When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Rats! Is Animal Testing On The Way Out?

Lab rats are not always this cute
Lab rats are not always this cute
Stéphane Foucart

Were they the "right rats?" The controversial study by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, on the toxicity of genetically modified NK603 corn and the weed killer Roundup, has raised a host of questions concerning the type of rodent used in the experiment.

Is the Sprague-Dawley rat appropriate for two-year feeding experiments, when this kind of rat already tends to develop breast cancers past a certain age? The GMO (genetically-modified organism) companies used the same rats for their own tests, but only fed them for 90 days.

But the Seralini controversy has also highlighted what many see as the limits of current methods of using lab animals to evaluate toxic risks. Indeed, a growing number of researchers are advocating toxicogenomics instead. This new science has emerged from recent progress in genetics and biotechnology, and allows scientists to evaluate the effects caused by a particular substance on human cells in vitro.

One major advantage is that lab animals are not needed, but even more importantly, it ensures that results are valid when dealing with humans. "No animal model is valid for another species," says biochemist Claude Reiss, president of Antidote-Europe, an organization that promotes "efficient and safe biomedical research" and former research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). "We are not 70-kilo (150-pound) rats!"

Toxicologist Thomas Hartung is a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where he leads the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT). As an illustration of the problem, he cites the example of aspirin: "With the current protocols, which were developed between the 1920s and the 1960s and have scarcely changed since, aspirin would never have been approved for use," he explains. "The molecule produces malformations in the embryos of rats, mice, rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs... and if you expose a rat to the doses of aspirin used in human patients, you have a 50% chance of killing it."

On the other hand, thalidomide, which was prescribed to pregnant women with morning sickness during the 1950s, was tested on rats and no teratogenicity was found (those which cause malformations of the embryo or fetus). Thalidomide use in humans ended after a widespread scandal: about 15,000 babies were born with severe malformations.

"There are well-known techniques to influence the currently required tests," says Reiss, one of the first Europeans to advocate toxicogenomics. "For example, to artificially minimize the risk of cancer, you can test a product using C57BL mice, which are known to be up to 100 times less sensitive to carcinogens than the C3H mice."

In theory, the experts from the health authorities, who evaluate industrial studies, are on the lookout for this kind of thing. But in real life, they do not always notice. In 2005, in a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, University of Missouri biologist Frederick vom Saal showed that companies had evaluated the toxicity of bisphenol A (BPA) using Sprague-Dawley rats, which are known to be 25,000 to 100,000 times less sensitive to hormonal disturbance due to BPA than CF-1 mice, which are often used in university labs. As a consequence, some health authorities are still convinced that BPA is harmless.

In vivo vs in vitro

Would toxicogenomics do better? "You take human cells-- neurons, liver cells, or cells from other tissues-- and put them into contact in vitro with different concentrations of the substance you are studying," Reiss explains. "The cells will react against any damage by activating certain genes." Each type of aggression has its own identifiable genetic signature.

However, the science of toxicogenomics is not yet a stable one, and can produce results that have diverse interpretations. Some even doubt that it can ever completely replace in vivo (live or animal) testing. Moreover, signatures of the various kinds of attacks that cells can endure are not at all well documented yet.

In a 2007 report, the American Academy of Sciences called for research to be done rapidly to map the entire human "toxome" -- that is, all the possible biochemical ways by which substances can be toxic to humans. Several projects are working toward this ambitious goal. Tox21, developed by the American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), is already partly operational. In particular, it has been used since 2010 for rapid evaluation of the toxicity of dispersants used after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

At Johns Hopkins, Hartung has also begun a Human Toxome Project at the CAAT. It obtained funding in 2011 and now aims to coordinate research on the subject on the international level. "The project is as ambitious as the Human Genome Project, and will not be finished for 10 to 15 years," says Hartung. "But we must not wait till it is finished to begin to take advantage of toxicogenomics."

To explain the gap between scientific promises and regulatory practice, François Busquet, European coordinator for the CAAT, suggests that regulatory agencies are naturally conservative. "Those who evaluate risks are used to working with the classic tests, and are often uneasy faced with this new science," he says.

But the value of toxicogenomics is being noticed. The Human Toxicology Project Consortium has just been created. It brings together giant industrial companies like Dupont, Dow, L'Oréal, ExxonMobil, and Johnson & Johnson. The reason is that the cost of toxicology testing, in both time and money, is high. "Testing costs about $3 billion a year worldwide," says Hartung. Toxicogenomics would allow better results, “100 times faster and 100 times less expensive," says Reiss.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

What Are Iran's Real Intentions? Watch What The Houthis Do Next

Three commercial ships traveling through the Red Sea were attacked by missiles launched by Iran-backed Yemeni Houthi rebels, while the U.S. Navy shot down three drones. Tensions that are linked to the ongoing war in Gaza conflict and that may serve as an indication as to Iran's wider intentions.

photo of Raisi of iran speaking in parliament

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi at the Iranian parliament in Tehran.

Icana News Agency via ZUMA
Pierre Haski


PARIS — It’s a parallel war that has so far claimed fewer victims and attracted less public attention than the one in Gaza. Yet it increasingly poses a serious threat of escalating at any time.

This conflict playing out in the international waters of the Red Sea, a strategic maritime route, features the U.S. Navy pitted against Yemen's Houthi rebels. But the stakes go beyond the Yemeni militants — with the latter being supported by Iran, which has a hand in virtually every hotspot in the region.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, the Houthis have been making headlines, despite Yemen’s distance from the Gaza front. Starting with missiles launched directed toward southern Israel, which were intercepted by U.S. forces. Then came attacks on ships belonging, or suspected of belonging, to Israeli interests.

On Sunday, no fewer than three commercial ships were targeted by ballistic missiles in the Red Sea. The missiles caused minor damage and no casualties. Meanwhile, three drones were intercepted and destroyed by the U.S. Navy, currently deployed in full force in the region.

The Houthis claimed responsibility for these attacks, stating their intention to block Israeli ships' passage for as long as there was war in Gaza. The ships targeted on Sunday were registered in Panama, but at least one of them was Israeli. In the days before, several other ships were attacked and an Israeli cargo ship carrying cars was seized, and is still being held in the Yemeni port of Hodeida.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest