Wired - Computer replacement of animals in research. Great story

Found on the Wired blog at http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67541,00.html

By John Gartner | Also by this reporter - From Wired blog

02:00 AM May. 20, 2005 PT

Computers are starting to replace live animals as a test platform for some aspects of medical research.

About 18 million animals are killed each year in medical research, according to the animal rights group In Defense of Animals. But complex computer models that simulate organs, biological systems and even entire organisms are beginning to take the place of test animals in the lab.


This month, the American Diabetes Association and biopharmaceutical company Entelos completed a virtual mouse that will be used to study cures for type 1 diabetes.

Running on a server, the non-obese diabetic virtual mouse will allow researchers to test the effects of new drugs on the virtual animal's cells, tissues, organs and physiological processes, according to Barry Sudbeck, Entelos' business development manager.

The virtual mouse can replace several stages of a pre-clinical drug trial, sparing the lives of hundreds of mice, Sudbeck said.

The model also translates test results to show the likely effects of drugs on humans.

"Biology is becoming a computational science," said Raimond Winslow, the director of the Center for Cardiovascular Bioinformatics and Modeling at Johns Hopkins University.

Winslow said his computer model is reducing the number of animals needed in research because it is used instead of harvesting hearts.

Entelos created the virtual mouse because there is more research data on mice than any other species used in the lab -- the model is based on years of data from real animal experiments. But virtual animals could be created for any species for which there is sufficient data, Entelos' Sudbeck said.

For example, Entelos has also developed human models that simulate experiments on the respiratory system, metabolism and arthritic joints. Sudbeck said it would be theoretically possible to link together all of the systems into a virtual human, but "the biological data that has been collected so far isn't complete enough to represent all of the pieces."

But virtual drug testing is becoming more common. Pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer perform virtual experiments, verify the results with real-world tests, and then add the real-world data to the computer model in the hope of future improvements, Sudbeck said.

However, computer models are not likely to completely replace animal testing in the immediate future.

Johns Hopkins' Winslow, who develops computer models of myocytes (the muscle cells that make up the ventricles of the heart), said today's biological simulations "are currently not sufficiently predictive to replace the use of animal testing."

Rather, computer models can help to focus experiments and are best used in conjunction with animal experimentation, according to Winslow.

Animal studies are frequently touted for their contributions to drug development, but some physicians groups dispute their efficacy.

The Food and Drug Administration still requires animal tests to be performed during drug development, rules that haven't been updated since the 1930s, according to Dr. John Pippin, a cardiologist and former animal researcher.

Pippin recently wrote a report for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine claiming that animal testing has "often proven to be misleading and potentially dangerous for the evaluation of drugs that will be prescribed for humans."

"Animal research is just not valid in understanding how drugs apply to humans," he said.

Ray Greek, a physician who wrote What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals and founded the group Americans for Medical Advancement, said research dollars would be better spent on gene research, stem-cell research and computer-based studies that analyze humans.

Greek said the field of pharmacogenomics indicates that human reaction to drugs can vary widely between individuals, "so how can we expect drugs tested on other species to translate?"

But Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said animal testing is necessary and should be utilized as long as animals are tested humanely.

Caplan said humans have a higher moral value than animals, so animals should be used when the welfare of the participant is a concern.

"Models and simulations are not a substitute for (deciding) which living thing goes first" when undergoing an experimental therapy, Caplan said.

End of story