Xanderian wrote:
What do we know about the computer models / simulations? The last I remember involving computer models and simulations was when protein strand building was publicly sourced through a game (the Foldit game). However, that was done with lots and lots of people playing that game, and not a computer calculating it for them. That was quite a few years ago (I think about 7 years?), so I'm not sure that we've quite gotten computers up to spec for something like that yet. I also wouldn't trust the data from that computer if that was the only data being provided (as opposed to having other sources of data, like tests on tissue models like you were referring to).
Did a little research because wasn't too well informed myself on the whole process of computer-aided models. Found somewhat credulous information.
Check out the NOTOX Project
http://notox-sb.eu/welcome/ it's a co-funded by the European Commission and Cosmetics Europe after / before / near the full ban on the marketing of cosmetics and hygiene products tested on animals that took place in the EU in March of 2013 in order to develop and foresee long-term effects on the human body aided by bioinformatics models, so on, to dumb it down from what it seems they would take the
most effected organs and closely examine them in test-tube experiments to see how much ea. substance affects that organ long-term. Basically to create credible algorithms that mimic the process of real human tissue when exposed to these substances.
Here's a little more complex reading, but worth the read
NOTOX Project wrote:
Within the initiative “FP7-HEALTH-2010-Alternative-Testing-Strategies” the project NOTOX will develop and establish a spectrum of systems biological tools for toxicity prediction. These include experimental and computational methods for i) organotypic human cell cultures suitable for long term toxicity testing and ii) the identification and analysis of pathways of toxicological relevance.
Systems biological tools in NOTOX comprise experimental methods using organotypic human cell cultures and computational tools. NOTOX will generate own experimental data to develop and validate predictive mathematical and bioinformatic models characterizing long term toxicity responses. Cellular activities will be monitored continuously by comprehensive analysis of released metabolites, peptides and proteins and by the estimation of metabolic fluxes using 13C labelling techniques (fluxomics). At selected time points a part of the cells will be removed for in-depth structural (3D-optical and electron microscopy tomography), transcriptomic, epigenomic, metabolomic, proteomic and fluxomic characterizations. When applicable, cells derived from human stem cells (hESC or iPS) and available human organ simulating systems or even a multi-organ platform developed within the SEURAT cluster will be investigated using developed methods.
Together with curated literature and genomic data these toxicological data will be organised in a toxicological database. Physiological data including metabolism of test compounds will be incorporated into large-scale computer models that are based on material balancing and kinetics. Various “-omics” data and 3D structural information from organotypic cultures will be integrated using correlative bioinformatic tools. These data also serve as a basis for large scale mathematical models. The overall objectives are to identify cellular and molecular signatures allowing prediction of long term toxicity, to design experimental systems for the identification of predictive endpoints and to integrate these into causal computer models.
Basically, their aim is to not only replace animal testing, but vivo testing in whole to which they say is a much more promising and comprehensive approach, but of course, that's doesn't tell the approach here for non-animal tested cosmetics.
So, two main alternatives to animal testing includes in vitro testing, which are test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, and in silico models, which is performed on computer or via computer simulation to which you are referencing. A widely used computer-based model is Quantitative structure-activity relationships
(QSAR) which is used to predict the physicochemical, biological and environmental effects composed by cosmetic substances. So far, they've been seen to be much more effective and in result are cheaper than animal testing, plus you can expect faster results
(I'll have to do more research in the future to determine whether it is cheaper and faster because it's questionable).There are supposedly a lot more computer models used
today, just do a quick google search and you'll find a lot of articles of companies using computer models as an alternative to animal testing.
Xanderian wrote:
I actually do think that the tissue model part might be useful, but it sounds like it's expensive, especially in comparison to the purchase of, say, a hundred adult pigs. While it sucks for the 100 pigs (especially if it turns out that the cosmetic is harmful and that they got it wrong), I feel like it's better than the millions of customers who would be wearing those dangerous cosmetics when the companies decide to cut corners because of testing costs. I feel that limiting the means of testing these companies have (especially before we have readily available and open sourced technology to allow them the other alternatives) is just going to make them put those customers at risk, especially if their only alternative is to not sell in California, and thus lose a large amount of potential buyers. . . part of the cells will be removed for in-depth structural. . . transcriptomic, epigenomic, metabolomic, proteomic and fluxomic characterizations. . .
Based off, not entirely credible sources but articles / sites I've come by, animal tests can take months to years depending on the project to which can come up to a cost of hundreds, thousands, and millions dollars of research let alone neither does that research result as effective
(will have to look further into that too). But from the looks, most alternatives are not only more cost-efficient and more humane, but you're getting what say, a greater deal out of the two. More effective results seems to be the most costly to which these alternative succeed at. So, because animal testing doesn't get as effective results, it may be cheaper for a short-term experiment but long-term these prices are going to add up, much more than these alternatives.
Here's a price comparison fact-sheet found to get an idea;
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdf ... esting.pdf
Needy
