Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanosensors Could Help Reduce Laboratory Animal Testing

Posted by samzenpus on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-bunnies? dept.

cylonlover writes "Animal testing is an area that elicits strong feelings on both sides of the argument for and against the practice. Supporters like the British Royal Society argue that virtually every medical breakthrough of the 20th century involved the use of animals in some way, while opponents say that it is not only cruel, but actually impedes medical progress by using misleading animal models. Whatever side of the argument researchers fall on, most would likely use an alternative to animal testing if it existed. And an alternative that reduces the need for animal testing is just what Fraunhofer researchers hope their new sensor nanoparticles will be."

16 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting development... by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if you disagree with animal rights, This would be a very cost effective way to test theories. A sensor doesn't need food, water or shelter. And if you remove those factors, development costs go down.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:Interesting development... by Meeni · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is indeed the proof that animal testing is necessary. It is goddamn expensive. Nobody does it for fun, or out of sheer cruelty. It costs money, and would be avoided if possible, for simple economical reasons.

      Stupid personal story: my wife once bought a cosmetic that touted not being tested on animals. She got a severe rash using it... She now buys the one that are indeed tested on animals instead of customers.

    2. Re:Interesting development... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This might be a good way to reduce the number of animals needed in research, which is a laudable goal. But it won't be able to replace them entirely. In vitro research always has to be confirmed in vivo. Nothing about this technology changes that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Interesting development... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's more true with some animals than others. Anything that uses primates is expensive as hell, but mice are cheap; laboratories go through literally millions of them per year (estimates are around 50 million/year for the U.S.), and spend less on them than on even the grad students.

      Now a reusable sensor has the advantage that it can be cleaned and reused (depending on the design), so there may not need to be 50 million sensors to replace 50 million mice. But the per-unit cost they'll have to match to compete with the quite cheap/disposable mice is still a pretty daunting design/manufacturing challenge.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:Interesting development... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Some mice are more expensive than others. Your basic boring brown ones are pretty damn cheap, as are common research variants.

      A bit of poking around on the expensive side of the menu though, and you can end up paying north of $200/mouse, plus any additional costs for special requests.

      Of course, since this sensor widget is designed to be used in tissue cultures, you'll end up paying extra for exotic genomes whether in goo form or in mouse form(on the other hand, the instruments/diagnostics/dissection/whatever tests done on the mice also aren't necessarily cheap, depending on what you are testing for).

    5. Re:Interesting development... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Most likely, they lied twice: The final product was tested on customers and the ingredients were almost certainly tested, on animals, prior to general availability, just not tested in this particular combination... You can put your "cruelty free" sticker on the box without reference to your supply chain.

  2. So, what am I going to do with all these rats? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, there goes my plan. Now I'm just a guy with a shitload of rats in his basement.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:So, what am I going to do with all these rats? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Funny

      got any neighbors you don't like?

    2. Re:So, what am I going to do with all these rats? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Sell them to the DEA, they love rats.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:So, what am I going to do with all these rats? by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      Well, there goes my plan. Now I'm just a guy with a shitload of rats^H^H^H^H snakes in his basement.

      --
      -
    4. Re:So, what am I going to do with all these rats? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      4) The SOPA supporters whip out their lizard tongues, hang the rats over their gaping jaws, and slowly swallow them.

      . . . you did know that the Visitors are behind SOPA, didn't you . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  3. Do any Gizmag editors understand science? by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    This idea is decades old -- testing substances in tissue culture. The Frauenhofer guys have come up with an interesting improvement.

    It will never replace most of the animal testing.

    Researchers do tissue culture testing all the time. Then after the tissue culture tests, they have to see if it still works in the rats. Lots of times it doesn't. That's especially true with cancer treatments. There are lots of pathways in real animals, and they interfere with each other, particularly liver enzymes.

    We cured cancer in tissue culture many times. Then they try to repeat it in animals and it doesn't work.

    And lots of animal testing has nothing to do with activating a receptor. How can you send a tissue culture through a maze?
    This is especially a problem for discovering harmful effects of consumer products.

  4. interesting. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    TFA says they measure the levels of ATP to see if cells are being damaged by chemicals. Its my understanding that cancer cells still do the whole ATP storage thing. Yes they can see if a certain chemical kills cells but they still need animal testing to make sure it doesn't cause cancer or interfere with any other interactions between cells or any other biological process that goes on when the cells are in an animal and not a petri dish

  5. Ban animal testing by PPH · · Score: 2

    They just get nervous and give the wrong answers anyway.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. Re:All products are tested on animals by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    Some products can only be tested on animals since it is intended for their use. Microsoft Windows, for example, should never be tested with a sapient creature.

  7. another ATP ratiometric dye, yahoo by golden+age+villain · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article is completely misleading. What they developed is an ATP-dependent ratiometric dye. It is nice but it is not the first ratiometric dye. It is also not the first fluorescent ATP reporter. How will this stop scientists to use animals? It won't. It is just one more tool in an already vast existing array of tools to study cells using fluorescence imaging. This journalist is an idiot. Where are the cells going to come from? For most practical interesting cases, they are going to be "extracted" from animals. Also while ATP is indeed an important molecule, it is really naive to believe that monitoring ATP alone can tell you anything about the state of a cell, especially in vivo, except whether or not it has enough glucose and oxygen. If it was as simple as "expose them to the substance under investigation." to find something worthwhile, everybody would already do it using calcium reporters, NADH autofluorescence, glucose reporters or any other of the numerous similar tools already available on the market.