the "Chief Scientific Officer" of the "Humane" Society of the United States? Their version of science is basically the following: Cite some facts, and leave out all of the salient ones which derail our agenda. 

Last time I checked, that methodology was the exact opposite of true science. The "Humane" Society of the United States and Humane Society International epitomize junk science.

This article is useful in one way. It serves as a glaring example of abdication of critical thinking skills and objective analysis. Is the Scientist endeavoring to destroy their credibility? If so, nicely played. This article is the metaphorical equivalent of a scientific publication putting a gun in the mouth and pulling the trigger.https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note... Irreconcilable Differences of Rush Limbaugh and the Humane Society of the United States.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

A slightly odd article, the general thrust of which seems reasonable, butwhich seems to assume that the reduction in animal use is some sort of linear process. Whatever else the data from the UK shows  it is that the changes in numbers of animals used certainly isn't predictable.  It is highly dependent on scientific and technological changes, these drove the decrease in the 1970's and 80's, and also drove the more recent increases (though increases in science funding in the UK also played a major roll). Why say by 2050? One could just as easily say by 2035 or by 2100. Looking at the huge changes in technologies available to medical researchers over the past two decades, all I think anyone can predict is that the future directions will be unpredictable.

I agree with Dario on the need to separate out preclinical testing (particularly toxicology testing) and biomedical research in general, as animal research continues to play a fundamental role in providing a large part of the knowledge base that supports the development of new therapies.  This is one are in which GM model organisms (including the GM mice mentioned above) play a very important role contributing a large proportion of the information that supports the emerging science of  systems biology. It's interesting to note that in his Science Translational Medicine article Francis Collins cites the example of the identification of the PCSK9 gene as having a role in heart disease as a triumph of genetic analysis, but the scientists who conducted that study then turned to studies in GM mice to obtain crucial information on the function of that gene (Horten, Cohen and Hobbs, 2007, PMID:17215125). It must be recognized that analysis of many GM organaisms, particularly those produced by the large scale knockout and mutagenesis programs, is still in it's early stages - they need to be produced before you can study them, and my guess is that the number of GM organisms produced and studied will continue to increase (assuming that a worsening  global economic crisis doesn't slash science funding) over the next decade. At some stage though (2030? 2040? 2050?), the amount of new information that these organisms yield will decline, and I'd expect the numbers used to also decline...job done!!

It is somewhat ironic that stem cell based assays and tissue engineering, which Fransic Collins (correctly IMHO) states may replace animal in many aspects of preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation in coming deacades, were developed through animal research, and to a large extent progress in these fields is still very reliant on animal studies. This is particularly true where medical applications such as those developed by scientists such as Anthony Atala and Joseph Vacanti are concerned.

Is animal research producing the knowledge and technologies to replace itself within a few decades? Possibly. Is continued support of animal researh crucial to advancing medicine? Definitely!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Why is a radical animal rights activist group that viciously opposes research on live vertebrates at the cost of advancements to human health allowed to post their propaganda here? A group that directly funds domestic terrorism (see also: Alex Pacheco) and employs many convicted domestic terrorists who enjoy firebombing research facilities? A group intimately affiliated with the heinously anti-science (and misnamed) "PCRM" group whose entire mission is to eliminate live-vertebrate research under the Animal Rights banner?

DeepBlue and Dario have said it all very nicely.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 2, 2011

Seriously? The Scientist (ostensibly with a straight face) published a piece written by  the "Chief Scientific Officer" of the "Humane" Society of the United States? Their version of science is basically the following: Cite some facts, and leave out all of the salient ones which derail our agenda. 

Last time I checked, that methodology was the exact opposite of true science. The "Humane" Society of the United States and Humane Society International epitomize junk science.

This article is useful in one way. It serves as a glaring example of abdication of critical thinking skills and objective analysis. Is the Scientist endeavoring to destroy their credibility? If so, nicely played. This article is the metaphorical equivalent of a scientific publication putting a gun in the mouth and pulling the trigger.https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note... Irreconcilable Differences of Rush Limbaugh and the Humane Society of the United States.

