advertising Search Engine Submission - AddMe RELAX: New product tests spare the animals

بحث هذه المدونة الإلكترونية

الأحد، 9 أكتوبر 2011

New product tests spare the animals








The makers of Botox have been cel­ebrating — and no, it's not because they found a better way to smooth wrinkles.

The compa­ny, Al­lergan Inc. of Irvine, an­nounced in June that the Food and Drug Admin­istration approved its new method to test Botox's po­tency. In­stead of having to test ev­ery batch on live ani­mals, it can now run a test on cells in a lab dish.

It took 10 years for Al­lergan sci­entists to per­fect the new test. If it's approved in all the countries where Botox is sold, Al­lergan expects to elim­inate the need for at least 95% of its ani­mal test­ing with­in three years.

      
"Our hat is off to the compa­ny," says Mar­tin Stephens, vice pres­ident for ani­mal research issues at the Humane Society of the United States in Wash­ington, D.C.

The govern­ment says that ev­ery new com­pound people might be exposed to — whether it's the lat­est wonder drug, lip­stick shade, pes­ti­cide or food dye — must be tested to make sure it isn't toxic. Usu­ally, this requires ani­mals. Al­lergan's new test is one of sev­eral under devel­op­ment, or already in use, that could change that.

U.S. agencies have already approved al­ternative tests to replace many experi­ments on ani­mals' eyes and skin. Sci­entists are now devel­op­ing tests for toxins that cause organ dam­age, birth de­fects, and oth­er prob­lems. These new tests could make ani­mal toxicity experi­ments obso­lete in the next 10 to 20               
years, says David Jacob­son-Kram, as­sociate di­rector for pharma­cology and toxi­cology at the FDA's Center for Drug Eval­uation and Research in Silver Spring, Md.

In addition to be­ing more humane, these experi­ments of­ten promise better results more quickly and cheap­ly than the classic tests with mice or rabbits.
            
"Both the sci­ence and ani­mal welfare can ben­efit," Stephens says.

Even sci­entists who work with ani­mals would pre­fer not to. Accord­ing to a 2006 sur­vey by the journal Na­ture, 78% of biol­o­gists would like to elim­inate ani­mal experi­ments (al­though only 80% of those thought it would be pos­sible).

"None of us take any pleasure in us­ing ani­mals in research," Jacob­son-Kram says.

Labs in the United States use nearly 1 million mammals per year, accord­ing to 2009 statis­tics from the U.S. De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture. Howev­er, that number excludes mice and rats — the most popular lab­oratory workhors­es — because the U.S. Ani­mal Welfare Act does not cover them. In a 2008 article in the journal Al­ternatives to Lab­oratory Ani­mals, a group

ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق