Comments on: Animal Testing: How To Save Those Rats And Mice http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/ News, Comment and Conversation Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:51:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Northerntracey http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-102562 Northerntracey Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:09:22 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-102562 The so-called 'replacement' of animal tests is just as fraudulent as vivisection itself. Testing drugs on animals has been consistently shown to be totally unreliable when correlated to humans. As it is so unreliable and obviously defunct why replace it with something which has to be tested to render similar results. The only way we will ever get truly safe drugs and new treatments is by abolishing this outdated and dangerous practice. The so-called ‘replacement’ of animal tests is just as fraudulent as vivisection itself.
Testing drugs on animals has been consistently shown to be totally unreliable when correlated to humans. As it is so unreliable and obviously defunct why replace it with something which has to be tested to render similar results.
The only way we will ever get truly safe drugs and new treatments is by abolishing this outdated and dangerous practice.

]]> By: ol cranky http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-89132 ol cranky Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:43:08 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-89132 Nathan: I doubt use of animal models to evaluate mechanism of action account for a lot of the animal use but BOTOX and similar biologics use A LOT of mice for potency and immunogenicity testing. <i>in vitro</i> models have submitted as an alternative but as far as I know, no changes to methodologies have been made. That could explain a substantial amount of the animal use in testing of biologics. As Tom states, repro-tox and long-term tox/carcinogenity testing for compounds to be used on a chronic basis are also required. I've been told that some of the most insane and unnecessary testing is actually to meet DOT requirements. Nathan:

I doubt use of animal models to evaluate mechanism of action account for a lot of the animal use but BOTOX and similar biologics use A LOT of mice for potency and immunogenicity testing. in vitro models have submitted as an alternative but as far as I know, no changes to methodologies have been made. That could explain a substantial amount of the animal use in testing of biologics.

As Tom states, repro-tox and long-term tox/carcinogenity testing for compounds to be used on a chronic basis are also required. I’ve been told that some of the most insane and unnecessary testing is actually to meet DOT requirements.

]]> By: Tom http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-88821 Tom Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:18:20 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-88821 Nathan, I think the article refers to acute testing - single dose or short-term studies. From what I recall, most testing is for chronic effects (e.g. carcinogenicity)and happens over periods of 6 months to 2 years. To find more unusual adverse effects also takes larger groups of animals given different doses. Nathan, I think the article refers to acute testing - single dose or short-term studies. From what I recall, most testing is for chronic effects (e.g. carcinogenicity)and happens over periods of 6 months to 2 years. To find more unusual adverse effects also takes larger groups of animals given different doses.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-88719 Nathan Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:43:03 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/animal-testing-how-to-save-those-rats-and-mice/#comment-88719 Testing drugs in animals is expensive and time consuming -- so there is a natural "free-market" drive that will cause companies to minimize animal testing. My question is this: If toxicity testing only accounts for 4% of all animal use in Europe, what is the other 96% being used for? I had always assumed that toxicity testing represented the biggest chunk of lab animal use, particularly in the pharma industry. Those figures suggest that I'm clearly wrong in my thinking. Testing drugs in animals is expensive and time consuming — so there is a natural “free-market” drive that will cause companies to minimize animal testing.

My question is this: If toxicity testing only accounts for 4% of all animal use in Europe, what is the other 96% being used for? I had always assumed that toxicity testing represented the biggest chunk of lab animal use, particularly in the pharma industry. Those figures suggest that I’m clearly wrong in my thinking.

]]>