Sérgio Grief

If a researcher propose to test a drug for the elderly using as a model girls twenty years; or test the benefits of a drug to minimize the effects of the menopause as a model using male, surely there was a question about the scientific methodology of his.

This is because it is assumed that girls are not models representative of the elderly population and that boys are not the best model for the study of issues relevant to women. If this is logical, and we are dealing with the same species, why accept it as a scientific test drugs for the elderly or for women even in animals that belong to the same species?

Why accept that the cure for AIDS is in testing drugs on animals that develop this disease even? And even if they did, as mean that the disease in these animals behave in the same way in humans? Even books bioterism recognize that it is not suitable animal model.

Experimental data obtained from one species can not be extrapolated to other species. If you want to know how a species reacts to certain stimuli, the only way to do it is by observing populations dessaa species naturally getting that stimulus or induce it in certain population.

Induce stimulation coming up in the problem of ethics and scientific nature. First question: is it true, is it my right to get individuals and stimuli that induce them naturally were not focusing on them? Second question: is it scientific, if the body receives a stimulus-induced, differently to how it naturally would, he is a representative model of a real situation?

Mice are not humans in miniature. Applied drugs in rats do not give us evidence of what happens when humans consume these same drugs. There are some similarities in the functioning of the systems of mice and men, of course, we are all mammals, but these similarities are parallel. One can not ignore the differences, the many variables that make each species unique. These differences, minor they seem, are so significant that sometimes produce antagonistic results.

Tests on rats do not serve either to evaluate drug effects in mice. That's because despite apparent similarity, Both species have very different metabolic pathways. Metabolic differences are not hard to find even within the same species, it is assumed that the drugs on the market are effective only for 30-50% human population.

In practice what happens is that a mouse can get a dose of a substance and metabolize it so that she biotransforme into a toxic compound. The toxicity kills the mouse, but in humans this drug could be innocuous, who knows the answer to a severe illness. On the other hand, test in rats can demonstrate the safety of a drug in humans is demonstrated toxic.

Hundreds of drugs tested on animals were approved and placed on the market for use by humans and had to be taken a few months after, because they have been identified adverse effects to the population. If the animal research could really predict the effects of drugs on humans, these events would not have occurred. Thus, can infer that research using animals as a model not only benefits humans, but also potentially affect.

The health model we advocate is one that values ​​human life and animals. The interests of the pharmaceutical industry and research institutions that profit from animal experiments do not concern us. We looked for real solutions to real problems.

The biggest improvements in public health were through successive changes in the lifestyle of the populations. There is a strong correlation between our health and the lifestyle we lead. If our lifestyle is this way or that, this reflects in our health. It is clear that diseases are reflected, largely, our lifestyle and that healing should be fixes these habits.

---

Sérgio Grief, Biologist group Vedder, in São Paulo (SP), Master in Food and Nutrition, co-author of the book “The True Face of Animal Experimentation: Your health in danger” and author of “Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals in Education: responsible for science”.