Absolutely! And easily done, simply by replacing the animal model with a few harvested human cells in a petrie dish!

And given our ability to grow the same so a to conduct many diverse experiments in controlled sterile environments, and reach established conclusions much more rapidly.

A better, less costly model, than intensively cruel animal research!?
Rhrosty.

Conduct drug research on Aged Pensioners instead. Perhaps pay'em a stipend in lieu of pension.

Christmas is a time of giving, after all.

Plantagenet what a silly idea you have. I know you are most probably trying to be funny about this subject, would it not be better to make a serious comment instead of making something very stupid? I read other stuff you write and most times you seem to be a very inteligent person.

Hi misarthropod

Marr granny thot is were fonny n she the main arbitor.

Gotta hava sinse o humor. Lordy.

Please to study carefully and loin lotz https://youtu.be/Ygy7UDADXDg?t=55s .

Merry Xmas 2U2

No! You've got that completely wrong plantagenet.

We should be using all these animal rights activists. That way they would get the chance to do something useful with their miserable lives for once.

//No! You've got that completely wrong plantagenet.//

Nah, bugger that. Eat the elderly; their only value is as a useful source of protein and self-righteous indignation, and of those two resources protein is the only valuable resource. We should be rendering down anybody over pension age for anything useful; once they've been put out to pasture they are leaners and not lifters, a drain on society's valuable resources like everybody else hanging off the welfare teat.

Merry Christmas to all the miserable old hasbeens, scrooges and grinches. May the New Year bring you even more reasons to detest youth, joy and things not being a patch on what they were when you were young.

Amen to that Toni.

Here's my favourite traditional Christmas Carol https://youtu.be/Jlf---13Q0g

And who can forget Bad Santa's Christmas Spirit
(a mild scene - but still worth a language warning) https://youtu.be/cP96t4BhSdc

Have Yourself a Very Merry Christmas

Interesting timing for this article, as I'm currently editing a book on the development of a "body-on-a-chip" for the drug development and therapy evaluation and have been reading contributions from the leading researchers in the world about the development of alternatives to animal research. An overview of some of the work our lab does in this area is here for those that are interested.
http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Projects/Body-on-a-Chip.htm

However, I am always concerned when I see articles like this, that rightly point out the major limitations to animal studies, but neglect to discuss the alternatives, which of course have their own disadvantages, and many of which are still in development and far from the stage where they can reliably replace animal studies. Rather the author seems to argue a point from ignorance, suggesting researchers are perhaps too lazy or negligent to move away from animal experiments. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Believe me, if there are suitable alternatives currently available to us, researchers would be all over them! In order to perform an animal study, we need to complete mountains of paperwork, usually at both the institution and federal level, pay extortionate costs for animal drugs, vet care housing etc. which eats up our grant money, and (as the author points out) there is still no guarantee this will represent the results after clinical translation. We are also legally bound to demonstrate efforts to address the "three Rs" of medical research. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/three-rs/

We are only allowed to progress with animal research if we show that suitable alternatives currently don't exist. Eventually we may get to the stage where certain animal experiments, such as drug toxicity testing, can be moved to human cell, or in silco-based systems. But how would we evaluate therapies, such as tissue engineering and organ transplantation, etc. on a computer or culture system? So before you start pushing for us to abandon animal experiments, at least make sure we have alternatives that are equal or superior, to avoid harming the patients we are working hard to treat.

Continued next post

If you are willing to accept greater numbers of human deaths and side-effects in clinical trials in order to reduce animal use, then you should say this, as this will be the result of your approach.

I noticed on your website that you raise money via donations. Rather than just trying to shut down research using one-sided statistics and horror stories about 1950s research, perhaps you could spend some of your money received from donations to actually fund some of this research? Lets make a better system before you tear down the best one we currently have.

To add something to Stezza’s comment, researchers who conduct medical research using animals would love to have alternatives to use. Certainly where alternatives are available, they are used. This is because they are cheaper and more reliable. There is a lot of cost and effort involved in conducting research on animals. However, it is not as simple as growing cells in a dish.

Somewhat ironically, there is a regulatory push from some areas (notably the EU) to have even more animal testing and frequently this testing is of dubious scientific value. Such as this http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130731

The publication mentioned in the article seems to miss these nuances.

At the heart of the problems as with all things science is lack of accountability of scientists in all fields. Yet they rule the planet. Trillions of dollars spent on cancer cures and trillions of animals sacrificed yet clinical research in the US came to the conclusion the largest percentage of cancers are caused by lifestyle choices etc. And now the govmt prefers to increase the price f healthy food choices rather than decrease the amount spent on vaccines. Every medicine package has a warning that we all react differently and all experience different side effects. Mmm Lets focus on hygeine and lifestyle and thus benefit the economy as well as the planet.

"And now the govmt prefers to increase the price f healthy food choices rather than decrease the amount spent on vaccines."

In fact vaccines are one of the most cost-effective medical interventions available. They have been instrumental in the elimination of smallpox, important in the pending elimination of polio and if not for a group of anti-vaccine ignoramuses, measles might be on the verge or eradication. Also, most vaccines are not tested on animals - for the simple reason that many vaccine-preventable diseases don't occur in laboratory animals.

As exemplified by posters such as Rhosty and NAAS, the main failure of scientists seems to be in our ability to communicate and educate the public so they can be involved in informed debate on topics such as these.

Nice to know we rule the world, I must have missed that memo. I guess first order of business would be a pay rise to at least half of what blokes get for driving a truck up north. Seems fair?