Avatar of: DeepBlueScience

DeepBlueScience

Posts: 11

December 2, 2011

A slightly odd article, the general thrust of which seems reasonable, butwhich seems to assume that the reduction in animal use is some sort of linear process. Whatever else the data from the UK shows  it is that the changes in numbers of animals used certainly isn't predictable.  It is highly dependent on scientific and technological changes, these drove the decrease in the 1970's and 80's, and also drove the more recent increases (though increases in science funding in the UK also played a major roll). Why say by 2050? One could just as easily say by 2035 or by 2100. Looking at the huge changes in technologies available to medical researchers over the past two decades, all I think anyone can predict is that the future directions will be unpredictable.

I agree with Dario on the need to separate out preclinical testing (particularly toxicology testing) and biomedical research in general, as animal research continues to play a fundamental role in providing a large part of the knowledge base that supports the development of new therapies.  This is one are in which GM model organisms (including the GM mice mentioned above) play a very important role contributing a large proportion of the information that supports the emerging science of  systems biology. It's interesting to note that in his Science Translational Medicine article Francis Collins cites the example of the identification of the PCSK9 gene as having a role in heart disease as a triumph of genetic analysis, but the scientists who conducted that study then turned to studies in GM mice to obtain crucial information on the function of that gene (Horten, Cohen and Hobbs, 2007, PMID:17215125). It must be recognized that analysis of many GM organaisms, particularly those produced by the large scale knockout and mutagenesis programs, is still in it's early stages - they need to be produced before you can study them, and my guess is that the number of GM organisms produced and studied will continue to increase (assuming that a worsening  global economic crisis doesn't slash science funding) over the next decade. At some stage though (2030? 2040? 2050?), the amount of new information that these organisms yield will decline, and I'd expect the numbers used to also decline...job done!!

It is somewhat ironic that stem cell based assays and tissue engineering, which Fransic Collins (correctly IMHO) states may replace animal in many aspects of preclinical safety and efficacy evaluation in coming deacades, were developed through animal research, and to a large extent progress in these fields is still very reliant on animal studies. This is particularly true where medical applications such as those developed by scientists such as Anthony Atala and Joseph Vacanti are concerned.

Is animal research producing the knowledge and technologies to replace itself within a few decades? Possibly. Is continued support of animal researh crucial to advancing medicine? Definitely!

Avatar of: Asimovwasright

Asimovwasright

Posts: 1

December 2, 2011

Why is a radical animal rights activist group that viciously opposes research on live vertebrates at the cost of advancements to human health allowed to post their propaganda here? A group that directly funds domestic terrorism (see also: Alex Pacheco) and employs many convicted domestic terrorists who enjoy firebombing research facilities? A group intimately affiliated with the heinously anti-science (and misnamed) "PCRM" group whose entire mission is to eliminate live-vertebrate research under the Animal Rights banner?

DeepBlue and Dario have said it all very nicely.

Avatar of: Tina Perriguey

Tina Perriguey

Posts: 1457

December 2, 2011

Seriously? The Scientist (ostensibly with a straight face) published a piece written by  the "Chief Scientific Officer" of the "Humane" Society of the United States? Their version of science is basically the following: Cite some facts, and leave out all of the salient ones which derail our agenda. 

Last time I checked, that methodology was the exact opposite of true science. The "Humane" Society of the United States and Humane Society International epitomize junk science.

This article is useful in one way. It serves as a glaring example of abdication of critical thinking skills and objective analysis. Is the Scientist endeavoring to destroy their credibility? If so, nicely played. This article is the metaphorical equivalent of a scientific publication putting a gun in the mouth and pulling the trigger.https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note... Irreconcilable Differences of Rush Limbaugh and the Humane Society of the United States.

Avatar of: david.harrison

david.harrison

Posts: 28

December 8, 2011

Why are the "humane" people assuming that research on animals is bad? 
Any competent scientist using mice, for example, knows that the response to stress damages experiments, so handling is designed to minimize stress. Most mice in experiments are far better off than those in the wild!

Now if you want terrible stress for animals, look at feed lots -  hundreds of millions of cattle, swine, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys crammed in hellish conditions.  Where is the humane society in this serious problem?Do people like cheap meat more than advances in knowledge?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 8, 2011

Why are the "humane" people assuming that research on animals is bad? 
Any competent scientist using mice, for example, knows that the response to stress damages experiments, so handling is designed to minimize stress. Most mice in experiments are far better off than those in the wild!

Now if you want terrible stress for animals, look at feed lots -  hundreds of millions of cattle, swine, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys crammed in hellish conditions.  Where is the humane society in this serious problem?Do people like cheap meat more than advances in knowledge?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 8, 2011

Why are the "humane" people assuming that research on animals is bad? 
Any competent scientist using mice, for example, knows that the response to stress damages experiments, so handling is designed to minimize stress. Most mice in experiments are far better off than those in the wild!

Now if you want terrible stress for animals, look at feed lots -  hundreds of millions of cattle, swine, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys crammed in hellish conditions.  Where is the humane society in this serious problem?Do people like cheap meat more than advances in knowledge?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

From an email to The Scientist' editor in chief:I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To legitimize
their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very depressing
course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your publication.
Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware of ways to
reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research. However,
the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent, irrational
group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of the United
States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow against
scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and animals. They
can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific progress.
I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article (as of the
writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the criticisms
contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

From an email to the editor-in-chief:

I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To
legitimize their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very
depressing course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your
publication. Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware
of ways to reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research.
However, the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent,
irrational group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of
the United States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow
against scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and
animals. They can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific
progress. I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article
(as of the writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the
criticisms contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

From an email to The Scientist' editor in chief:I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To legitimize
their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very depressing
course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your publication.
Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware of ways to
reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research. However,
the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent, irrational
group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of the United
States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow against
scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and animals. They
can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific progress.
I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article (as of the
writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the criticisms
contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

From an email to the editor-in-chief:

I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To
legitimize their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very
depressing course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your
publication. Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware
of ways to reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research.
However, the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent,
irrational group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of
the United States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow
against scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and
animals. They can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific
progress. I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article
(as of the writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the
criticisms contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of: TheSciAdmin

TheSciAdmin

Posts: 56

December 9, 2011

From an email to The Scientist' editor in chief:I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To legitimize
their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very depressing
course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your publication.
Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware of ways to
reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research. However,
the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent, irrational
group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of the United
States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow against
scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and animals. They
can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific progress.
I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article (as of the
writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the criticisms
contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of: TheSciAdmin

TheSciAdmin

Posts: 56

December 9, 2011

From an email to the editor-in-chief:

I would like to add
my voice to any protests related to the decision by the editors to publish the
opinion piece "Avoiding Animal Testing" in the November/December
issue of the Scientist. While I typically enjoy reading this magazine when it
arrives in my mailbox, seeing such fact-free piece of self-advertising severely
diminishes my interest in reading this journal. The opinions of an anti-science
activist have no real value in scientific discussions among reasonable people -
published in a "magazine of the life sciences" no less. The Humane
Society of the United States is an anti-science animal rights group. To
legitimize their anti-science perspective in a scientific magazine is a very
depressing course of action that seems to run counter to the goals of your
publication. Debates are good and healthy, and we as scientists should be aware
of ways to reduce suffering and should always be responsible with our research.
However, the other side of this "debate" is and supports a violent,
irrational group of ideologues. Allowing groups such as the Humane Society of
the United States to voice its confused perspective in your magazine is a blow
against scientists who care about curing diseases and helping people and
animals. They can declare some victory by being taken seriously by the scientific
establishment and continue to raise money that is directed against scientific
progress. I strongly support the comments on the web version of this article
(as of the writing of this email) and hope that you seriously listen to the
criticisms contained therein.

