Replace Primate experiments with Validated Alternatives in Europe
Von: TONY-GAL (from_tpg@hotmail.co.uk) [Profil]
Datum: 01.12.2008 17:48
Message-ID: <1a87a80a-1214-4e47-b309-b398f7b45d32@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.animals
Datum: 01.12.2008 17:48
Message-ID: <1a87a80a-1214-4e47-b309-b398f7b45d32@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.animals
Europe is at a critical stage and decisions are being made which can protect our health and develop new medicines by embracing new technology or remain in the past with continued dependence on primate experiments. A public hearing on primate research from the EU Science Committee on sixth November has been criticized as ignoring clear scientific evidence of its limitations and ignoring the potential of advanced alternative techniques. The hearing was requested by the European Commission in light of their proposal at the start of November for the review of Directive 86/609 which controls animal experiments. They are under pressure to introduce a timetable for the phasing out of primate experiments, an intention already overwhelmingly backed by MEPs with Written Declaration 40/2007 last year. Despite this their proposal only includes a ban on testing Great Apes and wild caught monkeys and experiments on other primates, which is nearly all of the 10,500 yearly used in Europe, is still allowed. Significantly the ban on Great Apes has a loophole preventing it from being final. This has been described as a missed opportunity by many scientists and welfare organizations. Most of the scientific procedures with primates, mainly macaques, are for drug development, neurological research and safety testing of vaccines. For drug development, human microdosing methods such as accelerator mass spectrometry are proven replacements. They have the added advantage of being useful at the earliest stages of research and studies have shown that they are highly successful in predicting the effects of drugs even at low dosages. They have been approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and are employed by many of the major pharmaceutical companies. Other alternatives available that need more support include molecular methods for vaccine testing and magnetic resonance imaging for neurological research. Still more are In Vitro, using samples of human skin in test tubes to give results within days, microdialysis and human genetic studies. There has been limited success from research into major human diseases using primates. The results have not translated well to benefit humans. For example, twenty five years of using primates for Aids research has failed to find treatments or cures. In fact, it is alternative technology that has produced the crucial breakthroughs in understanding this disease. Total replacement of primates is achievable with more research and development but the European Commission are resisting progress in favour of maintaining the status quo. Replacing primates in laboratories with alternatives is not simply a humane goal but a scientifically sound one. One new technology improving rapidly is human neuroimaging according to a recent article published in the Neuroimage Journal. This article is a collaboration of some of the UK's most respected professors who, recognising that animal experiments were failing to deliver, investigated their replacement with modern technology. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry pioneered this technique to produce results in the study of pain symptoms that years of animal research had not discovered. The value of animal research is exaggerated by those who have an interest in its preservation. It uses artificial methodology not taking into account differences between human and non-human anatomy. For these reasons it is an unreliable way to investigate human diseases. The immense resources would be put to much more effective, efficient and humane use when redirected to alternative research more directly applicable to humans. Our MEPs must realize that prmate testing can be replaced with alternative technology, in the many cases when it has shown to be an improvement. When more investment is needed to develop these alternatives this must be made available. This issue must be addressed when the revision of Directive 86/609 is debated in parliament. They must also strive to ensure the first reading is completed before April next year, when all attention will focus on the June 2009 European Elections. If you agree this is urgent please contact your MEPs and tell them so. Further information from http://www.scienceroom.org/ http://www.safermedicines.org/ Thank you for your time.[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
