3 ms·

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
- rocketbop 4y ago
  > We have to go back to the drawing board and explain what happened to the monkeys They might rather not know.

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

rocketbop 4y ago
> We have to go back to the drawing board and explain what happened to the monkeys They might rather not know.