Sincerely;

David Moorman

Avatar of: JoanPL

JoanPL

Posts: 3

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of: JoanPL

JoanPL

Posts: 3

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

Avatar of: JoanPL

JoanPL

Posts: 3

December 9, 2011

As a vegetarian and graduate student working with mice for
my research projects, I applaud and discount certain statements in this
article. It was a difficult decision for me to agree to spend years working
toward a PhD where most of my experiments would centralize around work with
mice. I came to the understanding of the bigger picture. I do not think it is
necessary for testing or research of toxicology to be done with animals for
cosmetic purposes- the world does not need another brand or type of dish soap/mascara/
hair conditioner/facial scrub etc. Research for new therapies that treat and/or
prevent debilitating diseases require the use of animals. This simply comes
down to our society value of human life and ethics over those of animals. There
is unfortunately no alternative to researching new therapies for human disease
than the use of animals unless we begin testing on humans or another
synthesized living system. Rowan is right to highlight the potential for less animals
to be used for toxicology testing- this is positive for researchers in terms of
cost and of course, for the animals themselves. However, the angle from which
this article is written seems to jade the positive research (ex. Improved cell
culture systems) that it is trying to highlight. I think the purpose of this
article is being misconstrued by Rowan’s loose use of facts and conclusive
statements about the future of animal testing. Perhaps as researchers reading a
piece of work ‘from someone on the other side’ of the animal debate, we should
embrace possibilities for improvement in our field and not act hastily in
defense against them.

Best,

Joan

December 13, 2011

the advances on science have been achieved because of animal experiments.
is not good bite on the hand that feed you

Avatar of: jegarst

jegarst

Posts: 6

December 13, 2011

After animal testing ceases and then toxicology reveals something bad arising in one or more humans simply because somebody somewhere decided animal testing shouldn't be used, the then justified lawsuits will and should destroy those making the decision to cease animal testing. That my friends is why animal testing will never end!   

Avatar of: petekissinger

petekissinger

Posts: 3

December 13, 2011

With animal testing we nearly always miss the rare adverse events that challenge the definition of "safe and effective."  Animal toxicology helps catch frequent issues that would cancel a drug development program, but does nothing for the 1 in 10,000 event in humans.  Clinical trials don't do much for this either, only post marketing surveillance can have the power. We are getting better at that. No animal studies help cath these rare events.  We call the rodants "models" because they are not the real thing. They remain very important nonetheless.

Avatar of: Ellen Hunt

Ellen Hunt

Posts: 74

December 13, 2011

This already happens. We already have such deaths. Jolee Mohr is one.

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

December 13, 2011

Would that this were possible for vaccines, but...the immune system is so unbelievably complex an emergent property, and so different in its reactions between species, that recreating it in vitro in the near future for ANYTHING except maybe nematodes, is probably impossible.  Which means, in short, that there is probably NO substitute for testing antigens which are intended to be vaccines, in animals - and inevitably, in humans if that is their destination.

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

December 13, 2011

@Tina Perriguey, David Moorman: saying that The Scientist should not publish a TWO sided set of opinion pieces is NOT good science.  If you can still justify the use of animals in the face of an argument like this - as I tried to - then you can go away vindicated.  If not...you shouldn't be using animals for ANYTHING. Thinking about contentious issues is not a bad thing for scientists!

Avatar of: Brian Hanley

Brian Hanley

Posts: 66

December 13, 2011

This article is just wrong. We have already gone past the point of making animal testing too difficult. This shows up in two major ways.

- People have died who would likely be alive if not for bypassing animal testing steps.

