Computer modeling, simulations and other software programs are an invaluable tool for preliminary data, as they help to predict what may happen in experimental conditions. They allow researchers to quickly and cheaply predict the outcomes of an experiment, ideal chemical compounds and adverse side effects to these compounds, and any number of other things.
However, these techniques only suffice for preliminary predictions of what may happen, at best. Sometimes the software may be inherently flawed and may not be able to take all variables into account. Most importantly, there are many variables that are not known, and therefore CANNOT be accounted for in software modeling. Particularly in the whole organism, we don't understand everything that is going on (hence the need for ongoing research). Therefore, we have no way of predicting with 100% accuracy how a physiological process occurs, how disease states may be altered by experimental conditions or therapeutics, and many other important experimental questions. Computer modeling can perhaps predict the response of a known set of variables, but we do not know all of these variables and how they interact, and thus cannot predict what will occur in the body.
Having said that, I fully support computer models for educational purposes. For example, high school biology students hardly need to cut up dead frogs in order to understand basic organ systems and concepts that are already fully known. On the other hand, clinicians and other professionals in training to actually practice medicine or conduct other patient procedures need practice on the real thing, which at times requires the use of animals.
Showing posts with label alterntives to animal research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alterntives to animal research. Show all posts
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Alternative 2: The Human Genome
One argument I've heard a few times is that if we have mapped the human genome, we should not need to do animal research. This is a flawed argument for a number of reasons.
The human genome, for the unacquainted, is the sequence of all of our DNA, or genetic material. At first glance, it might make sense that if we know about all of our DNA, which serves as a blueprint for the body's characteristics and activities, we dot need to do experiments. However, this is far more complicated than it appears. First of all, the sequence of our DNA does not even tell us with 100% accuracy what portions actually encode genes - it's just a sequence of letters, although there is some available software. However, even assuming total accuracy, we don't know when, where, why and how genes are expressed, how long they are expressed or what role they play in physiology. The genome is a marvelous tool for basic predictions and characterization of genes, but it is by no means the end-all; in fact, it's just a beginning. We need to look at a living cell to begin to understand what is taking place, and then, as previously mentioned a whole organism model to determine it's potential relevance in medicine.
The human genome, for the unacquainted, is the sequence of all of our DNA, or genetic material. At first glance, it might make sense that if we know about all of our DNA, which serves as a blueprint for the body's characteristics and activities, we dot need to do experiments. However, this is far more complicated than it appears. First of all, the sequence of our DNA does not even tell us with 100% accuracy what portions actually encode genes - it's just a sequence of letters, although there is some available software. However, even assuming total accuracy, we don't know when, where, why and how genes are expressed, how long they are expressed or what role they play in physiology. The genome is a marvelous tool for basic predictions and characterization of genes, but it is by no means the end-all; in fact, it's just a beginning. We need to look at a living cell to begin to understand what is taking place, and then, as previously mentioned a whole organism model to determine it's potential relevance in medicine.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Alternatives 1: Cell Culture
Over the next few days, I'm going to discuss a few alternatives to animal research, and in that context, the necessity of an animal model in addition to the alternatives.
One question that I've seen lot concerns cell culture. Those not familiar with life sciences research ask why we still need to use animals when we can culture human cells. I'll start by explaining what exactly cell culture, also known as tissue culture is.
Cell culture is essentially growing cells isolated from a clinical (human) or an animal sample, on a petri dish. The dish has a special coating that allows the cells to attach, and there they form a layer similar to that found in an organ, such as the linings of the intestines. However, cells don't naturally grow on plastic. In order to grow at all, the cells have to be stimulated with growth factors, in far excess to that found in the human body, or in some cases, factors that are not in the human body at all in normal conditions. Secondly, even with growth factors, normally dividing cells from the human body do not grow, at least not at an appreciable rate and over long periods of time. Cells have to be immortalized, either by an artificial procedure in the lab, or by an innate capability, usually found in cancer cells. You can see that these cells are not normal, and that there are many conditions unlike that of the body, such as growing on a piece of plastic.
Also, in the body, cells talk to one another. More than one kind of cell is found in the body; often times, there are cell types that we aren't even aware of - all of the cells in a tissue culture arise from one single cell and are identical. The different cells send one another signals that change how the recipient cells behave. These changes can mean that these cells behave very differently towards a new therapeutic than they would in tissue culture. These and other variables cause for results found in tissue culture to sometimes differ greatly from those in whole organism systems.
So in conclusion, we do every study possible in a tissue culture model and any preliminary data is obtained this way. However, in order to know whether our developments are actually relevant in medical treatment, we have to test them in a whole organism first. I've heard animal rights activists say that they will subject themselves to the testing, or that inmates, braindead people or any other number of human alternatives are options; in my opinion this is just a smoke screen and a gimmick to get attention. Very, very few people would voluntarily subject themselves to experimentation, and if they did, there would certainly be some legal consequences for us! The same would apply if we took treatments directly to the clinic and tried them on unwitting patients.
One question that I've seen lot concerns cell culture. Those not familiar with life sciences research ask why we still need to use animals when we can culture human cells. I'll start by explaining what exactly cell culture, also known as tissue culture is.
Cell culture is essentially growing cells isolated from a clinical (human) or an animal sample, on a petri dish. The dish has a special coating that allows the cells to attach, and there they form a layer similar to that found in an organ, such as the linings of the intestines. However, cells don't naturally grow on plastic. In order to grow at all, the cells have to be stimulated with growth factors, in far excess to that found in the human body, or in some cases, factors that are not in the human body at all in normal conditions. Secondly, even with growth factors, normally dividing cells from the human body do not grow, at least not at an appreciable rate and over long periods of time. Cells have to be immortalized, either by an artificial procedure in the lab, or by an innate capability, usually found in cancer cells. You can see that these cells are not normal, and that there are many conditions unlike that of the body, such as growing on a piece of plastic.
Also, in the body, cells talk to one another. More than one kind of cell is found in the body; often times, there are cell types that we aren't even aware of - all of the cells in a tissue culture arise from one single cell and are identical. The different cells send one another signals that change how the recipient cells behave. These changes can mean that these cells behave very differently towards a new therapeutic than they would in tissue culture. These and other variables cause for results found in tissue culture to sometimes differ greatly from those in whole organism systems.
So in conclusion, we do every study possible in a tissue culture model and any preliminary data is obtained this way. However, in order to know whether our developments are actually relevant in medical treatment, we have to test them in a whole organism first. I've heard animal rights activists say that they will subject themselves to the testing, or that inmates, braindead people or any other number of human alternatives are options; in my opinion this is just a smoke screen and a gimmick to get attention. Very, very few people would voluntarily subject themselves to experimentation, and if they did, there would certainly be some legal consequences for us! The same would apply if we took treatments directly to the clinic and tried them on unwitting patients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)