Do you suggest they could own allready found the cure for cancer (to do next to animal testing)?
But then didnt test the drug on humans as it did not react okay with a rat?
Im just saying this as i just now did a case study for the reliability of animal testing, and why they are still done baffles me.
Drugs that own been proven safe for humans by testing them on animals enjoy then gone on to seriously hurt humans when they get to the human testing stage (TGN 1412 for example)
So surely if a drug is secure for an animal but not for us
a drug that is then not safe for an animal COULD be not detrimental for us?
Which means that they could have allready found the cure for HIV and cancer but wont test it.
Surely if someone have HIV they would be willing to try a drug that could cure them, even if it had made a rat grow an extra eye.
what do you think
Answers:
Yes, a drug which is dangerous in animals could, theoretically, be undisruptive and effective in humans - but it would be very dishonourable to test it to find out! Source(s): I'm a doctor.
I've never thought about this before! But I totally agree with you! I presume people probably think 'if it made a rat grow an extra eye, what will it do to a human?' This is really interesting! I think because of the item that happend with TGN 1412 the government or whatever are too startled to allow it.
why is Magic Johnson still alive? o.O
that should answer your question.
If it's not safe for animals, there would be no ethical pretext to test it on humans. People ***** at scientists for putting monkeys in harms way, can you assume the reprisal of testing humans with a drug known to be negative to rats?
Yes, quite possible. In fact, I'd be surprised if that's not the case. Animal models are far from ultimate, but when it comes to studying whole body physiology, we really don't have anything better.
I am a research scientist. I currently work with animal models and own for well over a decade. I would LOVE to find a way to rid myself of them. If something became available which made them useless, I would jump all over it. Animal models are slow, expensive, and time consuming (not the same entry as slow in this context, BTW). Working in recombinants, cell lines and computer simulations is much faster and easier. Unfortunately, even when all put together, they are incomplete.
It's still incomplete when you put the animal model contained by, too, but each piece makes it a little closer to mortal complete. And personally, I couldn't handle it if I had to leap from tissue culture to whole human. The gap is just too big.
I think you've got a suitable point !
Chryo is correct. I am earn a Ph.D. in biomedical research, and I use animal models. To add to that answer - I do not think that anyone have already found the cure for cancer.
Cancer is not as simplistic of a disease as it seems. For example - for someone to develop clinical signs of cancer, he/she has to have mutations to usually 3 or more different and specific genes. Those individuals considered at risk of developing cancer may already possess mutations contained by one or two genes. This person may never develop cancer. As the type/ form of mutation can vary from one cancer patient to another - this lead variability in the sequence of the mutation/ cause of cancer. This translates into a disease i.e. harder to treat. Also, it is currently speculated that some forms of cancer may have immunological roots - an idea that has with the sole purpose recently started to be explored (think cervical cancer being linked to HPV).
It have happened that rats, when exposed to known carcinogens, and have undergone many treatments/pre-treatments have been resistant to developing a specific type of cancer. So you might cure one rat of one type of engineered cancer. The problem there lies within the fact that rats, when they get older, can usually develop cancer - so you end up with confounding data. Also, a rat within a controlled research environment can only be tested for known or suspected things - "a priori". This means that in that is always an element of unknown in the legitimate, clinical world, that we, as scientists cannot mimic in the lab.
As far as HIV - there are several reasons that are totally complex as to why there may never be a cure for it. The virus can make a host attack a certain protein, which it doesn't even stipulation, switch the attention from the first unneeded protein to a second unneeded protein, and then mutate the first protein. It also targets for infection, the very type of immune cell (a lasting type of T cell) that is suppose to be killing the virus. All drug trials for effective prevention of HIV hold failed.
We do animal testing to see if it even makes sense to progress further with a drug, or to understand better how some system/ cell mechanism works. Think of it as a proof of principle. Most of the time, if something isn't going to work surrounded by animals, it isn't going to work in humans. We can select things that, based on scientific education, should work in animals. We can predict, based on animal-specific receptors, gene sequences etc., how well something should work within animals. If it doesn't, even taking into animal-specific differences, trying to use the same methods of human vs. animal specificity just doesn't make sense as far as taking a drug further (to humans).
I hope this answers adjectives of your questions - which were very appropriate and thoughtful. Source(s): Biomedical Research Ph.D. student
Related Questions:
Should I gain a masters surrounded by Pharmacology or budge straight for Doctorate?