- It is so difficult to get statistically valid numbers of higher animals (like monkeys) through IACUC reviews that numbers of animals are too low to give significant results.This leads to repeated experiments, each of which take years. That causes more money to be spent and a larger number of animals to be used in the end. It's not sensible.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

the advances on science have been achieved because of animal experiments.
is not good bite on the hand that feed you

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

After animal testing ceases and then toxicology reveals something bad arising in one or more humans simply because somebody somewhere decided animal testing shouldn't be used, the then justified lawsuits will and should destroy those making the decision to cease animal testing. That my friends is why animal testing will never end!   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

With animal testing we nearly always miss the rare adverse events that challenge the definition of "safe and effective."  Animal toxicology helps catch frequent issues that would cancel a drug development program, but does nothing for the 1 in 10,000 event in humans.  Clinical trials don't do much for this either, only post marketing surveillance can have the power. We are getting better at that. No animal studies help cath these rare events.  We call the rodants "models" because they are not the real thing. They remain very important nonetheless.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

This already happens. We already have such deaths. Jolee Mohr is one.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

Would that this were possible for vaccines, but...the immune system is so unbelievably complex an emergent property, and so different in its reactions between species, that recreating it in vitro in the near future for ANYTHING except maybe nematodes, is probably impossible.  Which means, in short, that there is probably NO substitute for testing antigens which are intended to be vaccines, in animals - and inevitably, in humans if that is their destination.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

@Tina Perriguey, David Moorman: saying that The Scientist should not publish a TWO sided set of opinion pieces is NOT good science.  If you can still justify the use of animals in the face of an argument like this - as I tried to - then you can go away vindicated.  If not...you shouldn't be using animals for ANYTHING. Thinking about contentious issues is not a bad thing for scientists!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

This article is just wrong. We have already gone past the point of making animal testing too difficult. This shows up in two major ways.

- People have died who would likely be alive if not for bypassing animal testing steps.

- It is so difficult to get statistically valid numbers of higher animals (like monkeys) through IACUC reviews that numbers of animals are too low to give significant results.This leads to repeated experiments, each of which take years. That causes more money to be spent and a larger number of animals to be used in the end. It's not sensible.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

the advances on science have been achieved because of animal experiments.
is not good bite on the hand that feed you

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

After animal testing ceases and then toxicology reveals something bad arising in one or more humans simply because somebody somewhere decided animal testing shouldn't be used, the then justified lawsuits will and should destroy those making the decision to cease animal testing. That my friends is why animal testing will never end!   

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

With animal testing we nearly always miss the rare adverse events that challenge the definition of "safe and effective."  Animal toxicology helps catch frequent issues that would cancel a drug development program, but does nothing for the 1 in 10,000 event in humans.  Clinical trials don't do much for this either, only post marketing surveillance can have the power. We are getting better at that. No animal studies help cath these rare events.  We call the rodants "models" because they are not the real thing. They remain very important nonetheless.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

This already happens. We already have such deaths. Jolee Mohr is one.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

Would that this were possible for vaccines, but...the immune system is so unbelievably complex an emergent property, and so different in its reactions between species, that recreating it in vitro in the near future for ANYTHING except maybe nematodes, is probably impossible.  Which means, in short, that there is probably NO substitute for testing antigens which are intended to be vaccines, in animals - and inevitably, in humans if that is their destination.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

@Tina Perriguey, David Moorman: saying that The Scientist should not publish a TWO sided set of opinion pieces is NOT good science.  If you can still justify the use of animals in the face of an argument like this - as I tried to - then you can go away vindicated.  If not...you shouldn't be using animals for ANYTHING. Thinking about contentious issues is not a bad thing for scientists!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 13, 2011

This article is just wrong. We have already gone past the point of making animal testing too difficult. This shows up in two major ways.

- People have died who would likely be alive if not for bypassing animal testing steps.

- It is so difficult to get statistically valid numbers of higher animals (like monkeys) through IACUC reviews that numbers of animals are too low to give significant results.This leads to repeated experiments, each of which take years. That causes more money to be spent and a larger number of animals to be used in the end. It's not sensible.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Right! Like you're not going to get whole animal testing eventually ...
On you, your family, your pets, billions of organisms in the environment ...

