首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Testing Times Researchers are working on ways to reduce the need for animal experiments, but new laws may increase the numbe
Testing Times Researchers are working on ways to reduce the need for animal experiments, but new laws may increase the numbe
admin
2010-01-10
87
问题
Testing Times
Researchers are working on ways to reduce the need for animal experiments, but new laws may increase the number of experiments needed.
The current situation
In an ideal world, people would not perform experiments on animals. For the people, they are expensive. For the animals, they are stressful and often painful.
That ideal world, sadly, is still some way away. People need new drugs and vaccines. They want protection from the toxicity of chemicals. The search for basic scientific answers goes on. Indeed, the European Commission is forging ahead with proposals that will increase the number of animal experiments carried out in the European Union, by requiring toxicity tests on every chemical approved for use within the union’s borders in the past 25 years.
Already, the commission has identified 140,000 chemicals that have not yet been tested. It wants 30,000 of these to be examined right away, and plans to spend between ~ 4 billion — 8 billion ($5 billion—10 billion) doing so. The number of animals used for toxicity testing in Europe will thus, experts reckon, quintuple (翻五倍) from just over lm a year to about 5m, unless they are saved by some dramatic advances in non-animal testing technology. At the moment, roughly 10% of European animal tests are for general toxicity, 35% for basic research, 45% for drugs and vaccines, and the remaining 10% a variety of uses such as diagnosing diseases.
Animal experimentation will therefore be around for some time yet. But the search for substitutes continues, and last weekend the Middle European Society for Alternative Methods to Animal Testing met in Linz, Austria, to review progress.
A good place to start finding alternatives for toxicity tests is the liver--the organ responsible for breaking toxic chemicals down into safer molecules that can then be excreted. Two firms, one large and one small, told the meeting how they were using human liver cells removed incidentally during surgery to test various substances for long-term toxic effects.
One way out of the problem
PrimeCyte, the small firm, grows its cells in cultures over a few weeks and doses them regularly with the substance under investigation. The characteristics of the cells are carefully monitored, to look for changes in their microanatomy.
Pfizer, the big firm, also doses its cultures regularly, but rather than studying individual cells in detail, it counts cell numbers. If the number of cells in a culture changes after a sample is added, that suggests the chemical in question is bad for the liver.
In principle, these techniques could be applied to any chemical. In practice, drugs (and, in the case of PrimeCyte, food supplements) are top of the list. But that might change if the commission has its way: those 140,000 screenings look like a lucrative market, although nobody knows whether the new tests will be ready for use by 2009, when the commission proposes that testing should start.
Other tissues, too, can be tested independently of animals. Epithelix, a small firm in Geneva, has developed an artificial version of the lining of the lungs. According to Huang Song, one of Epithelix’s researchers, the firm’s cultured cells have similar microanatomy to those found in natural lung linings, and respond in the same way to various chemical messengers. Dr. Huang says that they could be used in long-term toxicity tests of airborne chemicals and could also help identify treatments for lung diseases.
The immune system can be mimicked and tested, too. ProBioGen, a company based in Berlin, is developing an artificial human lymph node (淋巴结) which, it reckons, could have prevented the neardisastrous consequences of a drag trial held in Britain three months ago, in which (despite the drag having passed animal tests) six men suffered multiple organ failure and nearly died. The drug the men were given made their immune systems hyperactive. Such a response would, the firm’s scientists reckon, nave teen identified by their lymph node, which is made from cells that provoke the immune system into a response. ProBioGen’s lymph node could thus work better than animal testing.
A second alternative
Another way of cutting the number of animal experiments would be to change the way that vaccines are tested, according to Coenraad Hendriksen of the Netherlands Vaccine Institute. At the moment, all batches of vaccine are subject to the same battery of tests. Dr. Hendriksen argues that this is over-rigorous. When new vaccine cultures are made, belt-and-braces tests obviously need to be applied. But if a batch of vaccine is derived from an existing culture, he suggests that it need be tested only to make sure it is identical to the batch from which it is derived. That would require fewer test animals.
All this suggests that though there is still some way to go before drugs, vaccines and other substances can be tested routinely on cells rather than live animals, useful progress is being made. What is harder to see is how the use of animals might be banished from fundamental research.
Weighing the balance
In basic scientific research, where the object is to understand how, say, the brain works rather than to develop a drug to treat brain disease, the whole animal is often necessarily the object of study. Indeed, in some cases, scientific advances are making animal tests more valuable, rather than less. Geneticmodification techniques mean that mice and rats can be remodelled to make them exhibit illnesses that they would not normally suffer from. Also, genes for human proteins can be added to them, so that animal tests will more closely mimic human responses. This offers the opportunity to understand human diseases better, and to screen treatments before human trials begin. However, the very creation of these mutants (突变异种) counts as an animal experiment in its own right, so the number of experiments is increasing once again.