Metformin side effects - aid!?
I enjoy blood within my stool and am wondering if a colonoscopy must be perform?
Im just saying this as i just now did a case study for the reliability of animal testing, and why they are still done baffles me.
Drugs that own been proven safe for humans by testing them on animals enjoy then gone on to seriously hurt humans when they get to the human testing stage (TGN 1412 for example)
So surely if a drug is secure for an animal but not for us
a drug that is then not safe for an animal COULD be not detrimental for us?
Which means that they could have allready found the cure for HIV and cancer but wont test it.
Surely if someone have HIV they would be willing to try a drug that could cure them, even if it had made a rat grow an extra eye.
what do you think
Answers:
Yes, a drug which is dangerous in animals could, theoretically, be undisruptive and effective in humans - but it would be very dishonourable to test it to find out! Source(s): I'm a doctor.
I've never thought about this before! But I totally agree with you! I presume people probably think 'if it made a rat grow an extra eye, what will it do to a human?' This is really interesting! I think because of the item that happend with TGN 1412 the government or whatever are too startled to allow it.
why is Magic Johnson still alive? o.O
that should answer your question.
If it's not safe for animals, there would be no ethical pretext to test it on humans. People ***** at scientists for putting monkeys in harms way, can you assume the reprisal of testing humans with a drug known to be negative to rats?
Yes, quite possible. In fact, I'd be surprised if that's not the case. Animal models are far from ultimate, but when it comes to studying whole body physiology, we really don't have anything better.
I am a research scientist. I currently work with animal models and own for well over a decade. I would LOVE to find a way to rid myself of them. If something became available which made them useless, I would jump all over it. Animal models are slow, expensive, and time consuming (not the same entry as slow in this context, BTW). Working in recombinants, cell lines and computer simulations is much faster and easier. Unfortunately, even when all put together, they are incomplete.
It's still incomplete when you put the animal model contained by, too, but each piece makes it a little closer to mortal complete. And personally, I couldn't handle it if I had to leap from tissue culture to whole human. The gap is just too big.
I think you've got a suitable point !
Chryo is correct. I am earn a Ph.D. in biomedical research, and I use animal models. To add to that answer - I do not think that anyone have already found the cure for cancer.
Cancer is not as simplistic of a disease as it seems. For example - for someone to develop clinical signs of cancer, he/she has to have mutations to usually 3 or more different and specific genes. Those individuals considered at risk of developing cancer may already possess mutations contained by one or two genes. This person may never develop cancer. As the type/ form of mutation can vary from one cancer patient to another - this lead variability in the sequence of the mutation/ cause of cancer. This translates into a disease i.e. harder to treat. Also, it is currently speculated that some forms of cancer may have immunological roots - an idea that has with the sole purpose recently started to be explored (think cervical cancer being linked to HPV).
It have happened that rats, when exposed to known carcinogens, and have undergone many treatments/pre-treatments have been resistant to developing a specific type of cancer. So you might cure one rat of one type of engineered cancer. The problem there lies within the fact that rats, when they get older, can usually develop cancer - so you end up with confounding data. Also, a rat within a controlled research environment can only be tested for known or suspected things - "a priori". This means that in that is always an element of unknown in the legitimate, clinical world, that we, as scientists cannot mimic in the lab.
As far as HIV - there are several reasons that are totally complex as to why there may never be a cure for it. The virus can make a host attack a certain protein, which it doesn't even stipulation, switch the attention from the first unneeded protein to a second unneeded protein, and then mutate the first protein. It also targets for infection, the very type of immune cell (a lasting type of T cell) that is suppose to be killing the virus. All drug trials for effective prevention of HIV hold failed.
We do animal testing to see if it even makes sense to progress further with a drug, or to understand better how some system/ cell mechanism works. Think of it as a proof of principle. Most of the time, if something isn't going to work surrounded by animals, it isn't going to work in humans. We can select things that, based on scientific education, should work in animals. We can predict, based on animal-specific receptors, gene sequences etc., how well something should work within animals. If it doesn't, even taking into animal-specific differences, trying to use the same methods of human vs. animal specificity just doesn't make sense as far as taking a drug further (to humans).
I hope this answers adjectives of your questions - which were very appropriate and thoughtful. Source(s): Biomedical Research Ph.D. student
Related Questions: