User:MaynardClark/Nonanimal Research Roadmap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Strategic Roadmap from Animal-Based Research Models to Nonanimal Research Alternatives"
In short: "Nonanimal Research Roadmap"
It is approximately 7:39 PM in this user's locale. (Purge to update.) |
Draft!
What elements are necessary for this project to fully succeed? Does any part of this effort stand apart from the others, or is the entire replacement, refinement, and reduction effort historically synergistic? "Strategic Roadmap from Animal-Based Research Models to Nonanimal Research Alternatives"
How does one set out, for otherwise unengaged persons (of intelligence and learning), the challenges and prospects, not blithely, but grimly and realistically, what would be needed to make significant progress in such a project (if indeed the cards ARE stacked against such a hope WITHIN the biomedical research establishment, which they may not be)? The cost of using animal models is considerable and a potential disincentive to using them where nonanimal research models are available and of equal or better knowledge production efficacy.
Areas to Consider:
- Research Direction - definition of RD in order to identify 'knowledge gaps' vis a vis R&D
- Importance of knowledge gaps: A Socratic dialogue distinguished 'known unknowns' and unknown unknowns' (in the phrasing of Donald Rumsfeld. In the NRR (nonanimal research roadmap), the recognition and identification of knowledge gaps is foundational for defining and redefining 'research direction', timing, and emphasis. Without resolving strategically important knowledge gaps in methodology, we won't get there - the road to the development of nonanimal biomedical research methods cannot be followed to its long-term goal - the development and validation of each nonanimal research method. Sponsored researchers may produce the knowledge of their sponsored projects, but methods researchers will not produce validated nonanimal research methods.
- Comprehensive Map of the Animal-Based Models to Replace, Refine, or ...
- Historical sense of the struggle to do the full map of things we do in the intertwined efforts?
- Sense of Mission
- Engagement of 'vivisectors' (those who use animal-based models in biomedical research) who may know what KINDS of knowledge they want or believe they need, and what they WOULD want from a nonanimal model.
- Commitment to the legitimacy of the scientific endeavors (at least some of them?)
- Parity with other ways to reach the overt goals of the biomedical research (e.g. better human health outcomes for both individuals and populations)?
- Should researchers and research strategists consider alternative ways of achieving improved health for individuals and populations (rather than by using the biomedical models?
- What analytical tools should be included in the toolbox for later use by bright, promising, well-prepared young persons who are considering careers in roles committed to improving the quality of human living?
- Which nations are likely to contribute significant talent (long-term) and funding (long-term) to such efforts (India? China? Switzerland? Germany and other nations in the EU?)? How can American institutions tap or 'opportunize' such potentials to build such facilities in advance of global recognition of such a venture's desirability?
- Asking questions in human-relevant ways so that (i) fewer (or no) animals are used (ii) because animal models would not helpfully model the knowledge area that is to be explored.
Non-animal testing techniques for medical purposes are efficient and far advanced. Alternatives to animal testing make use of medical imaging, microdosing, metabolism simulation, biochips, mathematics, visualizations, and other methods. These more advanced techniques give great insight, otherwise not offered by use of animal testing. The human mind is capable of solving problems related to medicine. If humans are able to determine the chemical composition of distant galaxies, imagine the potential for non-invasive technology for modeling tissue interactions.
This type of research also may prove to be cost effective, while increasingly improving both the speed of conducting research and the quality of the research results.
The way and redundancy in which animal testing is carried undermines the capability for human innovation. Animal testing also desensitizes participants, and it influences the idea of the lack of value for life,[1] which further reduces the quality of this type of research. Research from animal experimentation is limited, since animals do not have "all the same maladies as do humans."[2]
Approximately 9 out of 10 medications that qualify by the expectations for animal testing later fail human trials.[3]