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."

5 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 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
  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.
  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.