Replacing Animal Tests With Stem Cells
Finding a suitable alternative to animal testing is one of the biggest challenges of the research sector. In fact, it's a seemingly formidable one that has left some people with the assumption that animals will remain necessary for scientific research. However, this is not to say that methods can't be refined and improved, which will reduce the number of animals used for testing. In this case, stem cells are proving to be an exciting new way to perform testing, particularly given that they can help us to use fewer animals in the testing process. Better still, they could be far more cost-effective than using animal models of experimentation.
Using Embryonic Stem Cells for Experimentation
An embryonic stem cell is capable of growing and differentiating into a wide variety of different cell types, which can ultimately grow into a human organ. By using in vitro human tissue from stem cells, we have a better ability to assess the toxicity of a substance, particularly in comparison with just one kind of cell type. In this way, we can also obtain a human profile rather than an animal one for the drug. These stem cells can further help us on the drug discovery path. By placing a gene for disease into embryonic stem cells, the cells can be coaxed to develop into diseased human tissues. Then, these tissues can be utilised for drug screening.Stem cells have already received an enormous amount of attention for their potential in the therapeutic aspect of diseases. However, their potential use as a substitute for animal experimentation holds enormous promise and demonstrates the broad application potential for stem cells. Virtually all of us will take a pharmaceutical drug at some point in our lives. In this way, using stem cells instead of animal models can benefit practically everyone. In contrast, not everyone will require a stem cell therapy, despite the significance of stem cells for those who do suffer from devastating diseases that are helped by stem cell therapies.
Benefits to the Research Sector
Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have to test their drugs for toxicity in humans. With animal models, it can be costly and difficult as well as time-consuming. Not only that, but animal models are still different from humans in a number of ways, despite being considered the most similar model to represent humans. By using stem cells for assessing drug toxicity, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies can rapidly test new chemicals and compounds and more readily infer the results to humans. This kind of testing would occur quite early on in the research and development protocol.Another benefit of stem cell models of testing relates to ethnic diversity. Animal models don't have the ethnic diversity of humans. Since certain ethnic populations have unique health needs and metabolism of drugs, animal models simply can't predict the effect of the drug in an ethnic subpopulation. With stem cells, however, these kinds of predictions could more accurately be made, which means reduced drug side effects and toxicity once a drug is used for human trials and when it hits the market. By using embryonic stem cell lines from a particular ethnic genome, researchers can effectively create an ethnic cell population to assess drug toxicity.
Challenges of Stem Cell Models of Testing
One challenge is that stem cells aren't quite effective enough to actually show how a drug is toxic in the whole system. For example, when a person ingests a drug, an organ can then alter the drug in their system, which ultimately results in a metabolite that is toxic to a different organ. Stem cells can show one specific organ's reaction to a substance but these cells won't show how the entire human system would respond.As such, stem cells are a viable substitute for animal testing in terms of single organ toxicity. Unfortunately, stem cells can't act as a substitute for assessing a drug's impact on the entire body. Still, embryonic stem cells represent a promising in vitro alternative to animal testing, which is important for reducing animal testing and improving human health.
- Animal Rights Activists Targeting Scientists
- Scientists Against Animal Testing
- Pet Foods and Animal Testing
- Changing British Attitudes on Animal Testing
- Suffering of Lab Animal Technicians
- Rapid Information Sharing to Reduce Animal Tests
- Using Biochips Instead of Animals for Testing
- Human Infections from Animal Testing Labs
- Improving Transparency in British Animal Testing


Re: Food Production and Animal Testing
You would have to grow the food yourself and not use pesticides. Industrially farmed veg is sprayed with pesticides which…
Re: Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
Do they animal test on chimpanzees cause DNA?
Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
Animal Testing and Experimenting is most Barbaric. 96% of all the results fail, and can't be used on Humans. A hundred and fifteen…
Re: Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
While some animal testing is not ok you also have to look at the bright side of this. Because of animal…
Re: Biomedical Research and Animal Testing
Animals don’t have much of a life than humans they also have a shorter time span than humans
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests,…
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
I entirely disagree with all animal experiments. They are archaic and hideously cruel. They cannot express pain like…
Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
In regards to animal testing by the MoD medical equipment mainly field dressings and celox gauze is tested on live animals that…
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
Is animal testing inhumane and cruel? Of course. But for example, let's say that someone has diabetes and the only…
Re: Animal Testing in the United States
I have degrees in chemistry and physics and have done cancer research before in the U.S. but stopped because drugs…