Alternatives to Animal Testing: Different techniques to test medication and cosmetics

The use of animals as tools for various research procedures such as drug testing,

toxicological screenings, and for the understanding of the effects of certain medical procedures

and surgical experiments have been prevalent for quite a long time now (Doke, 2015, p.223). In

these procedures, they are euthanized using established methods to use their body tissues and

organs fully (Doke, 2015, p. 223). Several organizations have openly stood up against animal

cruelty which led to the formation of several laws and acts for animal protection. Moreover,

alternatives to animal testing such as in vitro testing, use of computer models, and the use of

alternative organisms are continuously being developed by scientists to reduce or replace the use

of animals for testing.

In in vitro testing, human cells are cultured in the laboratory and are used for initial

screening methods for specific local effects (Looy, 1994, p.19). Advantages of in-vitro testing

include the reduction of variability between experiments, shortened time for testing, low cost,

and the limited amount of toxic waste produced (Spielmann, 2007, p.254). One application of

this is the development of organs-on-chips by the Harvard Wyss Institute. These are

microchips lined with human cells which imitate the form and functions of living organs, such as

the heart, lungs, and intestines (Harvard website). Moreover, several researchers from the

European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) have

proposed alternative ways of using human cells in the assessment of chemicals for skin

sensitization (EURL ECVAM, 2013).

The use of computer models such as the Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship

(QSAR) also presents an alternative to animal testing. In QSAR modeling, individual chemical

entities are assessed with the aid of a simple mathematical equation that is initially estimated
from a set of molecules with known activities, properties, and toxicities using computational

approaches (Roy & Kar, 1972, p.180). This also aids in the prediction of activities such as

carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of different drug candidates (Doke, 2015, p.225). This method

comes with several advantages such as reduced time and costs of experiments, and that it can be

used simultaneously with in-vitro methods to produce more viable results (Mays, Benfenati, &

Pardoe, 2012, p.6).

Another proposed method is the use of alternative beings such as lower organisms,

invertebrates, and microorganisms instead of higher vertebrates. The lower vertebrate, Danio

rerio, or more commonly called zebra fish is used for the detection of different toxicological

studies of various chemicals (Doke, 2015, p.226). On the other hand, invertebrates such as

Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly and the eukaryotic nematode Caenorhabditis elegans are

widely utilized in the study of various human diseases like Parkinsons disease, endocrine and

memory dysfunction, wound healing, and diabetes (qt. in Doke, 2015). The use of these

alternative organisms pose advantages such as the reduced use of working space, the lessened

cost of laboratory solutions and test chemicals, and the small size and simple anatomy which

enables the study of a significant number of these microorganisms all at the same time (Doke,

2015, p.227).

As a whole, the continuous development of different alternative methods must be funded

by the government with other organizations to reduce or if possible, altogether replace the use of

animals for testing drug and cosmetics. Currently, the integration of the mentioned alternative

methods must be done to minimize the involvement of animals in different scientific studies.
Works cited:

Organs-on-Chips. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/461/

European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Anima Testing. (2013). EURL

ECVAM Strategy for Replacement of Animal Testing for Skin Sensitization Hazard

Identification and Classification. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from https://eurl-

ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eurl-ecvam-strategy-papers/strat-skin-sensitisation

Doke, S.K. & Dhawale, S.C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi

Pharmaceutical Journal, 23, 223-229.

Lagadic, L., & Caquet, T. (1998). Invertebrates in Testing of Environmental Chemicals: Are

They Alternatives?. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106, 593-611.

Looy, H.M. & Koeter, H.B.W.M. (1994). The OECD and International Regulatory Acceptance

of the Three Rs. In C.A. Reinhardt (Ed.), Alternatives to Animal Testing: New Ways

in the Biomedical Sciences Trends and Progress (pp. 13-19). Weinheim: VCH.

Mays, C., Benfenati, E., & Pardoe, S. (2012). Use and Percieved Benefits and Barriers of

QSAR Models for REACH: Findings from a Questionnare to Stakeholders. Chemistry

Central Journal, 6, 1-9.

Roy, K. & Kar, S. (1971). Importance of Applicability Domain of QSAR Models.

In Roy, K. (Ed.), Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships in Drug Design,

Predictive Toxicology, and Risk Assessment (pp. 180-211). USA: Medical Information

Science Reference.

Speilmann, H. (2007). Ethical Environment and Scientific Rationale Towards In-Vitro

Alternatives to Animal Testing: Where Are We Going?. In Marx, U. & Sandig, V.

(Eds.), Drug Testing In Vitro: Breakthroughs and Trends in Cell Culture Technology

(pp. 251-268). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.