Animal Testing
|
||
Paul Offit: It’s amazing to me that we just keep knocking Big Pharma when in fact you can’t on the one hand praise the fact that these vaccines have saved our lives, have allowed our children to live longer better, healthier lives, and then just dismiss the people that make these vaccines so safely and so effectively.
-The Colbert Report with the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (at 03:35) 28 April 2014 Lest anyone think that I am against patents and copyrights, trademarks, etc., when they are used for the protections intended, I actually hold a few of these myself. I also work in a field that would not be possible without an awful lot of people and companies having made significant, patented discoveries and developments. In fact, none of us would have the amount of health and ease that we are able to enjoy without innumerable advances in the healthcare field. Which reminds me of an old LiveJournal post that still makes me laugh. An on-line protest had been launched against a company that made a vitamin drink, because it had been reported that the product had been tested on animals. And someone on my LiveJournal feed commented, “They’re giving vitamins to animals? Those monsters!” As far as vitamins and the gray area of “nutraceuticals” is concerned, we should probably be grateful for any safety tests that are done on those products, because the FDA has little if any oversight there. However, for the FDA-approved drugs that we take, and that we rely upon to be safe and effective, there is a massive amount of animal testing. When the general public hears about a new, promising drug under development, it is usually already in clinical trials -- which means three phases of testing the drug on people. But pre-clinical trials are where the animal testing is done. As I understand it, animal trials usually focus on three areas: toxicology (does the drug hurt more than help?), metabolism (where does the drug end up in the body and how long does it stay there), and studies that seek to determine whether the drug has something akin to the desired effect. However, even before this point, the company has to decide on a drug to develop, and, from what I have seen during my time in a research lab, that can be a real trial and error process. A researcher might have a chemical structure that theoretically looks like it will have a certain effect on, say, the liver, but when it is injected into twenty or so mice, it doesn’t go to the liver. Instead, it goes to the brain... or it only stays in the liver for a short while and then leaves the body. So the scientist changes the chemical structure and injects it into some more mice. Now it stays in the liver, but for how long? The mouse livers get shipped to the place where I worked to test for the presence of the drug after one hour, and then after six hours, then twelve hours... A grad student who was working with us once asked, “But how do they test the mice after six hours when they’ve already taken out their liver at one hour -- oh.” That’s a lot of mice. Or guinea pigs, goats, and other animals. I did not stay in that job very long, but I realize that someone has to do it. That’s where our life-saving and life-improving medications start... until someone comes up with a better way. Unfortunately, computer models have not met that challenge yet.
comments powered by Disqus |
||
SeeDarkly All Rights Reserved additional coding provided by Dormouse Games |