back to article UK unveils roadmap for replacing animal testing

The UK Government has unveiled a roadmap to replace animal testing with AI-driven options and other alternatives, targeting the elimination of certain regulatory tests by the end of 2026. Phasing out animal testing in science was one of the UK government's manifesto commitments, and its Science Minister, Lord Vallance, aims to …

  1. NoThanks2912

    Testing on people

    The drug companies are yelling "whoopee". They don't want to test on animals. It's messy and costs money. They do it because otherwise the drugs get tested on humans. They do it because of Thalidomide. Sickening how our masters deliberately make us all less safe.

    1. Korev Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Testing on people

      > They do it because otherwise the drugs get tested on humans.

      What do you think a clinical trial is?

      1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

        Re: Testing on people

        In the UK, that is very much your every encounter with NHS, unless of course you won postcode lottery.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Testing on people

        Pharma:They want short or no clinical trials. Long term testing can be embarassing as it does things like find out long term problems. Means slower time to market and often no market. There are many cheap and re-purposable medicines, some good natural cures and many things fixed by getting off fake food. Pharma like any business wants to reduce cost, speed time to market and eliminate competition. They are large corporate businesses and are purely profit driven. We should remember that.

    2. clyde666

      Re: Testing on people

      Worthwhile finding out what happened with Thalidomide after our countries stopped using it.

    3. Spherical Cow

      Re: Testing on people

      Thalidomide is still used to treat a range of diseases.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Okay. So, the idea is, that at some point in the future, a doctor will approach a volunteer with a syringe, and the doctor will say: "This substance has never been in a living organism before. Nothing above bacteria, anyway. Not once in the whole history of life. But our simulations say it should be safe, and the AI agrees. I'm going to put it into you now. You okay with this?"

    And this is not going to be a problem? Is the plan to explain it in a somewhat more reassuring way, and that will make it okay? Or to pay that guy really well? Or am I missing something?

    (Anon, because there are people out there that are just itching to misinterpret a post like this).

    1. ParlezVousFranglais Silver badge

      Because

      a) there are a lot of people out there who will say yes for money when it comes to eventual human testing

      b) for many conditions, trying something new is the better alternative to there being no treatment at all

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        We will just test the drugs in a poor deprived country where people are desperate for any sort of medical care - and then those results can be used to approve the drug in the rest of Europe

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > We will just test the drugs ... where people are desperate for any sort of medical care

          So, the USA.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          They're not even desperate for medical care. They're told they need it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        There is always a treatment. Just that we are lazy and want easy cures despite the risk. E.g., slimming drugs.

    2. Spazturtle Silver badge

      No the idea is for the medical industry to move abroad as part of the UK's continual de-industrialisation program.

    3. takno

      All anybody seems to be proposing in this framework is the replacement of regulatory tests on existing substances. We only test stuff like botox potency and skin irritation on animals because that happens to be what is in the legislation. There are often much more effective tests which can be done using tissue samples from real humans, or individual cells, or in a few cases using computer modelling.

      Certainly as our ability to develop artificial tissues and more advanced computer models grow there is a likelihood that non-animal tests will expand into more novel substances, and "at some point in the future" a "volunteer" will likely have grown up in an environment where they are less instinctively scared of that than perhaps you are.

      Animal testing itself is a very imperfect way of predicting what will happen to people, since there are significant and quite possibly deadly differences between animals and us, and even when things have been tested on humans, they haven't been tested on you, so there's always a risk it will affect you differently from other people. The point is as much to allow us to do the most effective testing as it is to save the animals.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Certainly cosmetic testing should be banned IMHO.

        Yes animal testing is imperfect, especially when only immediate, short term. But it's a better indicator than in vitro which is also short term. Some of the effects of drugs can take many years to exhibit and also require a large cohort to be meaningful. It's a problem. I have no objection to AI use as a precursor and quick filter, but let's not rely on it.

        But I really don't like animal testing.

