SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Routine scientific procedures using millions of animals are still being authorised when there is a tried and tested alternative, according to a group of scientists investigating the production of antibodies.
The scientists, writing in the Cell Press journal, Trends in Biotechnology , say the use of animals in consumer society is effectively 'hidden' and products assumed to be 'animal-friendly' are anything but. They say an animal friendly antibody production technique using bacteriophage viruses instead of live animals is being overlooked, despite the enormous potential for reduction in animal use.
The global antibody industry is worth 80 billion dollars and relies heavily on animals to produce the antibodies that are used to detect the vast range of molecules indicative of state of health, safety or the environment. Antibody-based tests are used in consumer and environmental safeguarding—from healthcare, over the counter, point of care and laboratory diagnostic testing to food safety, agriculture and household products.
[...] Dr Alison Gray, a visiting researcher at The University of Nottingham's School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, said: "The antibody-based tests that are commonly used in society appear to be far removed from animal experimentation since no animals were directly tested on. However, the target molecule to be detected is repeatedly injected into the animal, initiating an immune response. Months later, the animal is euthanased [sic] and antibodies to that molecule are extracted and incorporated into an in vitro, 'animal-free' test. So in reality, we are not replacing animals but substituting methods.
"The ultimate aim of scientists in this field should be to replace the use of animals in research and industry but due to a lack of awareness about this technology, this is not happening fast enough. The 20 year old advanced technology called 'phage display' which uses bacteriophage viruses to produce monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies is available and cost-effective and can replace a huge number of animals. In fact this technology has grown to a level of scientific sophistication that outweighs obsolete and outdated animal immunisation protocols."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:44PM
Why?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:28PM
Lots of reasons, but probably the best reasons are that there are limits on what you can do with animals and animals themselves are hardly a controlled environment. Not to mention the possibility that there'll be some new virus or infection that shows up and accidentally winds up in the product because the lab was too cheap to do it right or just messed up.
In the long run, removing animals from these tests is largely a must, I just don't agree with the reasons that these folks have. As somebody already pointed out, if it were truly cost effective and just as good, then there wouldn't need to be any pressure to remove animals from the process. My guess is that they aren't at that point yet and the scientists involved are pushing an agenda.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:34PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003210/ [nih.gov]
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/02/13/mouse_models_of_inflammation_are_basically_worthless_now_we_know [sciencemag.org]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-deadly-diseases-on-mice-mislead-report-says.html [nytimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:35PM
This is about antibody production.
More relevant links would be how most commercial antibodies are crap and aren't validated for their target. Dr. Lowe has had post about this and about the recent shutdown of Santa Cruz Biotechnology rabbit and goat antibody production due to inhumane conditions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:04PM
Wow, I didn't realise they had been shut down, having not been doing wet lab work for the last four years or so. It doesn't surprise me though, they have always had a bad reputation in terms of the product quality and it looks like that went right now to animal welfare as well. Certainly the antibodies I bought from them in the late 2000s were all absolutely crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:31PM
Hidden goat facility, untreated tumors, and untreated coyote bites.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/05/23/trouble-at-santa-cruz-biotechnology [sciencemag.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:56PM
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15010.htm [parliament.uk]
Reduction of animal use whenever possible is one of the key guiding principles behind the use of animals for scientific and medical research. It's part of the Home Office licensing criteria for people doing such work, and you aren't legally allowed to do animal work if you don't agree to follow the requirements. If you can reduce the use of animals, you must do so. This came about as a result of decades of debate and legislation over the ethics of such work, and has been a requirement for several decades. Other countries have passed similar legislation.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:22PM
Because I'm a dog, you baboon!