What are the alternatives to animal testing?

Question

When researchers need to develop a drug or medication that will ultimately benefit multitudes of people, they turn to certain animals for tests and trials.

Animals have provided us with many answers regarding a vast amount of human diseases of illnesses over the years. As a famous ad once said: "They've saved more lives than 911."

For those of you who are opposed to all forms of animal testing, would you please give suggestions or alternatives to these methods? I'm sure many of you already have some good ideas.

Human testing is a good point, except it's pretty much illegal.

911 as in emergency response...but ok.

Answer 1

Cells are a pretty fair method of testing new drugs. In simplest form, you can just squirt some drug in a dish of cells and see if the cells die, divide, become members of congress, whatever. It's cheaper than animal testing, and can produce quicker and more solid results. Plus, Pinky and The Brain get to run free.

In the US, most cells that are used for this purpose come from very specific lines or lineages. This is because different types of cells will respond very, very differently to drugs, so you need a lineage of cells whose responses are stable and repeatable in different labs.

Unfortunately, normal human body cells cannot be maintained in lineages like this. Most cells will only divide a few times under even the best of culture conditions -- so you can't send your blue-spotted-gene-expressing skin cell line (for example) to another lab for them to test.

There are two types of cells that will divide constantly under culture conditions -- two types of cells that are essentially immortal, and that can be used in place of animals. The first is cancer cells. Unfortunately, cancer cells frequently bear as much resemblance to normal human cells as a weasel does to a turnip. If cancer cells die when you add your wonder drug, are they dying because your drug kills that particular sort of cancer cell, or because your drug kills all cells?

The best kind of cell for research is an embryonic stem cell. If you treat them right, you can turn them into any kind of cell you like. So you could send your blue-spotted-gene-expressing stem cell line to another lab, then you could both treat your cells to turn them into blue-spotted-gene-expressing liver cells, then test the drug. And anyone else could run the exact same experiment.

Currently, researchers in the United States can only do research (using federal money) with existing lines of stem cells... of which there are a few dozen, most of which were created back when researchers didn't understand how to grow them very well. Most of these lines, because of long storage or bad growth conditions, also bear little resemblance to healthy, fresh embryonic stem cells, or to any other kind of human cell.

Drug testing on cells can't tell us what'll happen when a drug is added to a complex biological system, but it can tell us what happens when a drug is added to, say, a liver cell. Animal testing is still needed after that, but screening drugs with cells can give us a lot of information.

It's a pity there are so few good cell lines available.

Answer 2

The most common alternatives that are suggested are in vitro testing and computer modeling. These are quite useful, but have a number of flaws. For example, you can study the effect of a drug on cells in a dish, even to the point of fully understanding how the drug interacts with specific proteins in those cells and how it causes a specific effect in those cells. But this tells you nothing about the effect of the drug on entire organs, or how effectively it will be absorbed through the digestive system, or how it will be broken down and excreted. These can really only be effectively done by animal testing. We don't really have a complete enough understanding of organ systems to use computer modeling for anything other than rouch guesses of effectiveness or toxicity. Also, it's difficult to grow several tissue types in vitro, and most cells that grow in vitro are cancer or virus-infected, so you can't always say that in vitro results will translate into effects in humans.

Some developments would not have been possible without animal testing, and probably never will be: surgical procedures such as laporoscopic surgey and joint replacement, for example, and medical imaging technologies (e.g., MRI) really can't be developed any other way than practice and testing with whole organisms.

Answer 3

I do not believe animal testing will ever be completely eliminated. When it comes to the cosmetic industry some responsible companies do not test on animals and those are the ones I look for. There has been so much testing of cosmetics on animals in the past, so there is so much data cosmetic companies no longer have to test. They can simply look at past data. Drug companies are working with new substances and I believe they will never stop testing on animals.

Answer 4

I believe we should capture members of the ELF & ALF and the other eco-terrorist fronts and use them in place of animal testings. That way they will no longer have reason to object anymore. Sounds simple and no animals are harmed. In fact, no one even has to know the terrorists are being tested upon, after all, their "donating" their lives to bettering the human race which is exactly what they were doing in the first place in their heads.

Forgive my flippancy, I'll get serious and the serious fact is: sadly, while I do consider it abuse, there is no other safe option than animal testing. Its horrible and cruel, but I'd rather find out that way than by finding out years down the road that something is cancer causing on a human. Its just common-sense.

Answer 5

uh unless you use humans to test stuff you gotta use animals. its in the FDA regulations. computers can only do so much and if they'd be enough they'd be used. its cheaper than animal upkeep trust me. there are clear regulations on animal testing and it's getting tougher as time goes on. PETA and the like aren't making it easier and should back off or stop enjoying the marvels of modern medicine or volunteer themselves.

Answer 6

human testing
and is not illegal if the person do that voluntarily and by his own wish
i think

Answer 7

do you think that add was lying? yes . Animals have taken more lives than all the wars and hate and cars, and 911's in the history of man. Get some balance here, or,
wow. would you prefere the German response? They killed 6 milllion jews testing things like how long it took to die if they cut off both thumbs, or if they opened a woman's womb.There are plenty of muslims, or Christians,or whites. Just stay away from the lab till you grow up. maybe by then we , through animal testing, will find a way to cure you from that idiot mind set.
go save a forrest, buy the land,and put all the rats on your property. THEY ARE ANIMALS, if you dont have the stomach for it just stay out of that line of work. The progress it provides harmlessly is more important than your sympathy for a rat!

Answer 8

human testing

Answer 9

human testing