        1. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

          "Certainly cosmetic testing should be banned IMHO"

          In the UK it is, and has been since 1998 (with a small 'blip' which is what generated a story on the BBC):

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65623580

    4. IGotOut Silver badge

      @AC.

      I take it you know what a clinical trial is? Nah thought not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I'm not the AC you're targeting. As if "IGotOut" is not anonymous. But perhaps a little less snearing and a bit more explanation?

    5. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      From the article:

      "As well as organ-on-a-chip systems, the strategy also gives 3D bioprinted tissues as an example"

      These are definitely living systems. They will be more reproducible than animals and they may even be genetically human. Both of these things make them a better choice than aninal testing, quite apart from the ethics. These options weren't available in the past. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that, as and then they become technologically feasible, we should promote their adoption and make them a legal way to test stuff.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yes but ... a complete animal / human is complex. We cannot model it anywhere nearly accurately, although I suspect some will claim we can. Bit like the weather.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. Dwarf Silver badge

      Misplaced trust ?

      I don't trust AI to do basic jobs at the moment, so why should we trust it with something as critically important as this ?

      AI only learns from existing information and can't differentiate good information from bad information, it will have presumably ingested Agent Oranges views about injecting disinfectant as a COVID remedy for example. We also know it can't extrapolate accurately and is known for getting the basics wrong, with examples such as putting glue on pizzas to stick the toppings down, claiming some things are safe to eat when they are not, etc, then there is the risk of it misunderstanding the nuances of the prompt it was given, particularly for more complex challenges.

      The risk can only be huge and we can only be deeply concerned that it will generate similar hallucinations on the things its being asked to solve. I for one, don't fancy being at the front of the queue (*) when someone wants to test something that only works in theory, since we know that everything in theory, works in practice.

      (*) or worse, my kids, etc.

      But, once again, the hype is that AI fixes everything.

      Presumably, they will still need to do animal testing on any animal medications, and don't forget that we are animals too :-)

      So, the claim of "replacing" animal testing is somewhat misleading.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You assume they will inform you properly?

    8. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Coat

    You wouldn't download a car

    You wouldn't 3D print an animal.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: You wouldn't download a car

      Just out of interest, how much filament would I need for a T-Rex, and where can I buy it ?

  4. Dr. G. Freeman

    Does that mean I have to stop bringing the new Kereberos with me to work ?

    I talk to the wee fuzzball, to test my thinking, in a sort of rubber duck debugging, but with puppy treats.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They will be replaced by pixie dust. Also magic pixie dust. Followed by super pixie dust.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bizarre

    Of all the things allowed that harm natural habitats, BS about even what is natural, crap that cattle are fed, food additives, lies about nutrition, not to mention damage from unecessary wars and political interventions, the government wants to crow about testing. I guess they are happy for final testing on the whole population. But I know that, it was done with mRNA. The state is desperate to remove long term testing no doubt driven by Pharma to whom it will massively increase profit.

    No, I don't like animal testing, just that there are bigger fish to fry ... sorry vegans.

    Sounds like a; get the population onboard to taking drugs developed by AI and certified safe by AI ... what could possibly go wrong?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Bizarre

      It's just the current government finding excuses to sticking whatever nonsense is currently being peddled as AI in everything:

      All schools in England to be given AI-generated pupil attendance targets

      It would make more sense for government to put its faith in a bingo machine as it would be less biased:

      Revealed: bias found in AI system used to detect UK benefits fraud

  7. Boolian

    Philthy Animals Tailored

    'Energy bills keeping you awake at night? Can't afford the rent? The cost of living spiralling out of control?

    Earn ££££'s while you sleep!

    Enquire about our Paid Medical Trials and enrol today - want to know more?

    You could hold the key to unlocking the future of medicine, and a healthy additional income.

    Act now, don't delay, think of the children.

    *Other peoples children, you may become sterile, terms and conditions apply.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon