Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday July 16 2018, @05:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the "they-terk-our-jerb!"—science-bunnies dept.

Submitted via IRC for takyon

Toxicologists today unveiled a digital chemical safety screening tool that could greatly reduce the need for six common animal tests. Those tests account for nearly 60% of the estimated 3 million to 4 million animals used annually in risk testing worldwide.

The computerized tool—built on a massive database of molecular structures and existing safety data—appears to match, and sometimes improve on, the results of animal tests for properties such as skin sensitization and eye irritation, the researchers report in today's issue of Toxicological Sciences. But it also has limitations; for instance, the method can't reliably evaluate a chemical's risk of causing cancer. And it's not clear how open regulatory agencies will be to adopting a nonanimal approach.

[...] On average, the computational tool reproduced the animal test results 87% of the time. That's better than animal tests themselves can do, Hartung says: In reviewing the literature, his group found that repeated animal tests replicated past results just 81% of the time, on average. "This is an important finding," Hartung says, because regulators often expect alternative methods to animal testing to be reproducible at the 95% threshold—a standard even the animal tests aren't meeting.

[...] The screening method has weaknesses. Although it can predict simple effects such as irritation, more complex endpoints such as cancer are out of its reach, says Mike Rasenberg, who heads ECHA's Computational Assessment & Dissemination unit. "This won't be the end of animal testing," he predicts, "but it's a useful concept for looking at simple toxicity."

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/new-digital-chemical-screening-tool-could-help-eliminate-animal-testing


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday July 16 2018, @05:28PM (13 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 16 2018, @05:28PM (#707954)

    The basic problem with this idea, is that if we knew well (enough to model) every single chemical interaction in the body, we wouldn't need much medical research.
    So while this could help test whether some fully-characterized processes are triggered by A or B, we still need to apply A and B to lots of real living beings to get statistically significant amounts of data on everything else.
    If in the test they don't get a rash, but 3% drop dead after a week, modelling that they don't get a rash in the usual way rashes should appear didn't make you safe.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @05:41PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @05:41PM (#707965)

      Also fundamentally wrong could be the need for:
      "...60% of the estimated 3 million to 4 million animals used annually in risk testing worldwide."
      How many new things need skin sensitization testing? Is this the "beauty" industry, or big pharma or ?? Something like 2 million animals in exchange for more new lotions and creams (most of which don't really do much to counter the effects of aging) seems amazingly barbaric.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 16 2018, @06:12PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 16 2018, @06:12PM (#707986)

        Bill from Marketing would have you know that the new Mountain Spring Green coloring, and additional Citrus Bloom Dew fragrance will raise sales by about 4% for at least 3 months.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @06:16PM (#707987)

        yes, it's ridiculous. i haven't looked into groups like peta but i wonder if there is one that just sticks to basic goals without scope creep into monkeys suing photographers and what not.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 16 2018, @08:06PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 16 2018, @08:06PM (#708062) Journal

          Scope creep like turning everyone into vegetarians?

          Please Don't Eliminate Animal Tasting!

          Call PETA (people eating tasty animals)

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @07:16PM (2 children)

        You're neglecting about 99% of tested products. Anything that has a color, fragrance, or ever saw a chemist's workbench in any way needs testing.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Monday July 16 2018, @07:32PM (1 child)

        by shortscreen (2252) on Monday July 16 2018, @07:32PM (#708038) Journal

        Aren't they growing various body tissues in the lab now? How about using blobs of mass-produced skin as the test subject?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @09:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @09:17PM (#708097)

          Because that would leave less for us to eat, duh.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @07:04PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @07:04PM (#708018)

      The basic problem with this idea, is that if we knew well (enough to model) every single chemical interaction in the body, we wouldn't need much medical research.

      Still, if the model (bad as it is) marks some compound as poisonous, it most likely is; no pressing need to poison a live animal just to make sure. Only the ones marked as harmless will need be tested for real.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)

        Bingo. +1 for you.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Monday July 16 2018, @11:34PM (1 child)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday July 16 2018, @11:34PM (#708131)

          Mostly agreed, but it depends on the expected effects of the Product Under Test.
          Flesh-eating concealer and Mascara ? Spare the bunny
          Cell-killing chemotherapy ? Kinda depends on how bad the real side-effects are.
          Toxic compound known to trigger allergies ? "Sounds like a great product! How good is your modelling of million-to-1 dilution?" will ask the Homeopath.

(1)