Great story, Wayne and thank you for addressing, informing on this issue - I've been contemplating some related factors:
1. There are Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as gatekeepers to approval of human research studies and could result in revision of research methodology (watering down) to be approved. For non-human animals, it's the I…
Great story, Wayne and thank you for addressing, informing on this issue - I've been contemplating some related factors:
1. There are Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as gatekeepers to approval of human research studies and could result in revision of research methodology (watering down) to be approved. For non-human animals, it's the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) which claims to carefully review animal welfare to approve research, accompanied by inspections of welfare. I am not convinced at all, these "representative committee members" are faculty (insiders and peers), and avveterinarian. I question whether they ever decline approval given what we know. What the heck are the criteria being applied in their reviews...!? Also,
2. There are simulations/prototypes available and funding should be allocated to development of that technology NOT breeding programs! Animals are not humans, all results are dubious and they know it - articles' closing statement is always, ["...more research is required..."]. Like we don't understand so perpetuates how it's always been done for millions in funding available from HHS and FDA.
Very valid points! IRBs and IACUCs are both mostly a sham. And we absolutely do need to be funding alternatives. Organ on a chip tech is very promising!
Great story, Wayne and thank you for addressing, informing on this issue - I've been contemplating some related factors:
1. There are Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) as gatekeepers to approval of human research studies and could result in revision of research methodology (watering down) to be approved. For non-human animals, it's the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) which claims to carefully review animal welfare to approve research, accompanied by inspections of welfare. I am not convinced at all, these "representative committee members" are faculty (insiders and peers), and avveterinarian. I question whether they ever decline approval given what we know. What the heck are the criteria being applied in their reviews...!? Also,
2. There are simulations/prototypes available and funding should be allocated to development of that technology NOT breeding programs! Animals are not humans, all results are dubious and they know it - articles' closing statement is always, ["...more research is required..."]. Like we don't understand so perpetuates how it's always been done for millions in funding available from HHS and FDA.
Very valid points! IRBs and IACUCs are both mostly a sham. And we absolutely do need to be funding alternatives. Organ on a chip tech is very promising!