Australasian Science: Australia's authority on science since 1938

Fur and against: Scrutinizing the efficacy of animal testing and its alternatives

By Dyani Lewis

Toxicologist and pharmacologist Prof Thomas Hartung explains why animal testing is often unnecessary or of questionable efficacy. He discusses the emerging protocols and technologies that enable development of safe products without the need to conduct animal testing. Presented by Dr Dyani Lewis.

The full text of this article can be purchased from Informit.

DYANI LEWIS
Hi, I'm Dyani Lewis, thanks for joining us. When we take a pill, put on makeup or purchase a new sofa, we usually take it for granted that these products are safe for us. The confronting reality is that for decades our safety has largely relied on drugs and cosmetics and household chemicals being tested on animals. But do we need to test on animals as much as we still do? Few of us would now argue that our vanity should be at the expense of animals, but what about testing for drug safety? What are the alternatives to animal testing, and how should product researchers and government regulators change their processes if the alternatives to animal testing are as good as, or perhaps even better than, the tests we conduct on animals? I'm joined on Up Close today by Professor Thomas Hartung, a pharmacologist, toxicologist and leader in the development of alternatives to animal testing. Professor Hartung is director of the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland, and he is here as a guest of RSPCA Australia and the University's Animal Welfare Science Centre and Office for Research Ethics and Integrity. Welcome to Up...

The full text of this article can be purchased from Informit.