Many small animals are sacrificed for scientific research. Though they are bred separately for such purpose, but the pain received by the animals during experiment and loss of resources for such activity should better be avoided.
The software based alternatives of use of animals in such purposes are discussed for more than a decade.
What is the present status of use of this technology?
What are the problems in adopting this technology?
Very significant question and very relevant as in this era research is going on how to eliminate use of animals in research experimentation.
I think computer methods - Simulation techniques have been successfully implemented- these techniques replace the use of test animals being absolutely unethical to use them for our research. This is called Vivo (in test tube-cell culture outside the body) experimentation using CADD and SARs tools. But there are limitations and simulation model for all activities are not possible.
Ideally we need human body to study human.MacLennan & Amos, 1990 said as under:
"There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to inter species variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. "
Read this article on the Three Rs: reduction, refinement and replacement:
Alternatives to animal testing: A review
Article Alternatives to animal testing: A review
This is a very intelligent question that buttresses the need to maximize the use of software models as alternatives in common experiments without risking fauna conservation.
Very significant question and very relevant as in this era research is going on how to eliminate use of animals in research experimentation.
I think computer methods - Simulation techniques have been successfully implemented- these techniques replace the use of test animals being absolutely unethical to use them for our research. This is called Vivo (in test tube-cell culture outside the body) experimentation using CADD and SARs tools. But there are limitations and simulation model for all activities are not possible.
Ideally we need human body to study human.MacLennan & Amos, 1990 said as under:
"There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to inter species variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. "
I think that only in the case of all genes, proteins, enzymes, and all interactions between all of these with all other possible variables in a body are be well known that we will not use animal models anymore. Until there, we will continue to need to use this kind of model, because it is very useful and necessary for our understanding the complex interactions that make life what it is. Without these kinds of models, we will remain in a dark age for several vitals doubts that we still have, and I think that we don't have this kind of luxe yet.
Until now. Technology is finally coming up with solutions that could eliminate the practice altogether.
Putting an end to animal experimentation is more than just a matter of ethics. A growing number of scientists and clinicians are challenging the use of animal models on medical and scientific grounds. A 2006 study in JAMA concluded that, "patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the findings of prominent animal research to the care of human disease," and that "even high-quality animal studies will replicate poorly in human clinical research."
Two years ago, independent studies published in PLOS showed that only animal trials with positive results tend to get published, and that only two stroke treatments out of 500 verified that animal models actually worked on humans.
Making matters worse is the fact that mice are used in nearly 60% of all experiments. As Slate's Daniel Engber argues, mice are among the most unreliable test subjects, when it comes to approximating human biological processes. But most scientists are reluctant to move away from this tried-and-true model, mostly because mice are cheap, docile, and good subjects for genetic engineering experiments. They're also denied many of the rights afforded to other animals. Still, Engber points out, "It's not at all clear that the rise of the mouse — and the million research papers that resulted from it — has produced a revolution in public health."
Given these problems, and combined with the overarching ethics question, it's clear that something better has to come along. Thankfully, the process of replacing animal models is largely underway — an effort that began over 50 years ago.
The three R's of animal testing
Back in 1959, English scientists William Russell and Rex Burch conducted a study to see how animals were being treated at the hands of research scientists. To make their assessments, they looked at the degree of "humaneness" or "inhumaneness" that was afforded to the animals during testing. By analyzing the work being done by scientists in this way, Russell and Burch sought to create a set of guidelines that could be used to reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on laboratory animals.
To that end, they proposed the three R's of animal testing: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement.
By practicing reduction, scientists were asked to to acquire high quality data using the smallest possible number of animals. Experiments needed to be designed so that they could continue to yield valuable results, while minimizing (if not eliminating) the need for endless repetition of the same tests. Consequently, scientists were told to work closer with statisticians (to better understand the required level of statistical significance) and to refer to previous studies that had essentially performed the same tests.
Refinement was simply the idea that more humanitarian approaches were required. It was a call to reduce the severity of distress, pain, and fear experienced by many lab animals.
More significantly, however, was the suggestion that scientists replace their lab animals with non-sentient animals — things like microorganisms, metazoan parasites, and certain plants. The less cognitively sophisticated the animal, it was thought, the less capacity it had to experience emotional, physical, and psychological distress.
Since the publication of Russell and Burch's guidelines, a number of scientists and bioethicists have put these policies into practice. But now, as more sophisticated tools emerge, scientists have been given entirely new options for testing — options that will enable them to honor the "R" of replacement.
Technological alternatives
Most of these new alternatives that are emerging are coming from the fields of biotechnology, hi-res scanning, and computer science.
Take research laboratory CeeTox, for example. They're using human cell-based in vitro (lab grown) models to predict the toxicity of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products — tests that are replacing the need to pump potentially hazardous chemicals into animals' stomachs, lungs, and eyes. Likewise, biotech firm Hurel has developed a lab-grown human liver that can be used to break down chemicals.
There's also MatTek's in vitro 3D human skin tissue that's being used by the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and a number of universities. Their virtual skin is proving to be an excellent substitute for the real thing, allowing scientists to conduct burn research, and to test cosmetics, radiation exposure, and so on.
