Working in the pharmaceutical industry I have a better understanding and appreciation of the use of animals for testing new drugs for humans. Of course I would prefer if we could find or create better ways that would reduce the use of animal testing while still effectively testing potential life-saving drugs to determine their efficacy, and safety for humans. After all, would you like to take a new drug that hasn't been actually tested on anything living? Other than animals, what do we currently have? How about .. technology?
This desire is not just from the "wackhead animal rights freaks" anymore. It seems that scientists, research doctors, even the FDA (OMG! The FD Fuckin' A!) are starting to "consider" new ways to effectively test drugs without the use of animals (or to test drugs with decreased use of animals). Of course since it would dramatically reduce the cost of preclinical testing of new unknown drugs (see below), Big Pharma will likely jump on the bandwagon once a system is acceptable to the regulatory powers that be. To bring a new drug to market costs over one billion dollars. Most drugs never make it to market, and yet it still costs millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to get rejected along the way (depending upon what point in the process the application gets rejected).
Here's a little information that might make you "pill popping, goddamn animal lovers" (like me) happy to hear. It's a start...
Hi Tug!
*************************
Better modeling to reduce animal testing
August 30, 2010 — 7:07am ET | By George Miller, FierceBiotechIT
Drug testing via computer modeling, virtual tissue, and human and animal cells are helping the pharma industry move away from the use of animals as primary test subjects.
Researchers recruit tens of millions of animals annually for drug testing, reports The Baltimore Sun. Eighty to 800 are needed per drug.
Robert Kavlock, director at the EPA's National Center for Computational Toxicology, says animals represent the current "gold standard" in drug testing, according to the article. "But there is a collective recognition that we need to do better." And there are solid practical reasons to move away from the use of animals. A chemical that costs $6 million to $10 million to test might yield computer test results for "more like $20,000."
*************************
Here's the full article. It's longish, but interesting:
http://smart-grid.tmcnet.com/news/2010/08/27/4978009.htm
I love you!
Cam
No comments:
Post a Comment