Related: Willard's Hotel
"Are the lab rat's days numbered?; More accuracy seen in living cell stand-ins for human organs" by Colin Nickerson, Globe Correspondent | March 30, 2009
Bioengineers are striving to topple a scientific icon: the lowly lab mouse. And to replace bunnies, beagles, and other warm-blooded animals with insentient but biologically sophisticated substitutes.
At Brown University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other research centers, new efforts to build complex living "microtissues" from cultured cells represent some of the most promising progress toward reducing the need for laboratory creatures.
Numbers have been reduced in recent decades, but hundreds of thousands of mice, rats, chickens, and other creatures are still employed for medical experiments. More controversially, but also in greater numbers and with less oversight, millions of animals worldwide are sacrificed for testing of products whose only aim is to impart a sexier sheen on lips or more sparkle in toilet bowls.
The feud between animal rights activists and researchers is among the bitterest in science.
Related: FBI Feints to Left on Terrorists
But many researchers - although adamant that animal research remains critical to finding cures and expanding medical knowledge - have come to concede that using creatures as human stand-ins is unnecessary for many procedures. Indeed, it often isn't even the best science: New drugs that show great promise in mice, for example, often confer zero benefit to humans, or even prove harmful. Plus, animals are messy, require feeding and constant care, draw protests, and, yes, can be a bit smelly....
Oh, yeah, that troublesome life form that needs care to survive.
Who would want that, huh, eliter?
Jeffrey R. Morgan, professor of medical science and engineering at Brown University in Providence, leads a team that recently scored an advance, detailed in this month's issue of the journal Biotechnology and Bioengineering....
Uh-oh.
The microtissue was cultured from human surgical waste - neonatal foreskins, circumcised from newborns - and from rats' livers. The Brown work is partly funded by the International Foundation for Ethical Research, an animal rights group that believes supporting scientific effort - as opposed to mounting protests or issuing angry proclamations - is the most effective way to reduce scientific and commercial dependence on lab animals.
Why don't we test them on humans?
"We want to end needless suffering by sentient creatures, yes" said Peggy Cunniff, president of the Chicago-based foundation. "We also want to advance science. We don't think saving mice is more important than saving humans. But there is obvious over-reliance on animals. Animals are often poor [test] predictors for humans."
I'm opposed to the arrogant speciesism!
THEY HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to a LIFE as we do!!!!
Other scientists are making different assaults on the same Everest. Linda G. Griffith, professor of biological engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a recipient of the MacArthur Foundation's famous "genius" grant, is developing a "liver chip," a computer chip embedded in lab-cultured liver tissue.
The cells should behave like normal human liver tissue, reacting to medicines or potential toxins as in a real liver - but with the chip conveying to scientists with high precision how, physiologically, the cells react to new drugs or other experiments.
How come when it comes to Big Pharama's drugs, they are good? They kill you and have all sorts of awful side effects, but somehow they are better than pot.
Griffith's eventual aim is to build a "body on the bench," a full set of chip-containing human organs - from bladder to lungs - that could be used to study body functions by simply plugging the appropriate part into a computer.
So we are just INTERCHANGEABLE MACHINE PARTS to these people?
The MIT research is meant to advance human medicine. "But my work is also squarely in the realm of finding alternatives to animals," Griffith said. "Beyond any moral issues with the use of animals in research and development, alternatives made with human cells might be scientifically better choices - and more economically feasible."
Replacing animals with human tissue has already proven to be good business bet.
That's what it always comes down to. Not life or health, but $$$$!!!!
MatTek Corp., of Ashland, makes kits of cultured "skin tissue equivalent" for use in testing of commercial products and in medical labs where researchers need to know how human skin will respond to chemicals or treatments.
In a milestone for the company, a European regulatory body recently "validated" MatTek's Modified Epiderm Skin Irritation Test as an accurate and reliable replacement for animal testing. That's perfect timing: This month, the European Union - which, according to nearly all observers, has much more aggressively sought to reduce use of lab animals than the United States - launches a full ban on use of animals in testing cosmetics....
They should never have been subjected to that torture to begin with!
MatTek's skin points to the future for product testing and some areas of medical research. "It started out not wanting to hurt bunnies," said Dave Ingalls, spokesman for MatTek. "But we've found that using [human equivalent] tissue is better science, more cost effective, and much more accurate than doing the same tests on animals."
--more--"As for giving up the animal testing, well....
"As part of his study, Tanzer fed two groups of rats a diet high in sugar"
Isn't it bad enough our kids are fat?
"Company hopes to market new cavity-fighting product" by Ernest Scheyder, Associated Press | April 3, 2009
NEW YORK -
Using a microorganism related to those used in yogurt cultures, the Germany-based company said it has engineered a process that clusters harmful bacteria in the mouth before they can bind with sugar and form plaque. The organism and plaque-causing bacteria are then swallowed as part of the mouth's natural cleaning process.
Why not brush regularly instead? That seems to have worked for years.
Just another biotech product, right?
It's safe to swallow the bacteria, known by the scientific name Streptococcus mutans, because it's regularly found in the mouth and humans already digest it constantly, the company said.... As part of his study, Tanzer fed two groups of rats a diet high in sugar, but put BASF's product, known as pro-t-action, in only one group's food....
The active organism in pro-t-action is effectively dead, meaning it doesn't need to be kept cool - like yogurt - and can be used in a wide array of products like sugar-free candy, gum, toothpaste, and possibly beverages like smoothies....
"This is not a replacement" for brushing, said Markus Pompejus, a BASF scientist who helped develop the product.
Then if you don't mind, you can keep your spit swap or whatever it is.
"But it clearly helps to improve your daily oral hygiene." BASF developed pro-t-action with OrganoBalance, a Berlin-based microbiology company.
Yeah, now kids will think they don't have to brush at all.
--more--"