The development of non-invasive brain scanning techniques are also enabling scientists to work on human test subjects. Technologies such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT are replacing the need to perform vivisections on the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys.
Likewise, the practice of microdosing, where volunteers are given extremely small one-time drug doses, is allowing researchers to work ethically with humans.
There's also the tremendous potential for computer models — and this is very likely where the future of drug testing and other scientific research lies.
The first heart models were developed 13 years ago, kickstarting efforts into the development of simulated lungs, the musculoskeletal system, the digestive system, skin, kidneys, the lymphatic system — and even the brain.
Today, computer simulations are being used to test the efficacy of new medications on asthma, though laws still require that all new drugs get verified in animal and humans tests before licensing. Models are also being used to simulate human metabolism in an effort to predict plaque build-up and cardiovascular risk. These same systems are also being used to evaluate drug toxicity — tests that would have normally involved the use of lab animals. And as we reported a few months ago, new computer simulations can even help scientists predict the negative side effects of drugs. All this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This said, not everyone agrees that computer simulations are the way to go. Some people feel that simulations can never truly paint an accurate picture of what they're trying to model — that it's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." The basic reasoning is that scientists can't possibly simulate something they don't truly understand. Consequently, if their models are off by even just a little bit, the entire simulation will diverge dramatically from reality.
But even though these problems are real, they're not necessarily intractable — nor are they deal breakers. It may very well turn out that the margin of error achieved in computer simulations will be comparable (or better) than the current margin of error when testing animal models. And given the rate of technological advance, both in biotechnology and information technology, it's even conceivable that we can simulate the intricate complexity that makes up organisms with extreme accuracy. And at that point, animal experimentation won't even seem like a sensible option.
Other sources: Siftung Forschung 3R, New Scientist, PETA. Images: Vit Kovalcik/Shutterstock, Everett Collection/Shutterstock, Mattek, James King-Holmes/Science Photo Library.
Virtual human organs and virtual metabolism programmes can now predict drug effects in humans more accurately than animals can. Computers and specific softwares can be used to design the molecular structure of drugs to target specific receptors. Computer models are offering opportunities to replace animals. A heart model representing heart cells with more than 30 types of ion pumps and membrane channels joined with connective tissue and supplied with blood vessels. Oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, changes in acidity and the ATP cycle are included and feedback between electrical and mechanical activities of the heart is also simulated. The model is enabling studies of the underlying causes of heart problems.
WELL, EVERY WORK HAS CERTAIN FLAWS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO REMAIN.HOWEVER,IT IS A PROMISING TECHNOLOGY BUT MIGHT NOT BE UTILISED IN EACH AND EVERY THING NECESSITATING ANIMALS FOR EXPERIMENTATION.
LET US INVITE OPINIONS.
An important question and a distinct answers, but this alternative, in your opinion, will meet the requirements of research and laboratory analysis, I do not think so technically.
@ Isam: Alternative methods do help to reduce the number of animals required for drug research, but there is no way they can completely eliminate the need for animals in preclinical studies. However, wherever feasible, appropriate alternatives are being devised. No new drug can be used in patients until it has been tested in animals. The intact animal does provide a better model of the complex interaction of the physiological process than does an alternative technique.
Animal can't be a good model. Every person is unique in his genetic background. So, application of animals is just a way to step down. With advancement in scientific research progress, in vitro models are being developed which will be having environment controlled and monitoring can be accomplished well. However, I don't prefer software simulations as they are distant from realistic situation.
As long as (1) the responses of non-human animals to various stimuli are deterministic (i.e., nonhuman animals have no libertarian free will) and (2) software models can accurately account for these deterministic responses, then technology is effective in replacing animal experimentation. If either (1) or (2) is false, then animal experimentation should continue for the overall betterment of society.
But there are many areas where simulation/computerization may not be possible.
- Advantages: speed, relatively inexpensive when compared to the full cost of an animal study
- Downside: availability of the technology, limited physiological interactions, need to update for novel molecules...
Some may say it is impossible to fully predict effects of novel drugs in a computer-based methodology. But there's always a catch, isn't it? Drugs in the market for bazillions of years still have an incomplete known mechanism of action, interactions, etc lets use the CNS action of acetaminophen as a nice example of that. We are in a transitional period for medical science and I wish to see more publications using the computer-based technology.
If you're interested in conferences about that, it is on the topics list of the World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in Life Sciences. http://wc10seattle.org/2017/home.aspx
Owing to the issues related to procurement and strict regulations and ethical issues, it has become increasingly difficult to perform animal experiments. A number of computer simulation models (CSMs) are available based on the processes and reactions observed in the cells in response to specific symptom, drugs or toxicants. These observations are translated into highly complex computer models to develop algorithms that closely mimic the processes which actually take place in human tissues when exposed to particular drug or toxic substances. These computational models allow for reliable long-term predictions and thus help to replace animal testing in the long run. However effectiveness of such models depend on how precisely observations are made and algorithmized that closely mimic the processes in human cells to have a reliable CSMs
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research