Fri 27 Jul 2007
A great investigation about the use of animals in toxicology experiments appears in this month’s edition of Chemistry World …
>>Tests on mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs to stop harmful chemicals reaching humans were once a necessary evil. But such checks now seem embarrassingly old-fashioned, according to a report on toxicity testing from the US National Research Council (NRC), released in June (see link below)
The report sets out a vision for 21st century toxicology using alternative tests that are not only more humane, but are also faster, cheaper and more accurate than their animal counterparts. Some of these tests are already here. Spurred on by the expense of implementing Reach, the new European chemicals legislation which came into force in June, scientists have unveiled a swathe of non-animal alternatives within the last few months.
While this paradigm shift marks a radical improvement for toxicology, it is also highlighting the enormous drawbacks of existing animal models, and how overdue their replacements are.
Read more here
October 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
There are serious drawbacks in existing in vivo and in vitro methods of toxicology. Implementation of the 3Rs is proceeding in toxicity testing. Replacement of an in vivo test by an in vitro test may not necessarily bring a technical improvement, though it will always be an ethical improvement. If replacement can also bring technical improvement so much the better.
The NRC report foresees that some forms of in vivo testing will be irreplaceable for several decades to come.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 am
Hi Leigh - thanks for commenting, and I agree that in vivo tests will remain indispensable for decades (if not longer)!
On the subject of technical improvement though -I had gathered that in vitro tests are held up to higher standards than the in vivo tests they replace (when they are being validated). So much so, indeed, that Thomas Hartung said some traditional in vivo tests would not pass today’s validation standards. So - wouldn’t in vitro tests, once validated, always bring technical equality or improvement above the in vivo test? (Validation being the ‘kite mark’ that would confirm this).