youA paradigm shift is occurring in biomedical research and toxicological testing. This development, encouraged by numerous professional, institutional and civil society actors, refers to the development and use of more predictive scientific methods for health that do not use animals.
Almost all of our everyday products (cleaners, foods, phytosanitary products, medicines, etc.) are tested on animals, and are also widely used for biomedical research. In 2022, almost 2 million experiments on animals for scientific purposes were carried out in France. According to the 2010 European directive on the matter, the animal is considered a last resort. In practice, it is different: we are talking about almost 10 million annual animal tests in Europe.
Animal testing raises ethical and scientific questions because the approach It has its limits in the reproduction of normal and pathological human functioning. A study published in June shows that 95% of drugs tested and approved in animals never reach the market because they are toxic or ineffective in humans. Furthermore, developing a drug takes ten to fifteen years and costs $2.3 billion. [2,2 milliards d’euros]. Unequivocal figures that illustrate the urgent need to do things differently and better.
The debate over animal research has traditionally been framed as a question of ethics, but, as pointed out by the Pro Anima Scientific Committee, which works to develop non-animal approaches to biomedical research and toxicological testing, it is also and above all a question scientific. public health issue.
Organs on a chip and AI
In recent years, new technologies have emerged (in vitro, ex vivo and in silico), based on human data that allow us to be closer physiologically and clinically to our species: an unprecedented advance in the world of research.
For example, researchers from the Moderna laboratory detected, with a liver on a chip developed by the biotechnology company Emulate, the toxicity of thirty-five lipid nanoparticles. This research lasted eighteen months, with a total cost of $325,000, while with non-human primates it would have cost more than five million dollars and would have lasted more than five years.
You have 54.23% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