What is bad news for rodents, though, could be good news for primates. Apes and monkeys belong to the same group of mammals as humans, and are thus seen as the best subjects for certain sorts of experiment. To the extent that rodents can be "humanised", the number of primate experiments might be reduced.
Some people, of course, would like to see them eliminated altogether, regardless of the effect on useful research. On June 6th the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, an animal-rights group, called for the use of primates in research to be banned. For great apes, this has already happened. Britain, Austria, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden have ended experiments on chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orang-utans. Experiments on monkeys, though, are still permitted. And some countries have not banned experiments on apes. In America, for example, about 1,000 chimpanzees a year are used in research.
This is a difficult area. Great apes are man’s closest relatives, having parted company from the human family tree only a few million years ago. Hence it can be (and is) argued that they are indispensable for certain sorts of research. On the other hand, a recent study by Andrew Knight and his colleagues at Animal Consultants International, an animal-advocacy group, casts doubt on the claim that apes are used only for work of vital importance to humanity. Important papers tend to get cited as references in subsequent studies, so Mr. Knight looked into the number of citations received by 749 scientific papers published as a result of invasive experiments on captive chimpanzees. Half had received not a single citation up to ten years after their original publication.
That is damning. Animal experiments are needed for the advance of medical science, not to mention people’s safety. But if scientists are to keep the sympathy of the public, they need to do better than that.
It is found that tissues from liver, lung, and immune system can all be tested independently of animals.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
A
解析
根据此题中的liver,lung,immune system这几个关键词,定位在第二部分
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/mRt7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
A、Heagreeswiththewoman.B、Hehasn’tbeentoagamerecently.C、Hedoesn’tknowmuchaboutbasketball.D、Hedoesn’tthinkthe
A、Planningholidays.B、Workinginatravelagency.C、Travelingalone.D、FlyingtoNewYork.AW:Ifyouhaven’tyetdecidedonyo
A、Apopulartelevisionprogram.B、Abreakthroughintechnology.C、Arecentpurchase.D、Anewelectronicsstore.CWhatisthemai
Forthispart,youareallowedthirtyminutestowriteacompositiononthetopic:OwningPrivateCars.Youshouldwriteatleas
Onlybyworkinghard__________(我们才能通过期末考试)andgetourbachelor’sdegrees.
A、Heisnotveryknowledgeable.B、Heisrespectfulofhisstudents.C、Hespeakstoomuchintheclass.D、Hehastraveledextensi
Forthispart,youareallowedthirtyminutestowritearesume.Youshouldwriteatleast120wordsfollowingtheoutlinegiven
A、Give5dollarstochildrenmorethan15yearsold.B、Allowayearlyincreaseastheirchildrengrowolder.C、Teachtheirchild
A、Therelationshipofpurchasestotimespentinshopping.B、Thelengthoftimerequiredfordrugstoreshopping.C、Theincreases
随机试题
按照耐用性和有形性,产品可以分为非耐用品、耐用品和服务3类。从消费者购买习惯的角度考虑,可将产品区分为__________、__________、__________、__________4种类型。
何谓免疫应答?
现病史不包括
关于肝病患者用药A、维生素AB、口服避孕药C、氟尿嘧啶D、巴比妥E、对乙酰氨基酚可引起硬化性胆管炎的是
神经根型颈椎病病人可能出现()。
名联“与国咸休,安富尊荣公府第;同天并老,文章道德圣人家”称赞的是()的崇高地位和道德修养。[2012年云南真题]
在中国教育史上首倡“性善论”的教育家是()。
任某报警称自己在长途客车上被四名男子以抽奖的方式诈骗现金、手表等物品,嫌疑人已从甲镇下车。接警后县公安局迅速指派甲镇派出所出警处置。出警民警了解到:任某乘坐A县至B县的客车时,被车上的四名男子以抽奖的方式诈骗3000元现金和劳力士手表,总价值19000余元
近日,王月成了石家庄乃至全国的名人——她在石家庄九中街路旁的树上和电线杆上。创作了一些惟妙惟肖的美术作品。因为她的“树洞画”,石家庄九中街已经成了一个“景点”,每天来此欣赏“树洞画”的市民络绎不绝。她的“树洞画”经媒体报道后迅速在全国引起关注,各大门户网站
“两会”是我国政治生活中的一件大事,全国人大代表肩负着全国各族人民的重托,以对国家和人民的高度负责精神,认真履行自己的神圣职责,全国政协委员紧紧围绕国家经济和社会发展的一系列重要问题展开讨论,建言献策。共商国是,这充分表明()。
最新回复
(
0
)