5 ms·

Actually it's probably the opposite. Using animal models can lead to drugs that are not safe or effective for humans and it can lead to drugs being rejected tha

by bsdz 4y ago

Actually it's probably the opposite. Using animal models can lead to drugs that are not safe or effective for humans and it can lead to drugs being rejected that might have been safe or effective. 92% of drugs which prove promising in animal trials fail in human clinical trials.

david38 4y ago
You’re right. We should jump to human trials directly.
- tokinonagare 4y ago
  It's what have been done recently, even enforced by governments in some cases.
- rootsudo 4y ago
  In a way, why not - I agree animal testing is good, vs direct to human testing but I'm also surprised there isn't human testing arbitrage where medicine is created in a geographic region that allows it vs more in the west. I can see how quickly it ran run off to prison labor and more human testing atrocities circa 1940's world.
- bsdz 4y ago
  I didn't say that. There are a many alternatives to animal models before "jumping to human trials directly", e.g. testing on human cells & tissues, human-based computer models (like those used for cardiotoxicity) and more recently organ-on-a-chip technologies.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    Why aren't the researchers already using those? If those work better than monkeys I would think researchers would already be using them.
    - bsdz 4y ago
      Many are using these alternatives. For example, a computer model for cardiotoxicity has higher accuracy than animal models. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28955244/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28955244/ It's an educational process. A lot of folk just go along with the status quo and feel there's no alternative to animal research.
      - oaktrout 4y ago
        I briefly scanned the paper. This is not a computer model for cardiotoxicity as a whole, it's a model for one very specific type of cardiotoxicity. These things may have their uses, bit they are a long way from replacing animal testing. This model checks for one side effect in one organ system. Animal testing can check all organ systems for thousands of side effects.
      - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        People don’t test on animals because it’s the status quo. They do so because computer models comprehensive and good enough don’t exist. Even from a purely cynical point of view, animal testing is bloody expensive. As soon as pharma companies will be able to get ride of them they will.
    - jonlucc 4y ago
      Short answer: we are. Clinical trials are expensive. NHP (Non-human primate) studies are also expensive, but orders of magnitude less expensive than human studies. We pharma researchers don't want to put stuff into humans if there's risk of failure, especially if that failure is a tox finding and not just low efficacy. So we de-risk as much as possible. We go so far as to prove everything on human cells, then buy mice with humanized portions of their genome to test the target in mice that are more like humans in the way we need them to be. Then we test in NHPs, because it's very unsafe to assume that a drug that works and is safe in cells is safe in primates. In a current project, I'm dealing with the fallout of this exact problem. We did a ton of testing, modeling, in vitro work, rodent work, then we dosed in monkeys and it caused a massive tox signal. We have to go back to the drawing board and explain what happened to the monkeys, how we're going to address it, maybe kill the whole program, and find a new path forward. It passed all of the rigorous pre-monkey testing. And I'm at a major pharma company, where we have pretty specialized teams doing most of this work. edited to correct an error
  - tsol 4y ago
    None of those are capable of testing for side effects and negative outcomes as well as testing the drug on a real creature. At the end of the day those all have only limited use. If you want to be able to give the drug to people without any surprises, you have to test on a full organism. Organoids just don't have the complexity of living creatures
    - bsdz 4y ago
      > as well as testing the drug on a real creature Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit > you have to test on a full organism Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". > Organoids just don't have the complexity of living creatures I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans. Furthermore, there have been some disasterous human clinical trials where drugs have passed all the animal model testing but left many of the human participants dead.
      - tsol 4y ago
        >Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit Better than nothing. >Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". No, I'm just saying a full body with multiple organ systems, hormones, and everything else has many more variables than a cell in a petri dish. So a living organism of some sort is a big plus. It's true that if you tested on humans you'd have even fewer unknowns, but that's obviously unethical. >I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans They aren't perfect. They're just the best thing we have right now

by bsdz 4y ago

david38 4y ago

You’re right. We should jump to human trials directly.

tokinonagare 4y ago
It's what have been done recently, even enforced by governments in some cases.
rootsudo 4y ago
In a way, why not - I agree animal testing is good, vs direct to human testing but I'm also surprised there isn't human testing arbitrage where medicine is created in a geographic region that allows it vs more in the west. I can see how quickly it ran run off to prison labor and more human testing atrocities circa 1940's world.
bsdz 4y ago
I didn't say that. There are a many alternatives to animal models before "jumping to human trials directly", e.g. testing on human cells & tissues, human-based computer models (like those used for cardiotoxicity) and more recently organ-on-a-chip technologies.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Why aren't the researchers already using those? If those work better than monkeys I would think researchers would already be using them.
  - bsdz 4y ago
    Many are using these alternatives. For example, a computer model for cardiotoxicity has higher accuracy than animal models. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28955244/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28955244/ It's an educational process. A lot of folk just go along with the status quo and feel there's no alternative to animal research.
    - oaktrout 4y ago
      I briefly scanned the paper. This is not a computer model for cardiotoxicity as a whole, it's a model for one very specific type of cardiotoxicity. These things may have their uses, bit they are a long way from replacing animal testing. This model checks for one side effect in one organ system. Animal testing can check all organ systems for thousands of side effects.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      People don’t test on animals because it’s the status quo. They do so because computer models comprehensive and good enough don’t exist. Even from a purely cynical point of view, animal testing is bloody expensive. As soon as pharma companies will be able to get ride of them they will.
  - jonlucc 4y ago
    Short answer: we are. Clinical trials are expensive. NHP (Non-human primate) studies are also expensive, but orders of magnitude less expensive than human studies. We pharma researchers don't want to put stuff into humans if there's risk of failure, especially if that failure is a tox finding and not just low efficacy. So we de-risk as much as possible. We go so far as to prove everything on human cells, then buy mice with humanized portions of their genome to test the target in mice that are more like humans in the way we need them to be. Then we test in NHPs, because it's very unsafe to assume that a drug that works and is safe in cells is safe in primates. In a current project, I'm dealing with the fallout of this exact problem. We did a ton of testing, modeling, in vitro work, rodent work, then we dosed in monkeys and it caused a massive tox signal. We have to go back to the drawing board and explain what happened to the monkeys, how we're going to address it, maybe kill the whole program, and find a new path forward. It passed all of the rigorous pre-monkey testing. And I'm at a major pharma company, where we have pretty specialized teams doing most of this work. edited to correct an error
- tsol 4y ago
  None of those are capable of testing for side effects and negative outcomes as well as testing the drug on a real creature. At the end of the day those all have only limited use. If you want to be able to give the drug to people without any surprises, you have to test on a full organism. Organoids just don't have the complexity of living creatures
  - bsdz 4y ago
    > as well as testing the drug on a real creature Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit > you have to test on a full organism Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". > Organoids just don't have the complexity of living creatures I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans. Furthermore, there have been some disasterous human clinical trials where drugs have passed all the animal model testing but left many of the human participants dead.
    - tsol 4y ago
      >Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit Better than nothing. >Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". No, I'm just saying a full body with multiple organ systems, hormones, and everything else has many more variables than a cell in a petri dish. So a living organism of some sort is a big plus. It's true that if you tested on humans you'd have even fewer unknowns, but that's obviously unethical. >I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans They aren't perfect. They're just the best thing we have right now