Ignorance is bliss.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how different areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. And such a list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Wheneverthe HSUS speaks publicly, it is not engaging in true debate. It is honing language that can be used to continue to dupe the pet-loving , animal loving generous American public. This little opinion piece is sure to conflate into pointing out the legitimacy of HSUS (weren't they asked for their opinion, and weren't they published in a scientific magazine?), and imply their success in leading the world down their rat piper's trail of getting more kind people on their side.

They are not interested in animal welfare. Most of them have such little knowledge of animals that their storm troopers frequently let completely domesticated animals loose to "freedom". Where they will die miserable deaths by predation and starvation. HSUS is ONLY interested in using the millions it cons from the public to entrench in legalisms a final separation of humans and animals as some sort of mindless support of vegan cultists' screed. There isn't one of them that I have ever heard or read in a public forum that had anything to do with opposite truths. It has always been mush mouthed propaganda, designed to raise even more money from the unsuspecting. .

Inviting them into houses of rational thought is a ludicrous mistake. The most useful thing we can do is to expose them whenever and whereever we find the opportunity

Ann Savage

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Total elimination of animal uses in medical research may not be possible for precise out come but selective and minimal uses may be possible. One should not forgot that, in this universe the human race is the focus of all activities.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Right! Like you're not going to get whole animal testing eventually ...
On you, your family, your pets, billions of organisms in the environment ...

Ignorance is bliss.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how different areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. And such a list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Wheneverthe HSUS speaks publicly, it is not engaging in true debate. It is honing language that can be used to continue to dupe the pet-loving , animal loving generous American public. This little opinion piece is sure to conflate into pointing out the legitimacy of HSUS (weren't they asked for their opinion, and weren't they published in a scientific magazine?), and imply their success in leading the world down their rat piper's trail of getting more kind people on their side.

They are not interested in animal welfare. Most of them have such little knowledge of animals that their storm troopers frequently let completely domesticated animals loose to "freedom". Where they will die miserable deaths by predation and starvation. HSUS is ONLY interested in using the millions it cons from the public to entrench in legalisms a final separation of humans and animals as some sort of mindless support of vegan cultists' screed. There isn't one of them that I have ever heard or read in a public forum that had anything to do with opposite truths. It has always been mush mouthed propaganda, designed to raise even more money from the unsuspecting. .

Inviting them into houses of rational thought is a ludicrous mistake. The most useful thing we can do is to expose them whenever and whereever we find the opportunity

Ann Savage

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 14, 2011

Total elimination of animal uses in medical research may not be possible for precise out come but selective and minimal uses may be possible. One should not forgot that, in this universe the human race is the focus of all activities.

December 14, 2011

Right! Like you're not going to get whole animal testing eventually ...
On you, your family, your pets, billions of organisms in the environment ...

Ignorance is bliss.

Avatar of: ceperezleighton

ceperezleighton

Posts: 4

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how different areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. And such a list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of: ceperezleighton

ceperezleighton

Posts: 4

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of: ceperezleighton

ceperezleighton

Posts: 4

December 14, 2011

"While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, it is hard to
conceive how the use of cellular models might be used to understand the
effects and mechanisms underlying responsses to other types of
phenomena. I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality."

Avatar of: ceperezleighton

ceperezleighton

Posts: 4

December 14, 2011

While it seems possible to eliminate the use of animals in certain
research areas, the title of the article is misleading as it does not
address how other areas of biological research might continue to
progress without the use of animal models. For example, I fail to see how the exclusive use of cellular models might
lead to a better understanding of drug addiction, anorexia, Alzheimer
disease, obesity, type I and II diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder
and behavioral adaptations to neurodegenerative diseases such as
Parkinsons. A list which is by no means exhaustive.  It would be
interesting if the authors of this article could provide examples from
biomedical research disciplines to support the idea that exclusion of
animal research will not affect the ability of scientists to provide the
basic understanding that is necessary for development of new and
improvement of human health quality.

Avatar of: queenmoof

queenmoof

Posts: 1

December 14, 2011

Wheneverthe HSUS speaks publicly, it is not engaging in true debate. It is honing language that can be used to continue to dupe the pet-loving , animal loving generous American public. This little opinion piece is sure to conflate into pointing out the legitimacy of HSUS (weren't they asked for their opinion, and weren't they published in a scientific magazine?), and imply their success in leading the world down their rat piper's trail of getting more kind people on their side.

They are not interested in animal welfare. Most of them have such little knowledge of animals that their storm troopers frequently let completely domesticated animals loose to "freedom". Where they will die miserable deaths by predation and starvation. HSUS is ONLY interested in using the millions it cons from the public to entrench in legalisms a final separation of humans and animals as some sort of mindless support of vegan cultists' screed. There isn't one of them that I have ever heard or read in a public forum that had anything to do with opposite truths. It has always been mush mouthed propaganda, designed to raise even more money from the unsuspecting. .

Inviting them into houses of rational thought is a ludicrous mistake. The most useful thing we can do is to expose them whenever and whereever we find the opportunity

Ann Savage

Avatar of: gslavekar

gslavekar

Posts: 4

December 14, 2011

Total elimination of animal uses in medical research may not be possible for precise out come but selective and minimal uses may be possible. One should not forgot that, in this universe the human race is the focus of all activities.

Avatar of: Paula Lloyd

Paula Lloyd

Posts: 1457

December 22, 2011

It has to be STOPPED !!!!!  NOW  !!!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

It has to be STOPPED !!!!!  NOW  !!!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

It has to be STOPPED !!!!!  NOW  !!!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 9, 2012

Below it is noted that "A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".  And many people used to believe the Earth was flat too, and there was no scientific basis for it either. Animal testing is not predictive for humans. Several peer-reviewed studies demonstrate this: the average predictive value is 0.34%, which is less than a coin toss. And there are no peer-reviewed studies that demonstrates the contrary. Read Dr. Ray Greek's books on this. The research industry doesn't like him, but that's because exposes what frauds they are. They have cured cancer in mice many times, and this does nothing to help humans with cancer. Our medical schools are stuck in the dark ages of animal testing -- more a case of irrational faith in what they hope is real, than in proven science.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 9, 2012

Below it is noted that "A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".  And many people used to believe the Earth was flat too, and there was no scientific basis for it either. Animal testing is not predictive for humans. Several peer-reviewed studies demonstrate this: the average predictive value is 0.34%, which is less than a coin toss. And there are no peer-reviewed studies that demonstrates the contrary. Read Dr. Ray Greek's books on this. The research industry doesn't like him, but that's because exposes what frauds they are. They have cured cancer in mice many times, and this does nothing to help humans with cancer. Our medical schools are stuck in the dark ages of animal testing -- more a case of irrational faith in what they hope is real, than in proven science.

Avatar of: baby33

baby33

Posts: 1

January 9, 2012

Below it is noted that "A recent poll by Nature showed that 92% of scientists believe that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science".  And many people used to believe the Earth was flat too, and there was no scientific basis for it either. Animal testing is not predictive for humans. Several peer-reviewed studies demonstrate this: the average predictive value is 0.34%, which is less than a coin toss. And there are no peer-reviewed studies that demonstrates the contrary. Read Dr. Ray Greek's books on this. The research industry doesn't like him, but that's because exposes what frauds they are. They have cured cancer in mice many times, and this does nothing to help humans with cancer. Our medical schools are stuck in the dark ages of animal testing -- more a case of irrational faith in what they hope is real, than in proven science.

Avatar of: mtk

mtk

Posts: 1

June 19, 2013

actually seeking like minded individuals who are interested in a project where we will look into the alternatives to animal testing and then presenting said plan to potential investors who have expressed interest in this concept.  i am a lawyer and feel passionately about this topic and am seeking scientists and technologists who may be interested in making this into a startup venture, either as a non-pofit of profit company.  "your heart has to be in the right place"

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
TwistDx Limited
TwistDx Limited
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Illumina
Illumina