Hacker News Reader

Many are using these alternatives. For example, a computer model for cardiotoxicity has higher accuracy than animal models.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28955244/

It's an educational process. A lot of folk just go along with the status quo and feel there's no alternative to animal research.

View on HN

I briefly scanned the paper. This is not a computer model for cardiotoxicity as a whole, it's a model for one very specific type of cardiotoxicity. These things may have their uses, bit they are a long way from replacing animal testing.

This model checks for one side effect in one organ system. Animal testing can check all organ systems for thousands of side effects.

People don’t test on animals because it’s the status quo. They do so because computer models comprehensive and good enough don’t exist. Even from a purely cynical point of view, animal testing is bloody expensive. As soon as pharma companies will be able to get ride of them they will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com