George Whitesides presentation is focused on how, in a world dominated by money, you can mass produce some type of way to test for diseases in poor areas of the world without sending in a doctor or having a lab. Well his solution was a small urine test, about the size of a postage stamp. These tests are small, lightweight, made of paper and carpet tape and cost close to nothing to produce. The paper wicks bodily fluids, urine for example, and the paper changes color to provide diagnostic information, such as showing how much glucose or protein is present. His goal is to distribute these simple paper diagnostic systems to developing countries, where people with basic training can administer tests and send results to distant doctors with a cellphone. (http://www.ted.com/speakers/george_whitesides.html)
This is just one of his life's works on a long line of successful projects. Harvard chemistry professor George Whitesides has coauthored over 950 scientific articles, he's also co-founded about a dozen companies and the 50-plus patents on which he's named. He works in four main areas: biochemistry, materials science, catalysis and physical organic chemistry. In the meantime, he's trying to invent a future where medical diagnosis can be done by anyone for virtually no cost. He's co-founded a nonprofit organization called Diagnostics for All, that aims to provide dirt-cheap diagnostic devices, to provide healthcare in a world where cost is everything. (http://www.ted.com/speakers/george_whitesides.html) From experience, in his long career in chemistry, George Whitesides has been a pioneer in microfabrication and nanoscale self-assembly. Now, he's trying to create and mass produce a diagnostic lab on a chip.
While other people in...
... middle of paper ...
...ause it is more costly or goes through more steps. Often this is true but when it comes to the consumer they often want just what they pay for and not what they don't need. These new tests don't have any electronic parts, screens, or even words on them. All they have are the bare minimum of parts and materials being used to do exactly what its meant to, save lives. Simplicity also doesn't pay the people who help it along. With production costs so low and then giving them away for free to people who have no money makes it a non-profit organization which does get funding, but no one gets paid a salary. Unfortunately many people would never devote their job to something they wouldn’t get paid for but most people can’t give up their old jobs to work somewhere new. So, this boils down to being a volunteer organization which I hope grows into a world changing organization.
who administers a series of test that must be passed, which points out normal or abnormal
of medical devices are used by millions of health care providers around the world.” (Powell-
Alternative testing can be done on things such as cells or plants. “In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” (Animal-Testing). Testing on animals is also very expensive so why not take advantage of the cheaper and less harmful option. Millions of animals are harmed or killed each day from a non-accurate test, is it really worth
In the future, computing power will become greater and greater allowing for faster calculations and analysis of sequencing data. Also, there will be new robotics, micro-fabrication technologies and laboratory information management systems that will have to be applied to the challenges of the Human Genome Project (Bishop, 137). Furthermore, cutting edge researchers believe the really important discoveries won't come from looking at linear strands of genes but from examining the interaction between dozens of genes at once. Scientists could in theory use "biochips," arrays of hundreds of bits of your DNA placed in a silicon wafer, to examine how how a drug would interact with your particular biochemistry (Moore, 56).
This may be true but research has shown that using these new ways of testing is just as effective as using tests on animals like stated in the previous sentences. In conclusion, alternative methods are new and better than testing on animals and by doing these other tests people can save animals from pain and save animals lives.
Alternatives to animal testing are known it be cheaper while holding the same, if not better, results. Animal research costs about $32,000 per test, while In Vitro costs around 11,000. An animal toxicity test on an animal can cost around $11,500, while the non-animal alternative will cost around only $1,300. Cancer research costs around 2 to 4 million dollars per year. Funds, both public and private, are unnecessarily dissipated on animal tests while the money could be better spent on alternatives that provide real
Over the past decade, scientists have made significant advancements in the treatment of certain diseases. Unfortunately, just like any new product, the cost of developing these new technologies and treatments is extremely high. Plus, unlike other technology, heath technolo...
On the other hand, what if you were being tested on to see if a new kind of medicine could treat some kind of virus. Then you could help hundreds and hundreds of people. In the case, testing could be good. You never know the outcome. Scientists are currently doing research on this too. It would be great if you didn’t have to test on anything, but then you never know if a theory’s are accurate.
Not only do we have other options for these tests, but animals testing has actually been proven to be ineffective. Companies claim that this sort of cruelty will benefit the human population by testing the “safety” of the products, as they have been for hundreds of years and although this may have been helpful in the past, scientists have discovered otherwise. “While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals tested on continues to increase, the United States still ranks 49th in the world in life expectancy and second worst in infant mortality in the developed world” (“Animal Testing Is”). This evidence shows that while we still continue to support and spend money on animal testing, it is not working as well as we thought.Essentially we are torturing the animals for a negative outcome, both for the human and the animal. The Food and Drug Administration reports that “92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans” (“Top Five Reasons”). If the products and drugs that we are testing on the animals are not working then there is no use in harming a harmless animal for them. Some may disagree and say that animal testing has enabled us to develop many life saving treatments for both humans and animals. But in reality there has been more cons then pros in animal testing. For example, “Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market” (Should Animals Be). While animal testing has enabled us to create great products it is usually ineffective on humans and leads to animals being harmed for no
Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. The government can be using money in different places, but choose to use it on killing innocent animals. The Humane Society International compared a collection of different animal tests, and the cost difference of the alternative. Some examples are, an “unscheduled DNA synthesis” animal test cost $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A “rat photo toxicity test” costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. As said before, animal testing is only for the interest of humans, and we are spending unnecessary amounts of money when there are alternatives
Recent progress in medical research has shown several other methods that are not only cost effective, but save the lives of countless animals. On average the United States spends around sixteen billion dollars annually out of our pockets, the taxpayers, to fund animal testing. The National Institute of Health sets aside 40% of its budget for animal testing. From their budget in 2010, 40% was over sixteen billion dollars. Several universities also fund animal testing to “benefit student research”. The University of Wisconsin - Madison put in a total of 3 million dollars for fighting experiments on mice. Harvard University used a total of sixteen million dollars for drug addiction experiments on monkeys that were inconclusive. These tests have all been done countless times. Why are the government and universities pouring more and more money into something that will not give us any answers? When you combine the cost of the facility, the cost to buy all the primates, and the cost for the drugs to test, it adds up to far too much. Putting taxpayers dollars into something that will eventually benefit the medical field, like more effective ways to test new drugs and cosmetics, will get us farther than killing innocent
Around 1975, more animal welfare groups appeared around the world and these programs challenge even using animals for horseback, testing, etc. Some other programs challenge the morality of animal use. (John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health). Animal testing should be last resort if the product can be tested on using alternative testing (Collins). There are around 50 different alternative methods for testing products. When it comes to testing alternatives, there is a system called the 3 R’s. The first is replacing a testing that uses animals, the second is reducing the uses of animals, and the third is refining a procedure to minimize animal pain when testing. Using blood donations, scientists can be used to replace the traditional “pyrogen” tests, testing that involves potentially toxic drugs. Episkin is basically artificial human skin to save rabbits from skin corrosion and irritation tests. The fish threshold method reduces the use of fish when testing chemicals. Reduced local lymph node assay, a type of sensitization test or stimulation test, for skin allergy testing that reduces 75% mice testing. 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test reduces the uses for rats when testing sunlight sensitivity (Humane Society Of The United States). Another alternative is using computer models and virtual drug trials. Microdosing is when people are given little amounts of the drug
Animal testing has a positive past, but is extremely controversial. Many people agree and disagree with it. Modern society would be suffering from rare diseases without it, including tuberculosis and polio. Many companies, from cosmetic companies to home improvement companies test their products on animals. Many animal tests often require animals to be killed, and/or experience pain, discomfort, and isolation. Many countries around the world are looking to stop animal testing, and many alternatives that are cheaper, more accurate, and humane exist and are being improved. Animal testing is no longer needed in our world, as many cheaper, humane, faster, and more reliable alternatives have been discovered and may even improve, which can eliminate animal testing once and for all.
Its history is long and successful. Additionally, its sensitivity and simplicity, spatial and temporal resolution have all played a part in its importance that has led to its persistence as the gold standard in disease detection (Kiernan, 1999; Boekelheide, K. & Schuppe-Koistinen, I. 2012)
...nuing to profit from the substaining usage of animals in scientific laboratories, the tradtional method is difficult to dispose of. The method is kept for the currency but fails to produce major reliable success as those of the alternative methods. A statisict shown in Safer Medicines Trust states, "that nindy-two percent of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies." These corportaions care more about the amount of money profited than the reliablitily of the results from animal testing.