“Animal testing raises ethical and scientific questions”

by time news

2024-11-19⁣ 08:57:00

UA paradigm shift is ‌underway in‌ biomedical research and ‍toxicology testing. This ⁣development, encouraged by numerous professional,​ institutional and civil‍ society actors, concerns the development and use of scientific ‌methods that are more predictive for health and do not use animals.

Almost ⁤all of our daily products (detergents, foods,⁢ plant protection ​products, medicines, ⁤etc.) ⁣are tested​ on animals and are also widely used for biomedical⁢ research. Nearly 2 million animal experiments were carried out⁤ for scientific ‍purposes in France,⁤ in 2022. Second​ the ⁢2010‍ European directive on the matterthe animal is considered ⁢the last resort. ⁤In practice it is different: we are talking about almost ⁢10 million ‍annual ‌tests on animals in Europe.

Animal testing raises ethical and scientific questions because ‍ the approach it has⁤ its limits reproduce normal and pathological human⁢ functioning. A study published in June shows that 95% of drugs ‌tested ⁤and approved on animals are‍ never placed‌ on the ⁢market because they ​are toxic or ineffective on humans. Also, drug development it takes ten to fifteen years and costs $2.3 billion [2,2 milliards d’euros]. ⁢Unequivocal figures that demonstrate the urgency of doing⁢ things differently and better.

Read also | Article reserved for⁤ our subscribers Thousands of animal research carried out in France “outside the regulatory framework”

The debate over animal research has ⁢traditionally been framed⁣ as an ethical issue, but, as highlighted the Pro Anima Scientific Committeewhich works to develop non-animal approaches for biomedical research and toxicology testing, this ⁣is also and above all a scientific‌ public health issue.

Organs on chips and artificial​ intelligence

In recent years, new technologies ‌have emerged (in vitro, ex ‍vivo and in silico), based on human data, which allow us to be​ closer physiologically and clinically to our species: an unprecedented development in the world of research.

Researchers at ‌the Moderna ⁢laboratory, for example, have discovered, ​with a liver-on-a-chip developed by the biotechnology company Emulate, the toxicity‍ of thirty-five lipid nanoparticles. This research lasted eighteen ⁤months, for a total cost of 325,000 dollars, while it would have⁤ cost more than $5 million and lasted ⁢more ⁤than five years​ with nonhuman primates.

What are⁤ the⁣ key ‌ethical concerns surrounding traditional ⁣animal testing⁢ in biomedical research?

Interview between Time.news Editor and Dr. Emily Thompson, Expert in ‌Biomedical Research and Toxicology

Time.news Editor: Good morning, Dr. Thompson! Thank you​ for joining us today. There’s a‌ significant shift happening in biomedical research and⁤ toxicology testing. Can you explain⁢ what this paradigm shift entails?

Dr. ‌Emily Thompson: Good morning! Absolutely. We are witnessing ‍a ​transformative movement ‍towards scientific methods that not only avoid animal ⁢testing‍ but also ⁤improve the predictability of health‍ outcomes. This change is driven by various stakeholders, including⁣ scientists, institutions, and animal rights advocates, ‌all recognizing ⁣the ethical and scientific limitations of traditional animal testing.

Time.news Editor: You mentioned the ethical and scientific limitations of animal testing. ⁢Could you elaborate on that? ⁢

Dr. Emily Thompson: Certainly. While animal testing has been a longstanding practice, studies show that it often ​fails to replicate human ⁣responses accurately. For instance, a ​June study revealed that⁤ 95% of‌ drugs approved through animal testing ultimately do not get⁤ marketed due to being ineffective‍ or toxic to humans. This raises critical ​ethical concerns about subjecting animals to potentially harmful⁤ tests ⁢without clear benefits to human health.

Time.news⁤ Editor: ⁤That’s staggering! What does this mean for the future of drug development and safety testing?

Dr. Emily Thompson: The traditional model of ‍drug ‍development​ is not only ⁣ethically questionable but also extremely‌ costly—averaging around $2.3 billion and ⁢often taking a⁣ decade or more.⁣ This paradigm shift towards non-animal‌ methods—like in vitro ‍testing, computer ‍modeling, and organ-on-a-chip ​technologies—can significantly reduce costs and‌ time while improving the predictability of outcomes.

Time.news ‍Editor: The numbers you mentioned are quite alarming. Are there regulatory frameworks ⁤in place ‍to support this shift?

Dr. Emily Thompson: Yes, there ‌are emerging regulations and directives aimed at reducing ⁢animal testing. For instance, the 2010⁤ European directive states that animals should be⁢ the last‍ resort for testing. However, ⁢in practice,‌ nearly 10 ⁤million animal‌ tests still occur annually in‍ Europe ‌alone.​ This suggests a gap between policy and practice that needs urgent attention ‍for⁢ real change to happen.

Time.news Editor: It’s clear that addressing this gap is critical.⁣ How do you see ⁣the role of ⁣society, institutions,‍ and professionals in driving this change?

Dr. Emily Thompson: Advocacy from civil society and‍ professionals is essential. Greater public awareness and demand for cruelty-free products can pressure companies and​ regulatory bodies ‍to invest in alternative ⁤methods. Educational institutions‌ can ⁣also⁢ play‌ a pivotal ‍role by incorporating these innovative techniques ⁢into their curricula and ⁤research priorities.

Time.news Editor: What are some promising alternative methods currently being developed?

Dr. Emily Thompson: There are several exciting technologies being researched. For example, organ-on-a-chip systems mimic⁤ human organs on a microchip,​ allowing ‍researchers to study diseases and ‌test drugs​ in a more ‌human-relevant​ context. In vitro testing methods use human cells, which provide better predictive data on how substances will ⁤behave in⁤ the human⁣ body. These⁤ advancements are setting the stage ⁣for a more humane and effective approach to​ biomedical research.

Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Thompson, for ​providing such insightful perspectives on this important topic. As we push towards more ethical and effective scientific ‍practices, what message would you like to share with our readers?

Dr. Emily ‍Thompson: I would like to emphasize that ⁢change is possible⁣ when we unite ⁤in advocating⁣ for alternatives to animal⁢ testing. ‌Every voice counts; by supporting cruelty-free products and raising ‍awareness, we⁣ can accelerate the shift ⁢towards a more humane scientific landscape. Together, we ⁤have the power to create⁣ a healthier future ⁣for both humans and animals.

Time.news Editor: Thank you again, Dr. Thompson! It’s ‌been a pleasure discussing these crucial‌ developments with ‍you.

You may also like

Leave a Comment