tagged w/ Lab Animals
-
.
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government Announces Plan to Replace Animals in Toxicity Testing
December 20, 2011
.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration just announced a joint effort to use high-throughput robotics—instead of animals—to test 10,000 chemicals and drugs for potential toxicity. I’ve asked PCRM’s Chad Sandusky, Ph.D., to provide details:
Current testing is largely based on experiments on animals—rodents, rabbits, dogs—and uses methods that are cruel, time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases use thousands of animals in a single test. For example, a reproductive toxicity study uses 2,600 animals and requires a minimum of two years at a cost of $380,000. PCRM toxicologists and government affairs staff have pushed government and industry scientists to implement nonanimal methods.
The new method was developed after the National Research Council issued a mandate (often referred to as Tox21) several years ago to replace antiquated animal-based (in vivo) toxicity testing with testing using mostly human cells and tissues. At PCRM’s toxicology department, we are convinced this will offer not only a dramatic reduction in animal use, but also a faster and cheaper approach to safety testing.
While Congress has been drafting revisions to the law that regulates chemicals (known as the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA), we’ve met with congressional offices to make sure that new nonanimal methods are required as they become more widely available. We’ve successfully gained support for these important changes, so animal testing will be greatly reduced—and eventually eliminated—when the bill is passed.
To learn more about how replacing animals in toxicity testing with this technology will make the world a safer place for people—and for the millions of animals now used in these cruel tests—visit www.ReformToxicityTesting.org
.
.
..
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government... more
-
-
The last 38 surviving members of a group of chimpanzees held in laboratory cages for 30 years for HIV/AIDS experiments, have been set free into a new $4.5 million sanctuary in Austria to enjoy the sunlight and grass under their feet for the first time in more than three decades.The last 38 surviving members of a group of chimpanzees held in laboratory cages for... more
-
-
MSN...
Scientists create animals that are part-human
Stem cell experiments leading to genetic mixing of species
Rich Pedroncelli / AP
PHOTO: Sheep that have partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs are shown here at the University of Nevada, in Sparks, Nev., on April 27.
updated 4/29/2005 5:43:59 PM ET
RENO, Nev. — On a farm about six miles outside this gambling town, Jason Chamberlain looks over a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.
The University of Nevada-Reno researcher talks matter-of-factly about his plans to euthanize one of the pregnant sheep in a nearby lab. He can’t wait to examine the effects of the human cells he had injected into the fetus’ brain about two months ago.
“It’s mice on a large scale,” Chamberlain says with a shrug.
As strange as his work may sound, it falls firmly within the new ethics guidelines the influential National Academies issued this past week for stem cell research.
In fact, the Academies’ report endorses research that co-mingles human and animal tissue as vital to ensuring that experimental drugs and new tissue replacement therapies are safe for people.
Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years, and scientists have injected human cells into lab animals for even longer.
Biological mixing of species
But the biological co-mingling of animal and human is now evolving into even more exotic and unsettling mixes of species, evoking the Greek myth of the monstrous chimera, which was part lion, part goat and part serpent.
In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.
Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?
The “idea that human neuronal cells might participate in 'higher order' brain functions in a nonhuman animal, however unlikely that may be, raises concerns that need to be considered,” the academies report warned.
Mice with human brains
In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.
Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice’s behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
The Academies’ report recommends that each institution involved in stem cell research create a formal, standing committee to specifically oversee the work, including experiments that mix human and animal cells.
Weissman, who has already created mice with 1 percent human brain cells, said he has no immediate plans to make mostly human mouse brains, but wanted to get ethical clearance in any case. A formal Stanford committee that oversees research at the university would also need to authorize the experiment.
Harvesting human organs from sheep
Few human-animal hybrids are as advanced as the sheep created by another stem cell scientist, Esmail Zanjani, and his team at the University of Nevada-Reno. They want to one day turn sheep into living factories for human organs and tissues and along the way create cutting-edge lab animals to more effectively test experimental drugs.
Zanjani is most optimistic about the sheep that grow partially human livers after human stem cells are injected into them while they are still in the womb. Most of the adult sheep in his experiment contain about 10 percent human liver cells, though a few have as much as 40 percent, Zanjani said.
Because the human liver regenerates, the research raises the possibility of transplanting partial organs into people whose livers are failing.
Zanjani must first ensure no animal diseases would be passed on to patients. He also must find an efficient way to completely separate the human and sheep cells, a tough task because the human cells aren’t clumped together but are rather spread throughout the sheep’s liver.
Zanjani and other stem cell scientists defend their research and insist they aren’t creating monsters — or anything remotely human.
“We haven’t seen them act as anything but sheep,” Zanjani said.
Zanjani’s goals are many years from being realized.
He’s also had trouble raising funds, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is investigating the university over allegations made by another researcher that the school mishandled its research sheep. Zanjani declined to comment on that matter, and university officials have stood by their practices.
Allegations about the proper treatment of lab animals may take on strange new meanings as scientists work their way up the evolutionary chart. First, human stem cells were injected into bacteria, then mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn’t until now be breached.
Combining monkeys and people
Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn’t tough enough for some researchers.
“The boundary is going to push further into larger animals,” New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. “That’s just asking for trouble.”
Newman and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin have been tracking this issue for the last decade and were behind a rather creative assault on both interspecies mixing and the government’s policy of patenting individual human genes and other living matter.
Years ago, the two applied for a patent for what they called a “humanzee,” a hypothetical — but very possible — creation that was half human and chimp.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finally denied their application this year, ruling that the proposed invention was too human: Constitutional prohibitions against slavery prevents the patenting of people.
Newman and Rifkin were delighted, since they never intended to create the creature and instead wanted to use their application to protest what they see as science and commerce turning people into commodities.
And that’s a point, Newman warns, that stem scientists are edging closer to every day: “Once you are on the slope, you tend to move down it.”MSN...
Scientists create animals that are part-human
Stem cell experiments... more
-
-
It's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use, but it’s estimated that 90% of lab animals are mice and rats.
The animals that scientists do have to report using in experiments include dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates. Of the animals that the USDA collects numbers on, 1,438,553 were used in research in 2002.
Since more than 1.4 million mammals other than rats and mice were used in research, and since mice and rats probably make up 90% of the animals in labs, we can guess that about 14 million rats and mice were used in research in 2002.
In labs, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box.
Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments.
Living in cages can be a big problem for intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates who become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise.
More than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA that are used in research were not involved in experiments that caused pain. There is no way of knowing how many rats and mice were involved in studies that were not designed to cause pain.
489,262 animals that were used in research in 2002 (not including mice, rats, and birds—no one knows how many of these animals are used in research) were used in research that was either painful, distressful, or both. Most of these animals were given something that either helped take the pain away or helped them get over the pain quickly.
103,764 of the animals made to feel pain were not given anything to reduce their pain and suffering. Although some of this pain was slight—like getting an injection with a needle—some of it was extremely severe.
Most of these animals are only used in one experiment, but sometimes the same animal will be used in more than one experiment. Most are euthanized shortly after being used in an experiment.
Some lucky chimps will be able to retire from being used in research to the Chimp Haven sanctuary, built in Shreveport, Louisiana, thanks to a law signed by President Clinton in 2000.
Source: ASPCAIt's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research... more
-
-
02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says food dyes pose a number of risks to the American public and is calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban three of the most commonly used dyes: Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. A new CSPI report says those dyes contain known carcinogens and contaminants that unnecessarily increase the risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children and allergic reactions.
"These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behavior problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson, co-author of the report. "The Food and Drug Administration should ban dyes, which would force industry to color foods with real food ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals."
The FDA has not read the report yet an agency spokesperson said. "We appreciate the report from CSPI and look forward to reviewing it. We take our commitment to protecting children seriously".
According to the report, tests done on lab animals found contaminants that raised health concerns about several of the nine dyes currently approved for market. The approved dyes are Blue 1 & 2, Citrus Red 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3 & 40 and Yellow 5 & 6. And every year, about 15 million pounds of these dyes wind up in our food, with a lot of it ending up in things like candy, fruit drinks and cereals.
The report is based on the FDA's own studies, and studies done by Industry and turned over to the FDA. But a statement from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), who represents the industry says science shows food dyes are safe. "The safety of both artificial and natural colors has been affirmed through extensive review by the main global food safety bodies, including the US Food & Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority. Both the FDA and the food and beverage industry continually monitor any new research or data in this area to determine if a change in current policy is warranted. It is important for consumers and policymakers to know that food dyes are widely studied and that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence confirms the safety of artificial food colors."
The Food Standards Agency, an independent government agency in Great Britain, released research a few years ago that suggested a linked between hyperactivity in some children and certain food coloring. Starting July 20th in the European Union, food containing some of these dyes will carry additional warning labels indicating possible adverse effects on "activity and attention in children."
CSPI went to Britain in 2008 to check out the differences in dye use first hand. It says it found more concern about food dyes and more government oversight. For example, CSPI says McDonald's Strawberry Sundaes get their color from fresh strawberries. The group says in the United States the color comes from Red dye 40. CSPI say in the UK, Fanta orange soda coloring comes from pumpkins and carrot extract. Here, it says the color comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6 dye.
Rand Carpenter, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola, who makes Fanta, says they stand by their products in the United States – and abroad. "Where colors are used in our products they have been reviewed for safety by numerous health authorities and agencies, are permitted in every country where we operate, and are considered safe."02:03 PM ET
,
Group urges ban of 3 common dyes
The Center for Science in the... more
-
-
NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
New Chemical-Testing Bills are Big Step Forward for Consumer Safety and Animal Protection
But PCRM Toxicologists Say Reforms Should Require Nonanimal Tests
WASHINGTON—Senate and House bills introduced today to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt crucial reforms that protect human health and the environment and develop more nonanimal chemical tests. But the bill does not give the EPA much-needed authority to require the use of these tests, experts for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine say.
Both bills overhaul the 34-year-old TSCA by tightening regulations on chemicals used to produce industrial and consumer goods, including toys and cleaning products. But, says PCRM toxicologist Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., the bills do not go far enough to address a key safety issue: the limitations of animal-based toxicity tests now used to evaluate a chemical’s potential risks to public health and the environment. The bills also need to provide financial and logistical support to implement the approach outlined in the National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.” The NRC report endorsed tests based on human cells and cell components instead of animals.
The bills compel the EPA to develop more nonanimal methods and to adopt an integrated testing strategy approach. To ensure that the NRC report is fully implemented, companies should be required to use nonanimal tests as they become available.
“The application of animal-testing results to real-world human health issues can be extremely difficult,” Sullivan said. “Furthermore, using animal tests to evaluate every chemical on the market would be costly, inefficient, and virtually impossible given the huge number of chemicals involved. The best way to protect human health and the environment is to replace animal tests with more modern methods, and these bills are a good start at making that happen.”
Because evaluating every industrial chemical using animal tests could take decades, the bills’ provisions to streamline and modernize testing methods mean better protection for people and wildlife. “We hope that these important reforms remain intact as these bills move forward,” says Nancy Beck, Ph.D., PCRM scientific and policy adviser.
For more information or to interview a PCRM scientist, contact Vaishali Honawar at 202-527-7339 or vhonawar@pcrm.org.
Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible... more
-
