Replacing Animals In Medical Studies?

" - - - Around 90 percent of novel drugs that work in animal models fail in human clinical trials—an attrition rate that contributes to a $2.3-billion average price tag for every new drug that comes to market.

"Today Morales Pantoja is a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, where she is helping to develop lab-grown models of the human brain. The goal is to advance scientific understanding of neurodegeneration while moving the field beyond what some researchers see as an antiquated reliance on animal models.

"Millions of rodents, dogs, monkeys, rabbits, birds, cats, fish, and other animals are used every year for research purposes worldwide. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but advocacy group Cruelty Free International estimated that 192 million animals were used in 2015. Most of this work occurs in four broad domains: cosmetics and personal products, chemical toxicity testing, drug development, and drug-discovery research."

Click on the link below for the details:

Next-Generation Biotech Is Rendering Some Lab Animals Obsolete

Animal Studies In Psychology

I recently re-posted a commentary on Facebook supporting the value of John B Calhoun's mice studies in understanding the stresses of over-population. Unfortunately, some readers focused on the individual making the commentary (the messenger) because of some of his comments (particularly at the end), and his history of bigoted, unsupported ideology of which I was not aware. Some of the readers even challenged the validity of animal research on human behavior. In light of such, below you will find justification and validity of such:

- - - - - - - 

"Part of the justification for why nonhuman animals are studied in psychology has to do with the fact of evolution. Humans share common ancestry with the species most commonly studied in psychology: mice, rats, and monkeys. To be sure, each species has its own specializations that enable it to fit into its unique ecological niche; but common ancestry results in structural (e.g., brain) and functional (e.g., memory) processes that are remarkably similar between humans and nonhumans. In addition, we can better understand fundamental processes because of the precise control enabled by animal research (e.g., living environments, experimental conditions, etc.). We can also ask and answer certain questions that would be difficult or impossible to do with humans. For example, we know what the connections are between the amygdala and other brain regions, but how does activity in the amygdala affect brain functioning? Using a new technique, it is now possible to temporarily inactivate the amygdala in a monkey and see how other brain areas (including those that are not directly connected to the amygdala) change their activity (Grayson et al., 2016). A study such as this not only helps us better understand how the brain works but also has enormous potential for developing treatments for people who have abnormal patterns of brain activity, such as those with epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease. Ten years from now, students may very well read in their textbooks about a “new treatment” to help people with Parkinson’s disease. Will this monkey study, which enabled such a discovery to be made, be described? Probably not, in much the same way that nonhuman research that permitted a significant human study to be conducted is rarely described in today’s textbooks." 

(https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2017/01/animal-studies#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20we%20can%20better,impossible%20to%20do%20with%20humans)

- - - - - - -

More support for the study:

(https://web.archive.org/web/20200614090726/https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia)