While looking for information on animal testing, I came across this blog post in BBGM...
"Animals and Drug Development"
...which in turn led me to this blog post (from In the Pipeline), from which the first author found this quote:
And for my readers outside the industry – yes, we do indeed use animal testing. Mice take the brunt of it, followed by rats. It’s very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and we’d drop it in a minute if we could, just for those reasons. But no one knows enough about living organisms yet to do that. Not even close. For the foreseeable future, there’s no other way to do medical research, academic or industrial, basic or applied. Anyone who tells you differently is either misinformed or lying, and anyone who knows better but still tries to shut down the research is ethically deranged.
This author at Britannica Blog disagrees in this post:
Alternatives to animal testing are primarily based on biochemical assays, on experiments in cells that are carried out in vitro (“within the glass”), and on computational models and algorithms. These techniques are typically far more sophisticated and specific than traditional approaches to testing in whole animals, and many in vitro tests are capable of producing information about the biological effects of a test compound that are as accurate as?and in some cases more accurate than?information collected from studies in whole animals. In addition, basic research is focusing increasingly on developing models based on organisms that are less expensive and more experimentally efficient than mammals. Such organisms include fruit flies, nematodes, and zebra fish.
Of couse, there's a lot more information out there about animal testing. What do you think about it?
Loading ...
